Union Corruption

[bellenuit]

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.



Shareholder discontent is growing.

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

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

 

[SirRumpole]

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]

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]

What Socialist commie "corporation" is that?

The Labor Party ?

 

[Ves]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

CMFEU workers rarely take elocution lessons at Mrs Grundy's Finishing School for Catholic Girls. :

still active