# Union Corruption



## dutchie (17 October 2012)

Read this pdf file for a financial synopsis of the AWU scandal.

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/anatomy-of-a-financial-swindle.pdf


----------



## dutchie (17 October 2012)

Also a post from hillbilly33 on the Michael Smith site.



http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...election-fund-commenced-in-december-1994.html
I make no apologies for continually stressing this pivotal point.
Julia Gillard chose to enter an intimate and ongoing relationship with Bruce Wilson, a married man with two young sons, reprehensible enough on a moral basis and hardly a good reflection on her employers, the equity partners of Slater & Gordon. 
But in the context of this whole fraud matter, her breaches of ethics and duty of care to her client, her employers and the wilful contravening of the Rules of Practice and her obligations under which she was granted her Practising Certificate, shows a person with serious character and/or psychological 
flaws.
These actions show she had no respect for either her profession, her fellow practitioners, her clients, her employers or the general public in regard to their expectations of the behaviour of someone in a supposedly honourable calling!
That she deliberately kept those matters secret from all those people for so many years show she had no scruples at all, either morally or professionally.
That in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and not a shred of evidence she can put forward in her defence, to still maintain she acted ethically and did nothing wrong, suggests she is either completely delusional with severe psychological problems or just a born liar who has never known the meaning of truth.
The real tragedy for her and Australia is that so many people who should have known better, have not only encouraged her delusions but actually praised her for continuing to expound them, and the bullying, remorseless manner she uses to do so.
This site shows that many have not assisted in this and are appalled at the fall in standards in so many areas. 
Are those in the truly pathetic largely sycophantic Canberra Press Gallery, ABC, Mainstream Media, all journalistic pursuits, Academia, Legal endeavours, Unions, Law Schools, Universities, Professional Associations etc., etc. so ideologically bound that they have become deliberately blind to the endemic and obvious corruption rife within Australia today?
This is far beyond politics, and we as a people face one of the most critical decisions this nation has ever faced as to the kind of future we want our children and grandchildren to inherit.
Do we, like Julia Gillard did, choose the dark side which made subsequent breaches easy for her, or do we say enough is enough. It stops here and now and we start the long road back to truth and integrity!

Posted by: hillbilly33 | Tuesday, 16 October 2012 at 01:26 PM


----------



## CanOz (27 July 2016)

Nice boyz

Gorgon project abuse: CFMEU official threatens workers


----------



## pixel (27 July 2016)

CanOz said:


> Nice boyz
> 
> Gorgon project abuse: CFMEU official threatens workers




LOL - what do you expect?
CMFEU workers rarely take elocution lessons at Mrs Grundy's Finishing School for Catholic Girls. :


----------



## qldfrog (27 July 2016)

sure, but I understand it is one thing to be bullied on the workplace, but in that case, I assume these guys are on camp so 24/7 pressure until your plane land back in Perth..
There is a role for unions, why are unions the equivalent of bikie clubs here is Oz ; something i do not understand.
The convict psyche? SirRumpole, any idea?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> sure, but I understand it is one thing to be bullied on the workplace, but in that case, I assume these guys are on camp so 24/7 pressure until your plane land back in Perth..
> There is a role for unions, why are unions the equivalent of bikie clubs here is Oz ; something i do not understand.
> The convict psyche? SirRumpole, any idea?




I'm not a great union man, but there are  some unions that are militant and power hungry, others that are corrupt, and others that have a genuine interest in the welfare of their members, and you can't tar them all with the same brush.

I mean , we could call the NSW Bar Association and the A.M.A. unions. They may not like the word, but somehow they seem to get on better with Conservative governments that the Builder's Labourers or the CFMEU.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not a great union man, but there are  some unions that are militant and power hungry, others that are corrupt, and others that have a genuine interest in the welfare of their members, and you can't tar them all with the same brush.
> 
> I mean , we could call the NSW Bar Association and the A.M.A. unions. They may not like the word, but somehow they seem to get on better with Conservative governments that the Builder's Labourers or the CFMEU.




Whether a union is good or bad depends on whose interests it serves.

If it's Bankers Assc., or Business councils and the like... those are good unions getting together to advise gov't on how best to grow the economy and create jobs and growth and jobs and innovation.

If it's workers' unions... well we all know it's management that does the work and unions are just there to stop innovation and destroy jobs and slow growth.

Strange that when CEO or management screws up or just plain corrupt, it's just a bad CEO; When union reps. are corrupt or bad, all unions are bad and should be banned.


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> Whether a union is good or bad depends on whose interests it serves.
> 
> If it's Bankers Assc., or Business councils and the like... those are good unions getting together to advise gov't on how best to grow the economy and create jobs and growth and jobs and innovation.
> 
> ...




Churches and Boy Scouts are natural attractants to Pedophiles;
Theatre, Stage and TV are natural attractants to Homosexuals and Jews;
Public Service sends out pheromones to entice the less inventive and ordered amongst us;
Union leadership roles attract those with a score to settle with blood sucking leeches;
Party politicians are arrogant self serving 4rse7oles who join a political union that best makes a path to the gravy train.

All of them form a union of similar interests of some sort


----------



## pixel (27 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Churches and Boy Scouts are natural attractants to Pedophiles;
> Theatre, Stage and TV are natural attractants to Homosexuals and Jews;
> Public Service sends out pheromones to entice the less inventive and ordered amongst us;
> Union leadership roles attract those with a score to settle with blood sucking leeches;
> ...




"Bless you, Son, for you made me smile."
... and there is a lot of truth in what you wrote. 

And Rumpy is also correct:







> you can't tar them all with the same brush.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not a great union man, but there are  some unions that are militant and power hungry, others that are corrupt, and others that have a genuine interest in the welfare of their members, and you can't tar them all with the same brush.




Very true and it also varies within the same union depending on who is running it at the time.

Best = people who have actually done the jobs the union's members do and who have no political aspirations beyond running a union.

Worst = those who haven't a clue what the members actually do at work and are only in it to advance their own interests with politics the end goal.

I've seen both types running the same union within a few years. Made a massive difference to the effectiveness and reasonableness of it. The former just want an outcome whereas the latter want action that makes the news even if it's not in the best interests of the members.

Funniest union-related thing I've ever seen (not where I work now) was management realising how badly they'd messed up and then asking, of all people, a union if they had any solutions to the rather serious dilemma being faced. The union promptly contacted the members and a solution was put forward to management the same day. 

I think the management were more than a bit surprised that a workable solution was put forward that didn't even cost the business any significant money beyond covering the direct expenses of implementing it and even that was pretty trivial. No pay rises, no strikes, no nonsense, just a workable solution that could be (and was) immediately implemented.

There's good and bad with unions as with anything.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 July 2016)

> Funniest union-related thing I've ever seen (not where I work now) was management realising how badly they'd messed up and then asking, of all people, a union if they had any solutions to the rather serious dilemma being faced. The union promptly contacted the members and a solution was put forward to management the same day.




One day management and staff  will realise that they are all on the same side when it comes to the success of an organisation and they need to communicate more with each other and not just assume the traditional roles of master and slave.

A start would be to limit the discrepancy between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid paid executive, to say 10 times. If the execs want higher pay then they have to make sure that their employees can earn more, and that means increasing sales and reducing waste.

I remember the old class wars in the years up to the Hawke government. Hawke brought management and unions together and set the stage for a more inclusive economy. That seems to have slipped a bit. Greed on both sides has taken over.


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Very true and it also varies within the same union depending on who is running it at the time.
> 
> Best = people who have actually done the jobs the union's members do and who have no political aspirations beyond running a union.
> 
> Worst = those who haven't a clue what the members actually do at work and are only in it to advance their own interests with politics the end goal.




Sums it up perfectly.


----------



## CanOz (27 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> One day management and staff  will realise that they are all on the same side when it comes to the success of an organisation and they need to communicate more with each other and not just assume the traditional roles of master and Skave.




LOL......obviously a little out of touch with the rest of the world....


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Churches and Boy Scouts are natural attractants to Pedophiles;
> Theatre, Stage and TV are natural attractants to Homosexuals and Jews;
> Public Service sends out pheromones to entice the less inventive and ordered amongst us;
> Union leadership roles attract those with a score to settle with blood sucking leeches;
> ...




A couple of those unions managed to convinced the rest that whatever it is they do, they do it for the national interest; do it to serve the masses. And the masses said, dam straight.


----------



## Tisme (27 July 2016)

luutzu said:


> A couple of those unions managed to convinced the rest that whatever it is they do, they do it for the national interest; do it to serve the masses. And the masses said, dam straight.




Roosters doing what roosters do in the hen house....some just parade themselves as better because they have bigger tail feathers and redder combs. Now and again some hens think they are equal to the task of the naturally apoplectic  roosters ...FAIL


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Roosters doing what roosters do in the hen house....some just parade themselves as better because they have bigger tail feathers and redder combs. Now and again some hens think they are equal to the task of the naturally apoplectic  roosters ...FAIL




That just fly over me McGee. 

It's both my youth, inexperience, and English as a Second Language.


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Roosters doing what roosters do in the hen house....some just parade themselves as better because they have bigger tail feathers and redder combs. Now and again some hens think they are equal to the task of the naturally apoplectic  roosters ...FAIL




Ah, now I know what Julia Gillard was talking about, very misogynist.

Highlights it to a tee.


----------



## luutzu (27 July 2016)

sptrawler said:


> Ah, now I know what Julia Gillard was talking about, very misogynist.
> 
> Highlights it to a tee.




ah see... 

That was good insulting. Gotta give him that.


----------



## qldfrog (28 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's good and bad with unions as with anything.



I do not deny this you need counter power and I saw great cooperation for the better of both employees and company in Germany, but what i see here on TV, marches in Brisbane, etc is not that "intelligent" and is based on us vs them.
But absolutely right: you do not have TV headlines and new labour leaders born from cooperative discussions.Maybe time this labour/union link get severed for the better of all


----------



## CanOz (28 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> I do not deny this you need counter power and I saw great cooperation for the better of both employees and company in Germany, but what i see here on TV, marches in Brisbane, etc is not that "intelligent" and is based on us vs them.




That's astraya for ya! Honestly I've not seen a country with more us vs. them attitude than Australia. Must be the eureka rebellion in the blood


----------



## qldfrog (28 July 2016)

CanOz said:


> That's astraya for ya! Honestly I've not seen a country with more us vs. them attitude than Australia. Must be the eureka rebellion in the blood



Should have seen France in the 1980....But now both companies and employees are screwed so equal at last!!!
Socialism achieved: checked!


----------



## Tink (28 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Churches and Boy Scouts are natural attractants to Pedophiles;
> Theatre, Stage and TV are natural attractants to Homosexuals and Jews;
> Public Service sends out pheromones to entice the less inventive and ordered amongst us;
> Union leadership roles attract those with a score to settle with blood sucking leeches;
> ...




Tisme, always good to hear your opinion, but I would say pedophiles are where the children are.

I am still waiting for someone to do an investigation into this safe school propaganda, that supposedly has pedophiles in the ranks.
La Trobe University.

How about Monash University where one was picked up last week.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=25851&page=6&p=903407&viewfull=1#post903407


----------



## Bill M (28 July 2016)

CanOz said:


> That's astraya for ya! Honestly I've not seen a country with more us vs. them attitude than Australia. Must be the eureka rebellion in the blood




You know why this happens? It's because people get sick and tired of being screwed over. They get to a point where they believe  the company or boss wants to rip them off all the time and they can't do anything about it. I give a working example of what happened to me.

One Easter Saturday the boss couldn't get anyone to work, the other staff were all away on holidays with their family. So me being single and available thought no worries, I'll go in and pick up the double time and a half. When the pay day came I got paid single rates. I asked why I didn't get my correct rates, the boss said all Saturdays were at normal rates, I knew this was wrong. Then I went into the Department of Industrial relations in Oxford street Sydney and asked for a copy of the relevant award. It clearly stated that Easter Saturday was a public holiday and it should have been paid at double time and half rates. 

I confronted the boss with the relevant information. I told him I would take it as far as I could to claim this money owed to me, I said to him I will go to DIR and lodge a claim. He ended up paying but I had to be a bully about it.

The thing is, there are laws, awards and enterprise agreements, bosses and companies try to cheat on them all the time. People are sick of it, they join unions and fight for their rights. It creates a them and us. In all my working life they tried dudding me a few times. I then became a union delegate for a couple of years when I was with a big organisation. Helping people get what they are entitled to is a big part of being a delegate, we only ever called for strike action when the bosses failed to hold up their end of the bargain.

The ones that get me the most a the small shop owners whinging about how they got to pay time and a half or double time on a Sunday. Say a cafe owner for example. Cafes are most busy on a sunny Sunday, their customers spread out onto the footpaths, they are very busy and they make a lot of money. Then they have the hide to complain that they have to pay a waitress $30 an hour for Sunday. Well boo hoo, surely a bit of your extra profits can go to the girl giving up her Sunday to work for you. If these small business owners complain about the high Sunday salary then perhaps they could employ their children in the business for $30 an hour. Oh hang on they are too busy out with their friends. Before anyone asks, yes I have been a small business owner and I worked the Sundays myself mostly because I couldn't get anyone else to do it.

Unions are a necessary organisation, we need to stop employers from breaking the laws and their agreements. We need to pay our people the correct wages. We should never allow ripping off of workers, like the 7/11 mob not paying the correct salaries to their staff and then threatening them with deportations should they say anything. My God keep Australia above the rest, a fair days pay for a fair days work according to the laws. Sorry, rant over.


----------



## Tisme (28 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> You know why this happens? It's because people get sick and tired of being screwed over. They get to a point where they believe  the company or boss wants to rip them off all the time and they can't do anything about it. I give a working example of what happened to me.
> 
> One Easter Saturday the boss couldn't get anyone to work, the other staff were all away on holidays with their family. So me being single and available thought no worries, I'll go in and pick up the double time and a half. When the pay day came I got paid single rates. I asked why I didn't get my correct rates, the boss said all Saturdays were at normal rates, I knew this was wrong. Then I went into the Department of Industrial relations in Oxford street Sydney and asked for a copy of the relevant award. It clearly stated that Easter Saturday was a public holiday and it should have been paid at double time and half rates.
> 
> ...




You only have to look at the half decade spiral up wages of public servants under their powerful union and the deterioration of technical trades wages by comparison due to lack of cohesive unionism. Some would suggest this is just calibration of worth to the community.....


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2016)

Bill M said:
			
		

> My God keep Australia above the rest, a fair days pay for a fair days work according to the laws.




Of course people should be well paid, and should give value for money.

I'd be interested in a mechanism for deciding whether the above is true.

Comparison with other countries of similar GDP per head perhaps ?

Maybe company profits per head of employees ?

Pay compared to cost of living ?

We need to do some work on actually measuring what is a fair pay level for work performed.


----------



## CanOz (28 July 2016)

Fair comments Bill M. I just can't understand why Australia has so much us vs. them mentality compared to Canada, or the US, or Europe. I have sensed that attitude a bit from people from the UK though, maybe there is a connection there?

I don't like authority and i think its made me a better boss for it. However, i don't share the same us vs. them mentality that exists here. Its like an eternal pessimism, very persistent. Was Australia more corrupt than Canada in the past, or am i just too blind to see that?

Regarding wages, are we sure that paying someone between 80-100k a year to flip a sign is a fair wage? If it is, do we have the right to complain about the cost of goods and services when we know that high labor component is a good part of the reason?


----------



## qldfrog (28 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> Unions are a necessary organisation, we need to stop employers from breaking the laws and their agreements. .



 I hope we all agree with that but my perception of the CFMEU for example is more of a bikie club screwing people and a blackmailing/extorsion machine than a body genuinely interested in the workers welfare/rights.
Do we have proper unions here for workers which are not too ALP linked?
I understand at the company level, you might find genuine union reps even a CFMEU, but it means your fees still goes to help the ALP/headquarter travel expenses..
Anyway, just for my knowledge, am a small one man business owner


----------



## noco (28 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> You know why this happens? It's because people get sick and tired of being screwed over. They get to a point where they believe  the company or boss wants to rip them off all the time and they can't do anything about it. I give a working example of what happened to me.
> 
> 
> Unions are a necessary organisation, we need to stop employers from breaking the laws and their agreements. We need to pay our people the correct wages. We should never allow ripping off of workers, like the 7/11 mob not paying the correct salaries to their staff and then threatening them with deportations should they say anything. My God keep Australia above the rest, a fair days pay for a fair days work according to the laws. Sorry, rant over.




Yes people do need to stop being screwed not only by employers but also the unions.

The workers at Chiquita, Clean Event, Coles and McDoanlds got well and truly screwed by Bill Shorten and the AWU.

And the band played "TRUST OUR UNIONS AGAIN"....:blaah::nono::bs::band


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> Do we have proper unions here for workers which are not too ALP linked?




I'm a member of one that gave its opinion on candidates for the recent election. They sure weren't telling people who to vote for as such but expressed their opinion in favour of, for the 5 Tasmanian electorates:

Bass - none of them any good and that includes Labor.

Braddon - Labor

Denison - Independent

Franklin - Labor

Lyons - Minor party

So I wouldn't say they're joined at the hip to the ALP given they only gave them 2 out of 5.


----------



## sptrawler (28 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> .
> Do we have proper unions here for workers which are not too ALP linked?



Over East maybe, in W.A I doubt it, from my experience.


----------



## qldfrog (29 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm a member of one that gave its opinion on candidates for the recent election. They sure weren't telling people who to vote for as such but expressed their opinion in favour of, for the 5 Tasmanian electorates:
> 
> Bass - none of them any good and that includes Labor.
> 
> ...



Fair and good to know
for my own interest, which union is this? if private feel free to PM/abstain


----------



## Bill M (29 July 2016)

Another few examples of why unions are necessary. These are all true stories and what happened to members of my family directly.

Member works for a medium sized supermarket chain. Works without any incident for over 5 years, was a good employee. Mother in law gets very ill and has to relocate to another state to be a carer. After 5 years you are entitled to long service leave pro rata if it is due to illness of a family member, or to move interstate to do that. Mother in law is classed as immediate family. Supermarket failed to pay long service leave pro rata. I lodged a complaint to the secretary of the union, they followed up the complaint, the member was finally paid what was owed to her.

Picnic day for this union is to be on Melbourne Cup day each year. Each member is required to have that day off or have 8 hours off in lieu. If the 8 hours off in lieu is not given within that Month then a further days pay at ordinary hours is to be given to the member. 30 days went by no payment was given. I wrote a letter stating the rules to the delegate at that organisation, subsequently that delegate pursued this non payment and the payment was made to the member.

This ones a doozy. Member works on a Sunday at large family fruit shop. She gets paid ordinary rates on a Sunday because the owners say it is too expensive to pay the correct double time rates. I plead with the family member to stand up for her rights, it is just underpayment. Upon standing up for her rights, the boss of this fruit shop asks the member to follow him into a large refrigerator. In there he tells her, ok I will pay you double time for Sunday but don't tell any of the other staff I will do that. The member didn't feel comfortable with his approach and resigned from the job. It was easier to do that than piss off the entire Italian community in that area.

I can't comment on big business union corruption, but at the floor level this kind of **** goes on all the time. I would always want to be a member of the union to protect my rights and that has nothing to do with who I do or don't vote for.


----------



## noco (29 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> Another few examples of why unions are necessary. These are all true stories and what happened to members of my family directly.
> 
> Member works for a medium sized supermarket chain. Works without any incident for over 5 years, was a good employee. Mother in law gets very ill and has to relocate to another state to be a carer. After 5 years you are entitled to long service leave pro rata if it is due to illness of a family member, or to move interstate to do that. Mother in law is classed as immediate family. Supermarket failed to pay long service leave pro rata. I lodged a complaint to the secretary of the union, they followed up the complaint, the member was finally paid what was owed to her.
> 
> ...




So what do you say about the employees of Chiquita, Clean Event, McDonalds and Coles who were dudded by Bill Shorten's corrupt AWU.?...Did the unions protect those employees rights?...How many more dirty deals have been made by the corrupt unions for financial favors?.....Dirty deals that we never hear about.....Money that ends up in the Labor/Greens coalition bank accounts.......The unions made McDonalds sign up and pay for the employees unions fees without the employees consent......In the 21st century it is not compulsory to be a union member except in the public service.  

I know for a fact the employees of the hotel casino in Townsville do not get penalty rates and that place is open from 10 am to 4 am the next morning  24/7.....It does not matter whether the employees are cleaners, cooks or casino table operators, they are are paid the one rate of pay....No penalty rates on Saturdays and Sundays.....Why aren't the unions standing up for those employees rights? 

Mcdonalds did a dirty deal with the unions ....time and a quarter on Saturdays and time and a half on Sundays.

What is wrong with employees going to Fair Work Australia if they think they have been dudded?......

Unions may have been necessary  in the 19th century but in the 21st century they have now become redundant....Union membership has dropped from 45 % down to under 15 %........We need the unions like a hole in the head.


----------



## explod (29 July 2016)

Noco,  you are lumping the Greens with Labor.   They are very different and the Greens have nothing to do with unions or other parties at all. 

One of the main reasons why I stopped ALP membership myself years back was because of corrupt members in the North Western Suburbs of Melbourne controlling politics for inner self interests. 

So get over it noco,  you should not lump things you do not like together.  In fact you have failed to answer such questions I put to you on the Hansen thread. :bad:

The Greens in short are about equal opportunites,  improved educational opportunities, a fair go for the disadvantaged and our environment. 

Apologies to others for being off topic.


----------



## CanOz (29 July 2016)

I guess i worked for a fair and reasonable business for many years and i'm a little tainted by that. If someone is legally entitled to something under an act, law or agreement, then an employer should honor that. For a supervisor or manager to deny that is just plain poor management practice.


----------



## qldfrog (29 July 2016)

CanOz said:


> I guess i worked for a fair and reasonable business for many years and i'm a little tainted by that. If someone is legally entitled to something under an act, law or agreement, then an employer should honor that.



Agree, we shoulkd not need union for that, better policing and justice system in my opinion;
But as I said from the start, I am not anti union when both side are reasonable and not involved in extorsion be it members or employers, or ALP leadership


----------



## noco (29 July 2016)

explod said:


> Noco,  you are lumping the Greens with Labor.   They are very different and the Greens have nothing to do with unions or other parties at all.
> 
> One of the main reasons why I stopped ALP membership myself years back was because of corrupt members in the North Western Suburbs of Melbourne controlling politics for inner self interests.
> 
> ...




It is a well known fact that the unions are donating funds to the Greens...Do some research on it and you may learn something....And why should I not lump the Greens with the Labor Party?.....They swap preferences at election.....Most of them are members of the Fabian Society (communism)....The Labor Party accept policies laid out by the Greens......Gillard did a signed deal with the Greens and Labor had to accept the carbon dioxide tax forced on them by the Greens.....You know Gillard's famous words "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"....Do you remember that one?

I apologize if I have missed replying to your questions about Pauline Hanson as I have been in and out of hospital over the past 2 to 3 weeks.....I will check it out and review your questions.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2016)

noco said:


> It is a well known fact that the unions are donating funds to the Greens...Do some research on it and you may learn something....And why should I not lump the Greens with the Labor Party?.....They swap preferences at election.....Most of them are members of the Fabian Society (communism)....The Labor Party accept policies laid out by the Greens......Gillard did a signed deal with the Greens and Labor had to accept the carbon dioxide tax forced on them by the Greens.....You know Gillard's famous words "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"....Do you remember that one?
> 
> I apologize if I have missed replying to your questions about Pauline Hanson as I have been in and out of hospital over the past 2 to 3 weeks.....I will check it out and review your questions.




All the best for your health noco.

So what if unions donate funds to the Greens, business donates to the Liberals and farmers donate to the Nats. 

What's your problem ?


----------



## Bill M (29 July 2016)

noco said:


> So what do you say about the employees of Chiquita, Clean Event, McDonalds and Coles who were dudded by Bill Shorten's corrupt AWU.?...Did the unions protect those employees rights?...How many more dirty deals have been made by the corrupt unions for financial favors?.....Dirty deals that we never hear about.....Money that ends up in the Labor/Greens coalition bank accounts.......The unions made McDonalds sign up and pay for the employees unions fees without the employees consent......In the 21st century it is not compulsory to be a union member except in the public service.
> 
> I know for a fact the employees of the hotel casino in Townsville do not get penalty rates and that place is open from 10 am to 4 am the next morning  24/7.....It does not matter whether the employees are cleaners, cooks or casino table operators, they are are paid the one rate of pay....No penalty rates on Saturdays and Sundays.....Why aren't the unions standing up for those employees rights?
> 
> ...




I do not know about each union or workplace in Australia and frankly I do not care. All I know is at the floor level we would have been screwed over many times if we did not have our our unions protecting us. You know, real experiences in my and my families workplaces. I still have a family member working for a large supermarket chain, they still try to get away with certain things that go against the present enterprise agreement. All they need to do is stick to the rules. What a casino does up in north Queensland is of no interest to me, sorry, I can't look out for the whole country.


----------



## noco (29 July 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> All the best for your health noco.
> 
> So what if unions donate funds to the Greens, business donates to the Liberals and farmers donate to the Nats.
> 
> What's your problem ?




Thanks Rumpy....Just another old age hiccup.

The problem is Bill M stated the unions do not have any connection with Greens and we all know they have accepted lots of donation from the unions.


----------



## noco (29 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> I do not know about each union or workplace in Australia and frankly I do not care. All I know is at the floor level we would have been screwed over many times if we did not have our our unions protecting us. You know, real experiences in my and my families workplaces. I still have a family member working for a large supermarket chain, they still try to get away with certain things that go against the present enterprise agreement. All they need to do is stick to the rules. What a casino does up in north Queensland is of no interest to me, sorry, I can't look out for the whole country.




You can't look after the whole country?????Well, stop praising the corrupt unions...The unions are only looking after themselves just as politicians do I am sorry to say.

Yeah....the unions did a great job for the employees of Coles.....The enterprise agreement was never put to Coles employees.....It was all done behind closed doors in return for unauthorized union membership....More money for the corrupt unions.,,,Fair Work Australia knocked it back.

You don't have to go to the unions to fight for your rights...Just go to Fair Work Australia.


----------



## Bill M (29 July 2016)

noco said:


> The problem is Bill M stated the unions do not have any connection with Greens and we all know they have accepted lots of donation from the unions.




I have never stated anything like that. I think you mixing me up with someone else.



noco said:


> You can't look after the whole country?????Well, stop praising the corrupt unions...The unions are only looking after themselves just as politicians do I am sorry to say.




I praise whoever looks after the pleb on the tools/the shop floor that needs a voice and can't defend themselves. I have given you more than enough examples of how bosses or companies rip off innocent workers. Nothing more needs to said on the matter.


----------



## noco (29 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> I have never stated anything like that. I think you mixing me up with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I praise whoever looks after the pleb on the tools/the shop floor that needs a voice and can't defend themselves. I have given you more than enough examples of how bosses or companies rip off innocent workers. Nothing more needs to said on the matter.




I did not accuse you at all.

Perhaps you should read my post #37 again and you will note it was directed to explod and not you.

Nothing more to be said???????...Looks like you have lost your argument about your righteous corrupt unions and don't like what I have told you....You just do not want to hear about their dirty deals which do not favor the employees.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2016)

CanOz said:


> I guess i worked for a fair and reasonable business for many years and i'm a little tainted by that. If someone is legally entitled to something under an act, law or agreement, then an employer should honor that. For a supervisor or manager to deny that is just plain poor management practice.




90% of what I've seen unions do relates to simply enforcing the law. The rest relates to comparing one employer with another and arguing that employees working for x shouldn't be substantially worse off than what the rest of the market is offering for comparable work.

Ideally we shouldn't need unions to do that but in practice we do. An individual employee quite likely won't be able to afford the cost of professional legal assistance should it become necessary whereas a union can and will pool resources to make it happen.

If employers wanted to get rid of unions then all they need to do is make them obsolete by simply following the letter of the law. Someone is supposed to be paid x, well then pay them x without question. Someone is bullied by their manager - OK then, bring in a private investigator and if necessary sack the manager. Etc. Some employers do the right thing but there will always be some who don't and that's where unions become necessary.

Over the years I've worked for brilliant bosses and terrible ones as have many. So long as there are duds around there will be a role for unions just as we'll need police so long as we have criminals. If everyone just followed the law then we could do away with unions, police, courts, lawyers and so on and save a fortune but I can't see it happening.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2016)

qldfrog said:


> for my own interest, which union is this? if private feel free to PM/abstain




I'm a member of the CEPU (Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union). 

I've worked as a tradesman "on the tools" and I've also been a boss. I've had good bosses and bad just as I've encountered good staff and bad. I've also encountered good unions and dud ones so I've seen most of what can go wrong and what can go right.


----------



## qldfrog (29 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm a member of the CEPU (Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union).
> 
> I've worked as a tradesman "on the tools" and I've also been a boss. I've had good bosses and bad just as I've encountered good staff and bad. I've also encountered good unions and dud ones so I've seen most of what can go wrong and what can go right.



Thanks Smurf, have to say I never heard of CEPU until today which probably is a good thing: not aiming on publicity but real work.
Nice to know.Have a great week end.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 July 2016)

The unions got a bad name in the 70's and 80's when some of them would strike at the drop of a hat leaving the public without public transport, airlines or fuel.

The Builders Labourers were probably on strike more times than they were working, but they did save some historic sites from development.

Fortunately things seem to have calmed down on the strike front as a lot of the militant leaders have been replaced. The CFMEU seems to be a rogue union that needs to be dealt with somehow.

Ultimately the unions will be worth what their members think they are worth, as long as they remain democratic. 

The falling rates of membership indicate that members either don't think they are doing their jobs or that they will get the benefits of union action through higher awards anyway, so why spend the money up front ? This seems like having your cake and eating it too.


----------



## Bill M (30 July 2016)

noco said:


> I did not accuse you at all.
> 
> Perhaps you should read my post #37 again and you will note it was directed to explod and not you.




It is in post #40 you said "The problem is Bill M stated the unions do not have any connection with Greens". I never said this, please try to stay focused and stop saying things that aren't true.



> Nothing more to be said???????...Looks like you have lost your argument about your righteous corrupt unions and don't like what I have told you....You just do not want to hear about their dirty deals which do not favor the employees.




There is corruption all around us nocco, from government, big business, unions, police and every other organisation out there and of course the union being no exemption. If there is wrong doing then it needs to be fixed, that is not up to me or you, it is up to those in power. 

The dealings that I have had with 3 different unions in my life were all about helping the membership at floor level. Looking after conditions, hours of work, safety etc. When I was a delegate for 2 years I never got paid for it and rarely did I ever get any time off for training. It was unpaid work and sometimes carried over into my own time. looking after people on the shop floor, the lowest paid in the workforce is what I care about, these are the people that get cheated the most. (many example above) Unions in some workplaces are as relevant now as what they have always been. Many have said, in a perfect situation you have good staff and good bosses and you don't need Unions, good and well. I agree but unfortunately it is not a perfect world out there.


----------



## Bill M (30 July 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> 90% of what I've seen unions do relates to simply enforcing the law. The rest relates to comparing one employer with another and arguing that employees working for x shouldn't be substantially worse off than what the rest of the market is offering for comparable work.
> 
> Ideally we shouldn't need unions to do that but in practice we do. An individual employee quite likely won't be able to afford the cost of professional legal assistance should it become necessary whereas a union can and will pool resources to make it happen.
> 
> ...




Perfect, spot on, I couldn't have said it better. Your experiences are my experiences too, thanks for sharing.


----------



## noco (30 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> It is in post #40 you said "The problem is Bill M stated the unions do not have any connection with Greens". I never said this, please try to stay focused and stop saying things that aren't true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK..please accept my apology....I did get you mixed up with explod.

You praise the unions as being good guys who look after the interests of the working man, but I would still like your comment on the dirty deals down by unions who exploited the workers to gain cash for the union coffers....Do you still consider these corrupt unions did the right thing by the workers of those companies I mentioned previously?...And what about the corrupt CFMEU?...They are rotten to the core.

The problem is they have become corrupt  because of the fall in membership and lack of union fees, so they have become desperate and resort to under handed tactics to gain finance to fill the union coffers and in return feed the Labor Party.

I still say we do not need corrupt unions when we have Fair Work Australia......Unionism has past its use by date...This is the 21 st century not the 19th.


----------



## orr (30 July 2016)

High Time for a Federally based Inderpendent Commision Against Corruption.... to root out this entrenched national scourge. 

I can see 'Artha See-no-donors' championing the cause...

I believe there are some NSW ICAC findings soon to be released... can barely wait.


----------



## Bill M (30 July 2016)

noco said:


> I would still like your comment on the dirty deals down by unions who exploited the workers to gain cash for the union coffers....Do you still consider these corrupt unions did the right thing by the workers of those companies I mentioned previously?...And what about the corrupt CFMEU?...They are rotten to the core.




If a particular union is corrupt then there is no question that it should be exposed. Let the laws of the land deal with it. If that means dissolving a particular union like they did before then so be it. I am against corruption in all it's forms and from all areas. It should be stamped out. But lets be reasonable, not all unions are corrupt. Those who are doing a good job should be allowed to keep on looking after their members.



> I still say we do not need corrupt unions when we have Fair Work Australia......Unionism has past its use by date...This is the 21 st century not the 19th.




I have a friend who worked with Fair Work Australia. He was assisting the bench on some high profile cases. He said each hearing took a considerable amount of time, some running into days, weeks. There is no way FWA could handle the amount of cases that happen everyday. They would need to employ lots more staff and build extra court rooms all over Australia. It isn't feasible. It is just better to deal with issues on the floor level at the time, ie: Typical issue, after 4 hours of continuous work each employee is entitled to a 10 minute toilet break. Do you know how many times a day a supermarket breaches this rule per day? It would work better to have a delegate on the ground making sure all the staff get their entitlements as per agreement rather than running to FWA for minor issues. FWA is really the place of last resort, where the 2 parties can not resolve their differences.


----------



## poverty (31 July 2016)

Bill M said:


> Typical issue, after 4 hours of continuous work each employee is entitled to a 10 minute toilet break. Do you know how many times a day a supermarket breaches this rule per day? It would work better to have a delegate on the ground making sure all the staff get their entitlements as per agreement rather than running to FWA for minor issues.




At least in Victoria 'supermarket' is not one thing.  Coles, Woolworths etc all have their own EBA agreements negotiated with the SDA and then approved by FWA, they aren't the same.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2016)

Worked for an Oz  corporation back in the mid seventies that made sure the various boards included a quota of union representation ... seems to have worked well because it is now a dominant world player in its field. The company had a novel idea that team play and genuine employee inclusion might be of benefit to the collective and profit.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2016)

Tisme said:


> Worked for an Oz  corporation back in the mid seventies that made sure the various boards included a quota of union representation ... seems to have worked well because it is now a dominant world player in its field. The company had a novel idea that team play and genuine employee inclusion might be of benefit to the collective and profit.


----------



## noco (22 January 2017)

There has been a lot of media reports of Liberal, Labor and the Greens MPs past and present  rorting the system but I would say the President of the Queensland Branch of the CFMEU tops them all.....He has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar....Should he resign or go to jail?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-story/5ba48f1bd9d0bce459b2bb8bc03a627aThere


Questions raised over union spending
A QUEENSLAND mining union boss racked up thousands of dollars on his corporate credit card on charges including fancy restaurants in Las Vegas and Whitsundays cruises.

Stephen Smyth, president of the CFMEU Queensland branch, even paid dentist, plumbing and butcher shop bills with his union MasterCard.

During a stay at a Las Vegas casino hotel in July and August 2015, Mr Smyth paid $632.60 while dining at Maggiano’s Little Italy where customers fork out $63 for a prime New York steak.

While in the same town, Mr Smyth spent $466.80 at the Mirage Hotel’s Portofino restaurant where “world-class executive chef Michael LaPlaca gives an unforgettable modern twist to classic Italian foods”.

The card details obtained by _The Sunday Mail _provide a window into the lavish lifestyles of union fat cats.

Last year Mr Smyth used his card to pay Cruise Whitsundays at Airlie Beach $1181.70. On May 6 last year his card was used to pay Spring Hill Dental $729.

Last week  _The Courier-Mail _ revealed an independent auditor has raised questions over the use of credit cards by executives in the branch.

*




*
media_cameraMr Smyth used his card to pay Cruise Whitsundays at Airlie Beach $1181.70.

Jason Croston of SRJ Walker Wayland said credit card expenses for the 2016 financial year totalled $721,116.

In a damning report he said there was insufficient evidence to verify that the credit card expenses were incurred solely for business purposes.

Mr Croston’s report was signed off in December by Mr Smyth and secretary Timothy David Whyte but hasn’t been lodged with Fair Work Australia. Mr Smyth and Mr Whyte declined repeated requests for interviews.

Mr Smyth is touring the US and Canada, and in a voicemail message said he would not return to work until February 1.

It is not known if he has repaid any personal spending


Autoplay
*Union march in Brisbane0:49*




Union members from CFMEU, ETU and the Plumber's Union of Queensland march in Brisbane to protect local jobs on Queen's Wharf casino project.


November 30th 2016
2 months ago
/video/video.news.com.au/News/





Union march in Brisbane
While many of the charges will be union-related expenses, it’s likely Mr Smyth will have some explaining to do to the new board of management meeting in March.

There was a $764 spend at Charles Porter hardware in Mackay in July 2015 and $935 the following month at Trade Link Plumbing Centre.

In January last year he spent $25.95 at Bunnings in Mackay. On August 4, 2015 his credit card was used to buy petrol in Mackay on the same day $125.60 was paid to a hotel in Las Vegas.

Mr Smyth’s card was used at Fresco’s Quality Meats in his home town of Mackay in July 2015 ($24) and August ($41.25).





media_camera"The Strip" in Las Vegas, Nevada.
He dined three times at Angelo’s on the Marina in 2015 and 2016 in Mackay, racking up bills of $232.60, $93.60 and $183.50.

He also dined out regularly in Brisbane. The statement shows spending at the Enjoy Inn, Fortitude Valley, of $637.40 on September 1, 2015, another $142.60 a month later and $72.80 in January 2016.

In April last year, $170.10 was spent at Sorbello’s Restaurant, Mackay, and $320 at Il Centro Restaurant in Brisbane in January 2016.

They weren’t all upscale dining spots. The statement is littered with charges from McDonald’s, Red Rooster, Donut Land and Cactus Jack’s.

The Palaszczuk Government used its final parliamentary sitting week in December last year to reverse a Newman government edict that union bosses must publish credit-card statements.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 January 2017)

As a member of a different union (CEPU) I get the distinct impression that the CFMEU is giving unions in general a bad name.

They just seem to be attracting attention for all the wrong reasons compared with other unions going about their business of representing members.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2017)

noco said:


> They weren’t all upscale dining spots. The statement is littered with charges from McDonald’s, Red Rooster, Donut Land and Cactus Jack’s.
> 
> The Palaszczuk Government used its final parliamentary sitting week in December last year to reverse a Newman government edict that union bosses must publish credit-card statements.




Let's have all union leaders publishing their credit card statements, as well as all company executives and all politicians.

Any problems with that ?


----------



## noco (22 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Let's have all union leaders publishing their credit card statements, as well as all company executives and all politicians.
> 
> Any problems with that ?




Rumpy, I agree with you on all union leaders and politicians being put under scrutiny because they are in public office and using money belonging to union members and politicians using taxpayers money.

With regards to company executives there is a difference in that they are normally responsible to a board of directors who are there to look after the interest of share holders...If company executives do the wrong thing by spending to excess, it is the share holders who will suffer in the return of lower dividends.....But having said that, I was in an executive  position and my expenses were scrutinized every month by the financial controller.....I had to produce receipts on all expenses whether I was overseas or local.

So I hope you can appreciate there is a difference.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2017)

noco said:


> So I hope you can appreciate there is a difference.




No there isn't really. Politicians will say that their expenses are scrutinised by the Auditor General, but they still get away with rorts.

Company execs spend shareholders money so they should be responsible to shareholders directly, not to someone appointed by the executives themselves.


----------



## noco (22 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> No there isn't really. Politicians will say that their expenses are scrutinised by the Auditor General, but they still get away with rorts.
> 
> Company execs spend shareholders money so they should be responsible to shareholders directly, not to someone appointed by the executives themselves.




How can a company executive be responsible directly to the share holders?......The share holders don't scrutinize company executives expenses.......My company had share holders whom I did not know nor were they looking over my shoulder...We had some 200,000,000 shares holdings......Share holders rely on a board of directors and the financial controller to look after their interests........If the board and the chairman of a public company do not do the right thing by their shareholders, then the shareholders have the right to vote against that board at their annual general meetings......I do recall in my 28 years with the company where one CEO was asked to resign because of miss management.

But if you have been a public servant, I will forgive you for not understanding how most companies work.  

So there is one hell of a difference between  a public company and politicians and union leaders who try to get away with taking money from the union members contributions and the public purse.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2017)

noco said:


> If the board and the chairman of a public company do not do the right thing by their shareholders, then the shareholders have the right to vote against that board at their annual general meetings..




That logic could equally be used by union leaders or politicians. "if you don't like what I'm doing then vote me out". Either the principle of accountability to shareholders, members and taxpayers applies to ALL union leaders, politicians and company executives or it applies to none of them.

So if you expect union delegates to publish their credit card statements, then apply it to company execs  as well or be a hypocrite.


----------



## noco (22 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That logic could equally be used by union leaders or politicians. "if you don't like what I'm doing then vote me out". Either the principle of accountability to shareholders, members and taxpayers applies to ALL union leaders, politicians and company executives or it applies to none of them.
> 
> So if you expect union delegates to publish their credit card statements, then apply it to company execs  as well or be a hypocrite.




 Oh come on Rumpy...You still cannot see the difference...I just don't know how I can explain it any more simply than I have.
It would be difficult to vote a union leader out as the union system is rigged......Yes you can vote an MP out but you have to wait maybe 3 or 4 years.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2017)

noco said:


> Oh come on Rumpy...You still cannot see the difference...I just don't know how I can explain it any more simply than I have.




Yes, your explanation was very simple. Scrutiny is fine as long as you are not the one being scrutinised.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 January 2017)

A simple approach to credit cards is to look at total spending versus what's reasonable.

If the total spend in a month is $50 then pretty clearly there is no major abuse going on. Cost of going through half a dozen trivial purchases in great detail far exceeds any saving that might be made via catching someone doing the wrong thing.

On the other hand, if someone's spending $20K in a month then certainly it's very plausible that there's some abuse there so an investigation of anything that looks suspicious is warranted.

Suspicious? Well if the card is used to purchase fuel for a vehicle and they spent $200 in total then it's not worth trying to count every drop of petrol. Seems reasonable. But any spending on entertainment is an obvious "red flag" unless that's a specific part of the job the person is employed to do.

And so on. Like the approach the ATO uses. If I claim $20 for laundering work protective clothing then even if I'm audited they're not going to be investigating that in detail and asking for receipts for washing powder. I wear protective clothing, washed it a few times and claimed $20 for the year. Seems reasonable. But if I claimed that it cost me $2000 to do some washing then I'm pretty sure they'll be wanting to know how I worked that out and where the receipts are. Etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2017)

Smurf1976 said:


> A simple approach to credit cards is to look at total spending versus what's reasonable.
> 
> If the total spend in a month is $50 then pretty clearly there is no major abuse going on. Cost of going through half a dozen trivial purchases in great detail far exceeds any saving that might be made via catching someone doing the wrong thing.
> 
> ...





Yep, that's all fine. The point is who should the cardholders be responsible to ? To a secret committee or to the taxpayers in general (if politicians), shareholders (if company execs) or union members (if trade union delegates).

I'm pretty sure that if politicians had their parliamentary credit card details published, then they would be more diligent about using them properly. Same with business execs and union delegates. I doubt if Craig Thompson would have used his credit card at a brothel if he knew the details would be published.


----------



## noco (22 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, your explanation was very simple. Scrutiny is fine as long as you are not the one being scrutinised.




I am sure you understand my point but are just being difficult in your decision not to admit it.....

I was also under scrutiny as were other executives, but I also did the right thing by my company.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

I can see a lot of issues if company executives had to declare publicly their expenses. Some would be OK, but a lot might involve risks to confidentiality. For instance, they may be contemplating a takeover and need to keep that quiet until it is necessary to make public. This could be a multi-year process involving many meetings with the target company etc. Even if one were able to keep confidential the purpose of meetings that involved other parties, having to provide information like location or hotel could possibly expose the nature of the meetings. If shareholders can get that information so can competitors.

Most shareholders are only interested in the bottom line and rarely ever read financial statements, relying on professionals to sift through and highlight the salient snippets of information. Nobody could care less about the daily expenditure of those in charge, so long as the company seems to be doing OK. 

Providing such information and requiring pre-editing to mask confidentiality would only be another unnecessary impost to businesses with little if any benefit in return.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Most shareholders are only interested in the bottom line and rarely ever read financial statements, relying on professionals to sift through and highlight the salient snippets of information. Nobody could care less about the daily expenditure of those in charge, so long as the company seems to be doing OK.




In that case most union members are only interested in the "bottom line", ie how their wages and conditions stack up, not how they were gained so the same argument could apply to union delegates and politicians couldn't it ?


----------



## noco (23 January 2017)

And the Palaszczuk left wing socialist government is protecting their union comrades from scrutiny of spending members contributions....What hypocrites we have here.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s/news-story/b0e186edf671a2e60c95b4eb01e92a52

THE Palaszczuk Government is standing by its decision to roll back the former Newman government’s union disclosure laws despite new revelations regarding a union boss’s credit card.

Senior CFMEU official Stephen Smyth used his union credit card to dine in Las Vegas, take Whitsunday cruises and on dental work.

*It is not known whether Mr Smyth reimbursed the union for personal spending.

It was earlier revealed an independent auditor had also raised questions over the use of credit cards by the union’s executives.

Queensland’s Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace said while the state implored unions to do the right thing by their members, the finances of the CFMEU were a federal matter.

“Queensland law doesn’t apply to CFMEU finances, as its accounts are registered under federal law,” Ms Grace said. “Under federal law … there’s no requirement for union or employer industrial organisations to publish credit card statements.”

Ms Grace said the winding back of the former Newman government's disclosure laws was about uniformity.






media_cameraCFMEU official Stephen Smyth who used his corporate credit card to live the high life. Picture: Steve Pohlner
“We’ve moved to bring Queensland law into line with federal law on this matter through our new Industrial Relations Act, which takes effect in March,” she said.

“This new Act requires all registered organisations to have financial policies over a range of matters – including credit cards, contracting activities, and spending on hospitality and gifts.”

Commonwealth Employment Minister Michaelia Cash, however, said Labor’s changes would make it easier for unions to “rip off their members”.

“Honest workers have a right to know how their money is being spent,” Ms Cash said. “The Turnbull Government successfully passed its registered organisations legislation, which will make unions and employer associations more accountable for their members’ funds.

“The Coalition stands for more accountability and transparency from union bosses,” she said.*


----------



## Tisme (23 January 2017)

noco said:


> “We’ve moved to bring Queensland law into line with federal law on this matter through our new Industrial Relations Act, which takes effect in March,” she said.
> 
> “This new Act requires all registered organisations to have financial policies over a range of matters – including credit cards, contracting activities, and spending on hospitality and gifts.”
> 
> Commonwealth Employment Minister Michaelia Cash, however, said Labor’s changes would make it easier for unions to “rip off their members”.




Sounds to me that strine speaking Ms Cash needs to get off her high horse and makes sure her backyard is in order to prevent ripoffs. It's not like there aren't federally registered unions already.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case most union members are only interested in the "bottom line", ie how their wages and conditions stack up, not how they were gained so the same argument could apply to union delegates and politicians couldn't it ?




Well I have never been in a union, so I can't comment on whether they are interested or not in how the officials spend their money. However, unlike company execs, unions as far as I know do not have an overseer with direct access to expenditure information comparable to the board of directors who can look out for the members interests.

Certainly the public care about politicians expenses, going by the amount of press coverage abuses get.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> overseer with direct access to expenditure information comparable to the board of directors who can look out for the members interests.




The Board of Directors have their snouts in the trough as well.


----------



## noco (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The Board of Directors have their snouts in the trough as well.




And as you know, Public Servants do as well.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

noco said:


> And as you know, Public Servants do as well.





Sure, I would be quite happy if everyone who spends other people's money were required to publish their  credit card statements,  I'm just not being selective about it like you.

What is sauce for the goose...


----------



## noco (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, I would be quite happy if everyone who spends other people's money were required to publish their  credit card statements,  I'm just not being selective about it like you.
> 
> What is sauce for the goose...





Selective????...Please explain.....I believe I have covered all angles of rorting whether it be politicians, union leaders or company executives...All should come under scrutiny but of course if one is public servant they would very little idea of company procedure because that is far remote from their thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

noco said:


> All should come under scrutiny but of course if one is public servant they would very little idea of company procedure because that is far remote from their thinking.




Weasel words. You probably have no idea of the level of scrutiny public servants have to undergo and yet you seem to think that they are more likely to be corrupt than company execs. 

Look at the massive over payments execs are getting from shareholders. If they stuff things up they get golden handshakes to leave, you think there is no corruption there ?


----------



## noco (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Weasel words. You probably have no idea of the level of scrutiny public servants have to undergo and yet you seem to think that they are more likely to be corrupt than company execs.
> 
> Look at the massive over payments execs are getting from shareholders. If they stuff things up they get golden handshakes to leave, you think there is no corruption there ?




I see you have come out of hiding...You seem to know a lot about the public service.....There one fellow on the Queensland public service, I think was a Prince by self confession who got away with millions but he went too far and was finally caught.....There is a lot  of paper bag money floating around in the public service for public servants to do favors....How do I know because


SirRumpole said:


> Weasel words. You probably have no idea of the level of scrutiny public servants have to undergo and yet you seem to think that they are more likely to be corrupt than company execs.
> 
> Look at the massive over payments execs are getting from shareholders. If they stuff things up they get golden handshakes to leave, you think there is no corruption there ?




I finally got you out of hiding ....You seem to have a great knowledge of how the public service works.

There was a guy working under Anna Bligh, his name was either Prince or was some Prince from one of the South Sea Islands...He got away with millions but he went too far with his greed and finally got caught.

There is a lot of paper bag money floating around in public servants offices...How do I know ?...Because I was young and naive back in 1962 when I paid a public servant through his back door man to be given a special favor which in the end resulted in no outcome in my favor......It cost me 30 pounds.....


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> The Board of Directors have their snouts in the trough as well.




Certainly not reflective of the many boards and board members I have met over the years. Do you have data to back that up?

Additionally, the expense rules I have seen in many large corporations that I have worked in leave very little room for abuse. It has been a prime area of focus for the last 30 years when companies started to focus on costs. In Australia you also have to contend with fringe benefits tax, which is a huge disincentive to providing over the top benefits disguised as expenses.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

noco said:


> I finally got you out of hiding ....You seem to have a great knowledge of how the public service works.




I don't, do you ? They may well be a lot tougher than private enterprise, if you have no experience of the public sector then you can't say either way.



> In Australia you also have to contend with fringe benefits tax, which is a huge disincentive to providing over the top benefits disguised as expenses.




It hasn't seemed to have worked with exhorbitant executive salaries and golden handshakes for failure, so I see no reason to assume that expenses are strictly controlled.



> Certainly not reflective of the many boards and board members I have met over the years. Do you have data to back that up?




The data is the excessive salaries that the Boards give to their execs with golden handshakes for failure. Why should we assume that the Boards minutely scrutinise credit card expenses ?


----------



## noco (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't, do you ? They may well be a lot tougher than private enterprise, if you have no experience of the public sector then you can't say either way.



I have had plenty of experience with public servants over the years even in local government here and have observed plenty in the media, so don't tell me I can't say either way.....I have no doubts I have had more experience with public servants than you have had in company business.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

noco said:


> I have had plenty of experience with public servants over the years even in local government here and have observed plenty in the media, so don't tell me I can't say either way...




And you have scrutinised their credit cards have you ?


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It hasn't seemed to have worked with exhorbitant executive salaries and golden handshakes for failure, so I see no reason to assume that expenses are strictly controlled.
> 
> The data is the excessive salaries that the Boards give to their execs with golden handshakes for failure. Why should we assume that the Boards minutely scrutinise credit card expenses ?




So you don't have data to back up you claim, just assumptions.

Salaries and other forms of compensation are reportable, so the shareholders know whether these are justifiable or not (that is what we are talking about isn't it; shareholders being informed). If the board is seen to be making unjustified payments, then shareholders have the opportunity to vote them out. There is also the 3-strikes rule.

I'm not going to claim that these shareholder protections are fully satisfactory, but there are methods in place to inform shareholders and to allow them to take some action. 

If in the end the shareholder feels that there is nothing he can do to rectify things then there is always the option of selling their shareholding. Union members do not have the option of cancelling membership, as often being a member is a requirement to get the job.

That is the fundamental difference between union, political and shareholder membership. The shareholder has an upfront choice whether to buy the shares or not and can usually find information on the propriety of the company before getting involved. Unions are often a no choice option for employees and even if impropriety is discovered, usually by whistleblowers or revelations coming from court cases, there is often little they can do. The same goes for politicians. You are pretty much stuck with what you have got and even if in a marginal electorate, the alternative choice of candidate might have no influence if not a member of the governing party.

Detailing and explaining executive expenses to the public is just an expensive waste of time and resources and of little benefit.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Union members do not have the option of cancelling membership, as often being a member is a requirement to get the job.




So why has union membership been consistently falling for decades ?

_"Trade union membership has plummeted since the late 1980s and the 1990s when more than 40 per cent of Australian workers were union members. At August 2012, the most recent figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, only 18 per cent of the workforce were union members. There was a slight pick-up in union membership among men during the global financial crisis but by and large union membership has stabilised at about 18 per cent since 2007 when Labor was returned to power on the back of the Work Choices campaign."

"A series of conservative governments at state level and then *the Howard federal government made compulsory unionism illegal.*"
_
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-union-movement-is-facing-tough-times-20140131-31sb7.html


So that rather destroys your point on the difference between unions and companies. They both spend their members/shareholders money and they both should be subject to equivalent levels of scrutiny on that spending. 



bellenuit said:


> That is the fundamental difference between union, political and shareholder membership. The shareholder has an upfront choice whether to buy the shares or not and can usually find information on the propriety of the company before getting involved




That's the point isn't it ? How can prospective or current shareholders determine if execs are rorting their expenses if they are not revealed ? Can I go to the registered office of BHP and say "I'm thinking of buying shares and I want a look at the exec's credit card statements ?

So there is extremely limited "upfront choice" for shareholders, they have to go on trust just like union members.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So why has union membership been consistently falling for decades ?




I know union membership is falling, but that doesn't mean that membership isn't effectively compulsive in certain industries.



> So that rather destroys your point on the difference between unions and companies. They both spend their members/shareholders money and they both should be subject to equivalent levels of scrutiny on that spending.
> 
> That's the point isn't it ? How can prospective or current shareholders determine if execs are rorting their expenses if they are not revealed ? Can I go to the registered office of BHP and say "I'm thinking of buying shares and I want a look at the exec's credit card statements ?
> 
> So there is extremely limited "upfront choice" for shareholders, they have to go on trust just like union members.




Shareholders have a simple upfront choice. Buy or not buy. Union members, as I have been trying to explain to you, often do not have the choice. By not joining, they may also be dealing themselves out of a job.

And you keep forgetting the original point I made. Revealing the exec's expenses publicly may be highly damaging to a company if it directly or indirectly leads to the exposure of confidential information and dealings that needs to be kept hidden from competitors or other interested parties. That is why shareholders are content to have the board oversee executive actions.

Apart from you, I am aware of no shareholder clamouring to see a list of the expenses made by the execs in companies in which they have shareholdings. They understand that such information is of little value and providing it would greatly impede the running of the business.

It is a pointless, costly and probably damaging exercise that no one (apart from you) seems interested in pursuing.


----------



## Tisme (23 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> So you don't have data to back up you claim, just assumptions.
> 
> Salaries and other forms of compensation are reportable, so the shareholders know whether these are justifiable or not (that is what we are talking about isn't it; shareholders being informed). If the board is seen to be making unjustified payments, then shareholders have the opportunity to vote them out. There is also the 3-strikes rule.
> 
> ...





You do know there are lot of buildings, not just Trades Halls,  owned by companies that are owned by unions? They have executives and everything.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Apart from you, I am aware of no shareholder clamouring to see a list of the expenses made by the execs in companies in which they have shareholdings. They understand that such information is of little value and providing it would greatly impede the running of the business.




They know they would be fobbed off by the company so they don't bother. 

I don't believe that release of business expenses would impede the running of the business. It would make execs more accountable and therefore more prudent. 

The essential point is that your argument on behalf of businesses is equally valid when used by politicians, public servants or unions. Is the running of a business more important than the running of the country ? 

So on that basis if you want to suppress business expense disclosure why not suppress political expense disclosure, because having that information in the public domain would greatly impede the running of the country ?

If you say that business expenses are a matter between the company and the shareholders and no one else's business, then I say that a union delegate's expenses are between the union and the union membership and no one else's business. 

As pointed out to you, union membership is not compulsory. If potential members don't want to join a union they have the option of not doing so. Compulsory union membership is* illegal*. That seems to be the same principle to me as not buying shares.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't believe that release of business expenses would impede the running of the business. It would make execs more accountable and therefore more prudent.




What balderdash. Certain employees of Rio take out a shareholding in BHP and front up at BHP headquarters. "We would like to see the business expenses of Andrew Mackenzie please. OH I see, he spent $10K on a dinner at the Ritz Carlton in New York. Maybe that wasn't a valid expense? To ascertain that we need to know who was in attendance? etc.  And he flew to Uzbekistan on the 20th and spent 4 days in Tashkent. Didn't we learn that the Vale CEO was there the exact same time and isn't Tashkent the HQ of XXX Co."

It would only take the most rudimentary of detective work to build up a picture of who the company is dealing with (take over targets, key customers, key suppliers etc). If you then make provisions to redact sensitive information, then you are back to square one, as you cannot tell whether information redacted is because it genuinely is a confidentiality risk or simply a cover-up.

What a nightmare. And do you expect any entry to reveal money was spent at a strip-club in Soho? And even if there were such entries, how could you tell they were not valid business expenses? What if the CEO had asked the customer he was entertaining where he would like to eat and the customer picked the strip club as the venue? It isn't illegal to eat at a strip club if that what the customer wants. You expect all this information to be documented and explained so that it is understandable to someone who owns a $1K shareholding in the business.

A typical CEO might incur 10 - 20 business expenses daily. Do you really think that he should be spending his time documenting those expenses for the benefit of anyone (and it would be anyone) who deems they have a right to see that. That is a bureaucratic nightmare of zero merit.



> The essential point is that your argument on behalf of businesses is equally valid when used by politicians, public servants or unions. Is the running of a business more important than the running of the country ?




I only entered this argument saying how it would be completely impracticable to make such an impost on business. Whether the same should apply to unions and politicians is a different question that you were arguing with Noco (I think).



> So on that basis if you want to suppress business expense disclosure why not suppress political expense disclosure, because having that information in the public domain would greatly impede the running of the country ?




To a certain extent it might impede the running of the country and of unions. I certainly don't want the government to have to disclose expenses relating to some meeting or other that was held in confidence if that information could be damaging. But you must judge the disclosure rules for companies, unions and politicians each on their own merits. What I have said is that the disclosure rules you are suggesting for business are damaging and pointless. You and Noco can argue about the unions and politicians.



> As pointed out to you, union membership is not compulsory. If potential members don't want to join a union they have the option of not doing so. Compulsory union membership is* illegal*. That seems to be the same principle to me as not buying shares.




Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point I was making is that union membership is necessary to get certain jobs. Without it, no job. You can choose to not join the union if you don't want, but then you don't get the job. This seems certainly the case in the building industry, especially for those sites where a union is allowed to vet potential employees and decide whether they are going to be taken on or not.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> And he flew to Uzbekistan on the 20th and spent 4 days in Tashkent. Didn't we learn that the Vale CEO was there the exact same time and isn't Tashkent the HQ of XXX Co."
> 
> It would only take the most rudimentary of detective work to build up a picture of who the company is dealing with (take over targets, key customers, key suppliers etc).




That's a fairly weak argument. If sensitive information was involved the data could be aggregated to "travel expenses" or "dining expenses" or whatever.

There are such things as mobile phones, email and video conferencing these days. Do peole really need to spend 5 nights in Aspen during the ski season to "entertain" clients ? That's no different to Julie Bishop using taxpayer funds to go to the AFL . In other words, "rorts".


----------



## Tisme (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> There are such things as mobile phones, email and video conferencing these days. Do peole really need to spend 5 nights in Aspen during the ski season to "entertain" clients ? That's no different to Julie Bishop using taxpayer funds to go to the AFL . In other words, "rorts".




The information is already available via the FBT return and annual audit. 

If shareholders are happy enough to pay ~147% on frivolity and not ask if there is a cost benefit, they deserve lower ROIs ....IMHO


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> The information is already available via the FBT return and annual audit.
> 
> If shareholders are happy enough to pay ~147% on frivolity and not ask if there is a cost benefit, they deserve lower ROIs ....IMHO




As long as the same standards apply to unions and delegates are not required to publish their credit card details, then that's fine. If politicians want to make an example out of union officials while leaving themselves and their business mates to follow a lesser standard of scrutiny then that doesn't pass the pub test IMHO.


----------



## Tisme (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as the same standards apply to unions and delegates are not required to publish their credit card details, then that's fine. If politicians want to make an example out of union officials while leaving themselves and their business mates to follow a lesser standard of scrutiny then that doesn't pass the pub test IMHO.




Only a dill would know that any of the Abbott inspired commissions are merely for political gain. He lived and still lives life of privilege, with a sanitised view of all things. His idea of roughing it with the low class is to visit aboriginal communities for a week with the press and all mod cons in tow.

The unions are merely a whipping boy to the Libs. An easy bogey that gets them votes. That's not to say unions are innocent victims, but to merely point out that people like Tony are willing to jump into gutter politics if it means power.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> Only a dill would know that any of the Abbott inspired commissions are merely for political gain. He lived and still lives life of privilege, with a sanitised view of all things. His idea of roughing it with the low class is to visit aboriginal communities for a week with the press and all mod cons in tow.
> 
> The unions are merely a whipping boy to the Libs. An easy bogey that gets them votes. That's not to say unions are innocent victims, but to merely point out that people like Tony are willing to jump into gutter politics if it means power.




As far as the CFMEU goes , it's pretty obvious that this is a bunch of thugs who will do whatever they can to enrich themselves at the expense of their members and something should be done about them, but taking a broad brush approach and applying restrictive legislation to every union is not the way to go.

Charge union officials with fraud if a case can be proved, the same goes for politicians and business execs, all of whom seem to think they are living in an ivory tower paid for by others.


----------



## noco (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As far as the CFMEU goes , it's pretty obvious that this is a bunch of thugs who will do whatever they can to enrich themselves at the expense of their members and something should be done about them, but taking a broad brush approach and applying restrictive legislation to every union is not the way to go.
> 
> Charge union officials with fraud if a case can be proved, the same goes for politicians and business execs, all of whom seem to think they are living in an ivory tower paid for by others.





There has already been over 100 union officials charged on over 1000 offenses.


----------



## Tisme (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As far as the CFMEU goes , it's pretty obvious that this is a bunch of thugs





Well yes and no. I have certainly been given a going over by more "moderate" unions and it sticks in my craw to think I can't retaliate in kind. Insofar as the CFMEU, like any mob, the rank and file are generally rather convivial, but put them in a pack and have a spiteful steward whip them in to a frenzy ....you know just like Tony Abbott does to the LNP.


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a fairly weak argument. If sensitive information was involved the data could be aggregated to "travel expenses" or "dining expenses" or whatever.
> 
> There are such things as mobile phones, email and video conferencing these days. Do peole really need to spend 5 nights in Aspen during the ski season to "entertain" clients ? That's no different to Julie Bishop using taxpayer funds to go to the AFL . In other words, "rorts".




Isn't that what I just said. If you redact the sensitive parts, how do you know the expense is justified. If an item just listed as "dining expenses" and to the value of $10K, what does that tell you about whether the expense is justified or not.



> Do people really need to spend 5 nights in Aspen during the ski season to "entertain" clients ?




Yes, if that is what it takes to get the business and many times it is. I know from working with a large tech company that when we invite customers to dinner (which is expected when we sell to them) and you give them the courtesy of choosing the wines, they will often have no qualms of picking $200 -$300 bottles, even though they wouldn't dream of outlaying that amount per bottle if they were buying for themselves or for just an in-company event.

Also, most business events where suppliers/clients meet are in exotic (to the lay person) locations as that is where the event organisers can attack the biggest crowds. CES, the world's biggest Consumer Electronics Show is held in Vegas. If you are in that industry, you have to be there.



> There are such things as mobile phones, email and video conferencing these days. Do peole really need to spend 5 nights in Aspen during the ski season to "entertain" clients ?




So you not only want to waste their time producing expense lists with all useful information redacted, but you now want to tell them how they should run their business. As I said, spending 5 nights in Aspen may be no choice of theirs and many execs would simply prefer to be back home with their families. I can assure you from experience that mobile phones, emails, video conferencing etc. are day to day communication methods used by almost all companies. But there are times when the personal touch is needed.

You seem to think all execs are like Clive Palmer, Alan Bond or Christopher Skates. They were flamboyant execs who had excessive control of the companies and ran their companies as if they were their own piggy banks.

That is certainly not the real world.

A final point regarding aggregation of expenses is that they are aggregated and published in their profit and loss report, usual under Sales Expenses. Providing useless detail is just a silly impost.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> You seem to think all execs are like Clive Palmer, Alan Bond or Christopher Skates. They were flamboyant execs who had excessive control of the companies and ran their companies as if they were their own piggy banks.
> 
> That is certainly not the real world.





They existed, therefore they are part of the real world.

People like them are the reasons new laws needed to be introduced to protect shareholders.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/19/curbing-golden-handshakes-nothing-succeeds-like-failure/



bellenuit said:


> So you not only want to waste their time producing expense lists with all useful information redacted, but you now want to tell them how they should run *their* business.




Now, here is where we get into the arrogance factor. Company execs do NOT OWN the business, the shareholders do. If you run your own business then you can spend your own money. If you spend other people's money then you are accountable to them.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

Finally, this discussion started with the repeal of laws in Queensland that required union delegates to publish their credit card statements.

All I'm saying is that if unions should be required to do this, then so should businesses and politicians.

THE END.


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> They existed, therefore they are part of the real world.
> 
> People like them are the reasons new laws needed to be introduced to protect shareholders.
> 
> ...




You haven't explained how producing a list of expenses aggregated in some sort of way to provide anonymity both of people and of location could in any way make an exec accountable. And how would you even know that the aggregations are true? Even if, for instance, you specified how many were involved, such as "Dinner with 5 guests", how could you know whether the guests are legitimate business parties of some sort, or just some mates he wants to treat out at the company expense.

Of course, one could take a random sample and audit them. But the financial accounts of the company are audited and the auditor puts his signature under penalty that the accounts fairly represent the transactions of the company.

You just seem to be flaying around with a proposal that has NO useful utility to anybody, but puts a huge impost on the company to comply. This and the fact that other than you, no shareholder or shareholder group has ever asked for such information.

You do realise (or perhaps you don't) that execs are put there by the board because they are regarded as professionals who will act with integrity in the interests of the company. Some don't and get voted out. But when you put these people in such responsible positions you give them a degree of trust and don't burden them with pointless bureaucracy. If the board suspects rorting, they can have the matter investigated But shareholders in general know that there are sufficient safeguards in place that they don't need to burden their execs with petty bureaucracies, particularly when such bureaucracies would likely, due the the cost and time involved, be detrimental to their own interests as shareholders.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> If the board suspects rooting, they can have the matter investigated But shareholders in general know that there are sufficient safeguards in place that they don't need to burden their execs with petty bureaucracies.




As I said before the Boards may be in on the rorts as well. The desire for personal benefit at someone elses expense does not rest solely with union leaders. Politicians and business leaders who attack unionists for being corrupt are in glass houses as shown in various exposes over the years like the "bottom of the harbour schemes" and politicians expenses scandals.

Businesses are in control of much larger funds than unions and you can't convince me that there is no fiddling going on in the name of shareholder benefits.



> This and the fact that other than you, no shareholder or shareholder group has ever asked for such information.




Shareholder discontent is growing.

https://www.australianshareholders.com.au/news/get-tough-remuneration-company-boards-told


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As I said before the Boards may be in on the rorts as well. The desire for personal benefit at someone elses expense does not rest solely with union leaders. Politicians and business leaders who attack unionists for being corrupt are in glass houses as shown in various exposes over the years like the "bottom of the harbour schemes" and politicians expenses scandals.
> 
> Businesses are in control of much larger funds than unions and you can't convince me that there is no fiddling going on in the name of shareholder benefits.
> 
> ...




You still fail to show the benefit of providing redacted expense information?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> You still fail to show the benefit of providing redacted expense information?




Comparisons can be made between other companies in the same sector to give an indication of which companies are an exec's playground and which give better value for money spent.


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> Worked for an Oz  corporation back in the mid seventies that made sure the various boards included a quota of union representation ... seems to have worked well because it is now a dominant world player in its field. The company had a novel idea that team play and genuine employee inclusion might be of benefit to the collective and profit.




What Socialist commie "corporation" is that?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

luutzu said:


> What Socialist commie "corporation" is that?




The Labor Party ?


----------



## Ves (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Businesses are in control of much larger funds than unions and you can't convince me that there is no fiddling going on in the name of shareholder benefits.



I'll hazard a guess that corporations probably don't get as much scrutiny compared to something more politicized like Unions or Governments because shareholders can still get a return on their investment despite such indiscretions.  

Whereas,  in terms of something where you're making a monetary contribution in return for representation (or voting for someone for the same) it's much harder to psychologically overlook someone dipping their hand in the cookie jar when the dividend you are receiving back is not measured in cash.

As a whole investors as a breed are only likely to show discontent when they're losing their money.  Obviously there are more ethically driven investors,  but they are more of a niche breed than anything.

I don't agree with this attitude, but that is what it looks to me like from the outside.


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Comparisons can be made between other companies in the same sector to give an indication of which companies are an exec's playground and which give better value for money spent.




But how can you make informative comparisons for items such as "Dinner $1K" and "Travel $10K". If you do not know who attended dinner or where the travel was to, or the purpose of the event, any comparison is useless. Perhaps for one company the CEO picked up the dinner tab for all attendees, at another it was picked by by the CIO and at another it would picked up by each attendee individually. An aggregate travel amount means nothing if you don't know to where the travel took place. Perhaps it was to a prospective client in some mining location that necessitated air charter and another company's was to a location serviced by a major airport. 

Unless you have specific information on the attendees, purpose of the trips etc., an entry of $10K vs $20K gives absolutely no useful information. 

And do you think for one moment that if genuine rorting was going on, such as spending $5K for "special services" in Soho that it would be itemised as such, not as "Dinner $5K"

And to be honest, do you think anybody (apart from you maybe) would go to the trouble of eliciting this information from all companies in the sector of a company they own, so as to make such comparisons that are undoubtably terribly flawed, when the real metrics that are used to value the performance of a company are readily available in financial reports and in a myriad of other places. If foul play is happening, it will likely be discovered in an audit report or by a whistleblower or by a disgruntled employee.

Your suggestion has no merit whatsoever in eliminating rorting or in working out who is using the company as a piggy bank. It just one big administrative hassle.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Your suggestion has no merit whatsoever in eliminating rorting or in working out who is using the company as a piggy bank. It just one big administrative hassle.




Look, do you deny that businesses are just as capable of rorting other people's money as politicians or unions ?The Skases and the Bonds and the current crop of chisellers who get massive salary packages and golden handshakes for failure prove otherwise.

That's the basic argument , that politicians are willing to impose on some people (the class enemy) what they are not prepared to impose on themselves or their mates.

If you don't like scrutiny of business, fine, but I don't expect to hear from you regarding more accountability by politicians or unions.


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Look, do you deny that businesses are just as capable of rorting other people's money as politicians or unions ?The Skases and the Bonds and the current crop of chisellers who get massive salary packages and golden handshakes for failure prove otherwise.
> 
> That's the basic argument , that politicians are willing to impose on some people (the class enemy) what they are not prepared to impose on themselves or their mates.
> 
> If you don't like scrutiny of business, fine, but I don't expect to hear from you regarding more accountability by politicians or unions.




But as I have already told you, I only commented on the ridiculous ineffective impost you suggest should be imposed on business. I was not part of the discussion regarding unions and politicians. That was you and Noco I think.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2017)

Another question is how much money is spent covering up "stuff ups" of those in charge?

That's another "hidden" cost of employing some individuals especially when those individuals are sufficiently senior to themselves authorise the spending required to cover their own blunders.

It's impossible to put a figure on it but it happens for sure.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> But as I have already told you, I only commented on the ridiculous ineffective impost you suggest should be imposed on business. I was not part of the discussion regarding unions and politicians. That was you and Noco I think.




OK, I'll just ask you if you think that union leaders , politicians and businessmen should be scrutinised equally ?


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, I'll just ask you if you think that union leaders , politicians and businessmen should be scrutinised equally ?




Well I partly answered that previously when I said that each should be judged on its own merits. 

Perhaps one way to do it is to have quasi boards overseeing the expenditure of both unions and politicians, like the BOD does for companies. In Germany, union members are often part of the companies' boards and I think that is a good idea. It provides a counter balance to the old boys club where that may be an issue and also gives unions an insight into the problems many companies face, in particular having to balance survival against lay-offs when times are bad.

For unions you would need people on the board who are appointed by the members but with some protection to ensure those proposed for election are not chosen by the same power brokers that run the union. 

For politicians I would suspect you would need a cross party committee to act as the board.

These boards would then be responsible for ensuring good governance. They would have power to get details on transactions where they may have a concern that something is amiss. Probably in the case of politicians, they may need an independent arbiter (perhaps a judge) to determine if certain expenses can be withheld from the committee where their disclosure may be deemed damaging to the national interest and could be exploited by committee members of opposite parties for political gain.

I would think such boards would be sufficient to keep rorting under control, but in the case of politicians I think you would first need a tightening up of what constitutes valid expenses. It makes no sense to have a board to oversee compliance with rules, if those rules are so vague that they allow rorting.

Whether they should be scrutinised equally is a qualified yes. Qualified to the extent that what is to be scrutinised may be different in each case as the ability to rort is not equal among the three. For instance rorting of electoral expenses would be unique to politicians and have no role in union elections or company appointments. But where rorting can take place, scrutiny should be vigorously pursued for each group when issues arise.


----------



## Tisme (24 January 2017)

luutzu said:


> What Socialist commie "corporation" is that?




LOL By today's standard I guess you'd be right, but back then it's character was pervasive in the USA and Europe as responsible capitalism.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2017)

bellenuit said:


> In Germany, union members are often part of the companies' boards and I think that is a good idea. It provides a counter balance to the old boys club where that may be an issue and also gives unions an insight into the problems many companies face, in particular having to balance survival against lay-offs when times are bad.




Some good ideas in that post thanks.

I think that having union members on the board is a good idea too (poacher turned gamekeeper ) ? 

Tisme previously mentioned that this practise turned out well in his experience. 

The UK seems to be running a good system of scrutinising politicians perks and we should take note.

Political donations is also a minefield that needs addressing. Perhaps with the increasing influence of minor parties something can be done about it.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> LOL By today's standard I guess you'd be right, but back then it's character was pervasive in the USA and Europe as responsible capitalism.




If it worked so well, why the change?

Was it because the commies lost and retreated with the fall of Berlin? 

Or the collapse of the Reds mean there are no longer any peer competitor the hippies can point to as an example to follow. Without competition, as we all know, is a very bad thing for those who benefit from competition.

Or could it be that our planners and their capitalists do not want any more educated, well-fed hippies and average Joe and family out there questioning and protesting Grand Strategies?

Or all of the above?

I'm not pointing out conclusions, serious


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Some good ideas in that post thanks.
> 
> I think that having union members on the board is a good idea too (poacher turned gamekeeper ) ?
> 
> ...




The Clinton Foundation has fired some 20 of its staff and is about to close shop. 

The donation has run dried.

I'm guessing that's because they've all learnt enough of the wisdom from Bill and Hill and thought to give Trump University a go.


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2017)

luutzu said:


> If it worked so well, why the change?
> 
> Was it because the commies lost and retreated with the fall of Berlin?
> 
> ...




I'm sure there are eminent studies on the reasons behind the change. The rise of consumerism probably plays a major part insofar it taps into the selfish side of us. Corporations are, afterall, just people in an insular polis; if those people are inclined to greed, envy, etc then the organisation will evolve to fit that character.

When I was younger and brash there were still plenty of management characters with the demeanor of Ronald Colman's "Charles Rainier", perhaps because of the privations experienced during and after WW2.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm sure there are eminent studies on the reasons behind the change. The rise of consumerism probably plays a major part insofar it taps into the selfish side of us. Corporations are, afterall, just people in an insular polis; if those people are inclined to greed, envy, etc then the organisation will evolve to fit that character.
> 
> When I was younger and brash there were still plenty of management characters with the demeanor of Ronald Colman's "Charles Rainier", perhaps because of the privations experienced during and after WW2.




You're not brash now?   But I have to look up Rainier so you're... quite matured 

People (and Capitalists before they're grouped as such) have always been greedy etc., so why did their greed are always evident since God created the world, then kind of stop for a generation after WW2, then back again. 

A few Dynastic heads on a few pikes scared the heck out of a few Royalties and ruling elites the world over, me think.

Anyway, people with everything ought to also spare a few bucks on some history books. To have everything, and then some, while the many have less and less... not only will that not last too long, or that it's immoral and wasteful, what the heck do you do with all that cash? I mean, after a few tens of millions, aren't the rest just zeroes?

Not worth risking the world being on fire, with your fortunes up in smoke and maybe you and your relative among the casualties.


----------

