The Politics Thread 2016
Moderator: GH Moderators
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Frigging common man, screw him.
I'm going for a swim.
I'm going for a swim.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
A modern day Robin Hood or Kevin Costner if you will.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
It will make a nice change of wallowing around in your own bile.Shadow Boxer wrote:Frigging common man, screw him.
I'm going for a swim.
Enjoy your time in the government funded sports facility that you contributed almost nothing to.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I am aware that my views have no place in the modern world.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
It certainly doesn't stop you banging on about them.
Though it seems to me that "Everyone but me should pay more" is a fairly consistent theme from the shiftless and the rent-seekers throughout modern history.
Though it seems to me that "Everyone but me should pay more" is a fairly consistent theme from the shiftless and the rent-seekers throughout modern history.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Mate i cant keep up if you are just going to hysterically throw toys all over the place and edit on the fly.
I am not even sure what point you are making any more.
You pay too much tax, the dirt shifters are b#stards, salary earners are bludgers, the menzies foundation is a source of all unbiased journalism, pool boys should be government funded ?
Whatever it is I agree with it, you win, please stop.
I am not even sure what point you are making any more.
You pay too much tax, the dirt shifters are b#stards, salary earners are bludgers, the menzies foundation is a source of all unbiased journalism, pool boys should be government funded ?
Whatever it is I agree with it, you win, please stop.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Yay! I win!
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
and... you're .... out?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
And SB goes another day of throwing around accusations without ever actually answering a question.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Haha, my head hurts
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
BOOM!! ATAOASBH!!Pigman wrote:and... you're .... out?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I explained that you appeared to be having a stroke, but you just got snooty.Shadow Boxer wrote:Haha, my head hurts
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Or not, I guess
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
So....now I'M confused. Have you stormed off in your usual huff or not?Shadow Boxer wrote:Or not, I guess
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
No, as I said you win.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
So it was more of a passive-aggressive pout than a full stomping-off?
I appreciate the clarification, thanks.
I appreciate the clarification, thanks.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
No worries, enjoy the victory
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I'd like to dedicate my win to the Little People who made it all possible.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
hahaha, i'm sure they did my friend, i'm sure they did...
Where to now ?
Do I need to sign anything, is there a popular upswell of some kind ? can I join the clique ?
Where to now ?
Do I need to sign anything, is there a popular upswell of some kind ? can I join the clique ?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
My wife pays enough tax to cover my non contribution. And they just ripped away one her few benefits
*****
*****
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
i thought you were out.Shadow Boxer wrote:hahaha, i'm sure they did my friend, i'm sure they did...
Where to now ?
Do I need to sign anything, is there a popular upswell of some kind ? can I join the clique ?
You really, really need someone to talk to, don't you
Has this whole hissy fit just been an elaborate cry for help, SB? It would certainly go some way to explaining your complete inability to construct a coherent argument.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 14381
- Joined: February 25, 2008, 3:02 pm
- Favourite Player: Smash Williams
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
What about you, pig? How much tax do you pay?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
In SB's world, that makes you a class hero.Pigman wrote:My wife pays enough tax to cover my non contribution. And they just ripped away one her few benefits
****
Your wife, on the other hand, is a freeloader.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I'm still trying to figure out who exactly is in the clique...Shadow Boxer wrote:hahaha, i'm sure they did my friend, i'm sure they did...
Where to now ?
Do I need to sign anything, is there a popular upswell of some kind ? can I join the clique ?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Me too. If you work out what's the go with the clique, please share.The Nickman wrote:I'm still trying to figure out who exactly is in the clique...Shadow Boxer wrote:hahaha, i'm sure they did my friend, i'm sure they did...
Where to now ?
Do I need to sign anything, is there a popular upswell of some kind ? can I join the clique ?
Clique go the shares, so to speak.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Well it seems in this thread, YOU'RE part of the clique, TR, by the very definition of the Greenhouse clique.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
BahahahahahahahahaT_R wrote:In SB's world, that makes you a class hero.Pigman wrote:My wife pays enough tax to cover my non contribution. And they just ripped away one her few benefits
****
Your wife, on the other hand, is a freeloader.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
**** all, but because my wife is a big earner we generally get means tested out of any meaningful government help (and in fairness, we dont need any help either), so it seems like we get banged a lot.Begbie wrote:What about you, pig? How much tax do you pay?
It makes me angry when the government does things capping the FBT benefits my wife gets via meal, entertainment and venue hire. She gets absolutely **** smashed on tax, and then double down by taking this away?
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/New-legi ... -expenses/
Aside from the obvious that it hurts our hip pocket. I just dont think that's a good policy. It's only available to people who work for public benevolent institutions and i dont think there is enough rorting that it outweighs the benefits that keep people like my wife in the public health system where they are needed.
I mean i fully support tightening up of some of the FBT things around this, and certainly some people were taking liberties with it, but you could easily tighten it up, or cap it at a level that is still an incentive, without cutting the thing off at it's knees. I think capping it the way they have is a massive over reaction and they could have refined how and when people could use this for would be a far better way to have gone about it.
As it stands, my wife is considering going private and making a ton more money instead of sticking with the public where she is needed. Two of her close friends have already resigned from their part time positions in public health in part because they have lost a major incentive to stay in the public system
- Raider Bell
- Gary Belcher
- Posts: 6208
- Joined: May 6, 2012, 4:11 pm
- Favourite Player: Billyt
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
The Nickman wrote:Not so true about my health, old mate. I meditate five days a week for up to half an hour a session, according to Manbush that could have detrimental effects and I should be pounding cones instead.T_R wrote:Oh, you're completely ****, Nickman...a single, high earner in good health and with no children. You're like an ATM to the government.
By the grace of god I just got finished catching up on the mental health thread and then came in here to read this. If I'd had a drink it would have been spat out.
"A hex on your house, and more importantly your health"
"I truly hope the spirit of my mate gives you hell, you deserve it"
"I truly hope the spirit of my mate gives you hell, you deserve it"
- Raider Bell
- Gary Belcher
- Posts: 6208
- Joined: May 6, 2012, 4:11 pm
- Favourite Player: Billyt
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Poor bushy, pushes the "meditation may be detrimental to your mind" wheelbarrow, but thinks people should be able to suck anything they want up their noses. The mind boggles.
"A hex on your house, and more importantly your health"
"I truly hope the spirit of my mate gives you hell, you deserve it"
"I truly hope the spirit of my mate gives you hell, you deserve it"
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I really can't stand his whole "look at me, I'm such a free thinker" attitude when he's one of the most narrow-minded people I've ever come across.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Well, now you've done it. SB, who believes that everyone should contribute more to the public good except for him, will now declare her a class enemy.Pigman wrote: As it stands, my wife is considering going private and making a ton more money instead of sticking with the public where she is needed. Two of her close friends have already resigned from their part time positions in public health in part because they have lost a major incentive to stay in the public system
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
This place needs a nice, fresh Sarah Palin video
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/v ... 4d1kw.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/v ... 4d1kw.html
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
And for SB's reading pleasure, an article from that hideous journal of right wing ultra-extremism, The Canberra Times. I apologise if it is incorrect in truth, fact or tone.
We'll all pay dearly if we fail to stop construction union coercion
Our third-largest industry is in urgent need of free competition.
John Nikolic
If you don't work in the construction industry, you might wonder why so much noise is being made about the Australian Building and Construction Commission – the Coalition's proposed industrial regulator for that industry. With the ABCC now a likely trigger for an early election, it's never been truer to say that what affects the construction industry affects us all.
The construction industry is unique. It's our third-largest industry, employs more than one million people and houses the nation. In the "commercial" building industry (i.e. the construction of large-scale residential, retail and office space), most physical construction work is undertaken by specialist contractors, with builders acting mainly as project-management teams.
The fragmented yet highly synchronised nature of modern construction means it's extremely prone to "disruption" – but not in the positive sense that Malcolm Turnbull uses the word. Because builders are liable to clients for liquidated damages for even minor delays, the cost of disruption is potentially constraining to the point of negating free will. Construction unions, like the CFMEU, know this. They use it very effectively to leverage a range of demands, the most important being that builders engage CFMEU-nominated contractors.
For builders, the promise of disruption-free construction, plus the potential prospect of higher profit margins (based on total costs) where more expensive contractors are used, makes it a simple "commercial" decision to use union-nominated contractors, even though tender discrimination is banned under existing industrial and procurement laws. The CFMEU's ability to credibly influence builders' tendering allows it to threaten to exclude or "black ban" contractors from the commercial market, unless they meet union demands.
This system institutionalises market advantages for the larger contractors that can afford CFMEU demands. Emerging small-to-medium-sized (and often more innovative) businesses, which usually can't afford the union's demands at their economy of scale, can find themselves threatened with exclusion from the market.
Consider the testimony of a formwork contractor, accepted by the recent trade union royal commission. A CFMEU official asked him to sign the union's pattern enterprise agreement, saying: "We will take control of the jobs. We will ... tell you which ones you can and can't go on." He also offered "other ways" to come to an "arrangement", including "donations" or payment for union memberships. When the employer said he couldn't afford these demands, the union official said he "didn't give a f--- about small businesses" and ordered a builder to terminate the contract and engage a union-endorsed rival.
Under the Fair Work Act, such conduct is known as "industrial coercion" – i.e. the use of illegitimate force to deny employers' rights to refuse union demands, which (for the CFMEU) range from pattern enterprise agreements, payment for union memberships, donations and even engagement of union-nominated personnel. The trouble is that existing laws impose penalties that are often paid for by the coercive act itself. For example, pattern CFMEU enterprise agreements divert substantial monies to union-affiliated insurance products, training funds and charities, which in turn pay dividends to the CFMEU, which can be used to service any fines for coercing employers to enter into agreements in the first place.
Such conduct is surprisingly widespread. Senior CFMEU officials in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have all allegedly made or endorsed coercive tactics, which at times referred explicitly to market-sharing arrangements. For example, the royal commission favoured evidence that the CFMEU's Victorian secretary, John Setka, told Boral executives: "All wars end and when this one does we'll be at the table to divide up the spoils. We'll decide what market share Boral gets."
The ABCC would disrupt anti-competitive patterns in the commercial construction industry by imposing greater penalties for coercion and allowing swifter access to existing compulsory interrogation powers. Those powers were retained by Labor under its replacement regulator, Fair Work Building and Construction, and are held by other regulators, such as the ACCC, ASIC and the ATO. Such laws are designed to break cultures of silence where witnesses fear culpability or reprisal.
It's a significant step to compel evidence in any democratic society. But what's worse: coercive threats to livelihoods by those who routinely flout the law, or collectively sanctioned compulsory powers requiring people to speak about it?
However, probably the most important reform would be a new procurement code, which the ABCC would enforce on Commonwealth-funded projects. The new code would make it easier to regulate builders that share tenders among union-nominated contractors, on pain of exclusion from Commonwealth-funded work.
The ABCC's ability to disrupt anti-competitive conduct is where the real economic gains would come from. Restricted competition in the sector is like a hand around its throat – slowly pushing up costs and restricting growth. You don't need to be an economist to realise that suppressed competition equals inflated costs. Innovation, and the efficiency and productivity it engenders, are all nipped in the bud as emergent small businesses are denied access to the industry. Of course, demand for construction services is fairly price-insensitive, because we all need apartments to live in and commercial spaces to trade in, and will generally pay for it regardless of the price. That's the thing about reforming the construction industry: if we don't try to, we all pay.
We'll all pay dearly if we fail to stop construction union coercion
Our third-largest industry is in urgent need of free competition.
John Nikolic
If you don't work in the construction industry, you might wonder why so much noise is being made about the Australian Building and Construction Commission – the Coalition's proposed industrial regulator for that industry. With the ABCC now a likely trigger for an early election, it's never been truer to say that what affects the construction industry affects us all.
The construction industry is unique. It's our third-largest industry, employs more than one million people and houses the nation. In the "commercial" building industry (i.e. the construction of large-scale residential, retail and office space), most physical construction work is undertaken by specialist contractors, with builders acting mainly as project-management teams.
The fragmented yet highly synchronised nature of modern construction means it's extremely prone to "disruption" – but not in the positive sense that Malcolm Turnbull uses the word. Because builders are liable to clients for liquidated damages for even minor delays, the cost of disruption is potentially constraining to the point of negating free will. Construction unions, like the CFMEU, know this. They use it very effectively to leverage a range of demands, the most important being that builders engage CFMEU-nominated contractors.
For builders, the promise of disruption-free construction, plus the potential prospect of higher profit margins (based on total costs) where more expensive contractors are used, makes it a simple "commercial" decision to use union-nominated contractors, even though tender discrimination is banned under existing industrial and procurement laws. The CFMEU's ability to credibly influence builders' tendering allows it to threaten to exclude or "black ban" contractors from the commercial market, unless they meet union demands.
This system institutionalises market advantages for the larger contractors that can afford CFMEU demands. Emerging small-to-medium-sized (and often more innovative) businesses, which usually can't afford the union's demands at their economy of scale, can find themselves threatened with exclusion from the market.
Consider the testimony of a formwork contractor, accepted by the recent trade union royal commission. A CFMEU official asked him to sign the union's pattern enterprise agreement, saying: "We will take control of the jobs. We will ... tell you which ones you can and can't go on." He also offered "other ways" to come to an "arrangement", including "donations" or payment for union memberships. When the employer said he couldn't afford these demands, the union official said he "didn't give a f--- about small businesses" and ordered a builder to terminate the contract and engage a union-endorsed rival.
Under the Fair Work Act, such conduct is known as "industrial coercion" – i.e. the use of illegitimate force to deny employers' rights to refuse union demands, which (for the CFMEU) range from pattern enterprise agreements, payment for union memberships, donations and even engagement of union-nominated personnel. The trouble is that existing laws impose penalties that are often paid for by the coercive act itself. For example, pattern CFMEU enterprise agreements divert substantial monies to union-affiliated insurance products, training funds and charities, which in turn pay dividends to the CFMEU, which can be used to service any fines for coercing employers to enter into agreements in the first place.
Such conduct is surprisingly widespread. Senior CFMEU officials in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have all allegedly made or endorsed coercive tactics, which at times referred explicitly to market-sharing arrangements. For example, the royal commission favoured evidence that the CFMEU's Victorian secretary, John Setka, told Boral executives: "All wars end and when this one does we'll be at the table to divide up the spoils. We'll decide what market share Boral gets."
The ABCC would disrupt anti-competitive patterns in the commercial construction industry by imposing greater penalties for coercion and allowing swifter access to existing compulsory interrogation powers. Those powers were retained by Labor under its replacement regulator, Fair Work Building and Construction, and are held by other regulators, such as the ACCC, ASIC and the ATO. Such laws are designed to break cultures of silence where witnesses fear culpability or reprisal.
It's a significant step to compel evidence in any democratic society. But what's worse: coercive threats to livelihoods by those who routinely flout the law, or collectively sanctioned compulsory powers requiring people to speak about it?
However, probably the most important reform would be a new procurement code, which the ABCC would enforce on Commonwealth-funded projects. The new code would make it easier to regulate builders that share tenders among union-nominated contractors, on pain of exclusion from Commonwealth-funded work.
The ABCC's ability to disrupt anti-competitive conduct is where the real economic gains would come from. Restricted competition in the sector is like a hand around its throat – slowly pushing up costs and restricting growth. You don't need to be an economist to realise that suppressed competition equals inflated costs. Innovation, and the efficiency and productivity it engenders, are all nipped in the bud as emergent small businesses are denied access to the industry. Of course, demand for construction services is fairly price-insensitive, because we all need apartments to live in and commercial spaces to trade in, and will generally pay for it regardless of the price. That's the thing about reforming the construction industry: if we don't try to, we all pay.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51011
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Like I said earlier, it's almost mafia like