Union Corruption

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.

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.

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 ?

Union Corruption

noco

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

Smurf1976

SirRumpole

noco

bellenuit

SirRumpole

noco

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

bellenuit

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

noco

bellenuit

SirRumpole

Similar threads

Union Corruption

Apathetic at Best

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency