This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut said:
rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.
gg
Click to expand...
+1.

rumpole said:
A rather arrogant attitude don't you think ? If you don't like it get lost. Shareholders have no right to question executive payments or benefits ?
Click to expand...
Are you deliberately being obtuse in order to muddy the argument? Shareholders routinely question anything about which they are at odds. The members of the HSU have not had the same opportunity.

If his members did get a better deal from this, would they argue ?

Things are not always black and white.
Click to expand...
If you can explain how Thomson's use of prostitutes produced benefits for the members of the HSU, I'm sure we'd all welcome the enlightenment. At this stage, such a suggestion seems desperate at best.


+1. Though I think you're perhaps wrongly attributing Rumpole-like views to Burnsie who has previously made pretty clear his disgust with the member for Dobell.


rumpole said:
If you do that, you have my respect and apologies.
Click to expand...
Read over various of the political threads over some years and you will see much objective criticism of all sides.
Do not assume that your own rigid political bias applies to the rest of us.
 
Julia said:
Though I think you're perhaps wrongly attributing Rumpole-like views to Burnsie who has previously made pretty clear his disgust with the member for Dobell.
Click to expand...

Thanks Julia, gg has misunderstood a previous post of mine but he should have known better considering my posts to date.
 
MrBurns said:
Thanks Julia, gg has misunderstood a previous post of mine but he should have known better considering my posts to date.
Click to expand...

My apologies Burnsie,

No excuse for distressing you except read tailend of conversation.

Still no excuse.

My apologies.

gg
 
Read over various of the political threads over some years and you will see much objective criticism of all sides.
Do not assume that your own rigid political bias applies to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I don't have rigid political views Julia, I just try to see both sides.

If anyone here denies that some businesses use prostitutes as a business expense to entertain clients they have their heads in the sand. No one has answered whether they as shareholders would approve if it increased company profits. It's a simple question. Morals vs money, which side would you be on ? Or would a blind eye be turned ?
 
rumpole said:
I don't have rigid political views Julia, I just try to see both sides.
Click to expand...

I never knew you were a comedian Rumpole. That statement had me laughing so hard I couldn't catch my breath for minutes. I think I actually turned blue.


Whatever the morals of businessmen using prostitutes, if they do or not, there is a completely different ethic involved. A union official is akin to a public servant whereas in business there is a profit motive.

The rules (and moral imperatives) are indeed different.
 
wayneL said:
I never knew you were a comedian Rumpole. That statement had me laughing so hard I couldn't catch my breath for minutes. I think I actually turned blue.
Click to expand...

It may interest you to know that had the Howard government invested a bit more in some infrastructure like power stations and the Murray Darling instead of blaming the States all the time, I would have voted for him in 2007. If MT was Lib leader I would vote for them now. Even though , or more likely because, he's not a true Liberal in that he is capable of showing some compassion and has a focus on big issues not petty politics.


I disagree. He is there to get a better deal for his members (shareholders). Why do think he should not use the same means to do that as business people ? (If that's what he did).

I see that as a double standard, and really proves the point that I have been making and have been pilloried for in this forum. You justify businesses using shoddy tactics to get business, but union leaders have to be lilly-white.

Thanks for proving my point wayneL.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
rumpole, what evidence have you got for this rather insulting statement? To say that members of ASF would dismiss the misappropriation of shareholders funds as "just business" makes me wonder about you mate.

gg
Click to expand...

See wayneL's post above. I take it you disassociate yourself from his view ? I may even ask for an apology but as I'm not a member of the Melbourne Club I probably won't get one
 

Rumpole, you have been trained well by the Fabians.

How did I justify using prostitutes in business exactly? My comments merely highlight why people have more right to be outraged by a union official buying prostitutes for HIMSELF using union funds than businessmen buying prostitutes for associates, if they do.

Mate, you are on a hiding to nothing trying to defend this cretin.
 
Father Wayne, perhaps you could go and offer Craig some comfort at this time? You seem like a reasonable bloke. :
Ruby and Burnsie have turned their backs on the flock...
 

Thomson will be tried for his offences and I hope he get what he deserves, so I'm not defending him.

Union officials are NOT public servants they get paid by their members just like businessmen get paid by the shareholders. The ethical situation is no different between the two areas.

IF Thomson bought escorts for people who he thought may give his members a better deal ( I'm not saying he did), then the situation is no different to execs buying hookers for clients. People who think there is a difference have double standards.
 
BradK said:
Father Wayne, perhaps you could go and offer Craig some comfort at this time? You seem like a reasonable bloke. :
Ruby and Burnsie have turned their backs on the flock...
Click to expand...

'Father'

I think not! :
 

I said 'akin' to public service.

You are trying to diminish the seriousness of his transgression by attempting to set up some sort of moral equivalency with a string of 'ifs'.

Sorry, it just won't wash with non-Fabians.
 
wayneL said:
I said 'akin' to public service.

You are trying to diminish the seriousness of his transgression by attempting to set up some sort of moral equivalency with a string of 'ifs'.

Sorry, it just won't wash with non-Fabians.
Click to expand...

Forget Thomson. I don't really care about him. I'm asking if the ethics of business and unions should be different. I don't believe they should be, you apparently do.
 
rumpole said:
Forget Thomson. I don't really care about him. I'm asking if the ethics of business and unions should be different. I don't believe they should be, you apparently do.
Click to expand...

Again you are trying to equate morals with business ethics. The two are different.

Leaving aside the moral argument, there is no difference in ethics between officials paying for prostitutes to the detriment of shareholders/members.

A business that uses prostitutes to enhance a business relationship and shareholder value by securing a deal may be unethical, but not necessarily. It would depend on other factors. Whether that is moral or not is another matter.

Let's not forget that the offer of prostitutes may actually be a deal breaker too. My father refused to deal with one particular company because of this practice, as apart from moral considerations, business ethics were expected to be set aside.
 
wayneL said:
Let's not forget that the offer of prostitutes may actually be a deal breaker too. My father refused to deal with one particular company because of this practice, as apart from moral considerations, business ethics were expected to be set aside.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most of us would do the same, refuse to deal with the company that is.

Attempts to bribe should be treated with suspicion. If a client wants special 'treatment' to get his business, that's a different matter. How this is dealt with would obviously vary amongst businesses/unions depending on their own moral codes and how badly they need the money.
 
Thomson's speech on Monday will have the Abbott Abbott Abbott sound about it.

He will blame others (probably union members) for his crimes, they hacked his mobile, used his drivers license and credit card, brilliantly forged his signature, on a number of occasions and then put them all back so he did not know. He was happy to sign off on all his credit card items later on though. He siphoned off money to pay for his election to parliament as this is what all those hard working health workers wanted - him to represent them in government.

Just like the Labor party its never their own fault if something goes wrong or if they are found out.

This speech will be an insult to all Australians.

All Australians (including both sides of parliament) should turn their backs to him when he sprouts his lies.

This bloke is a mongrel and is bludging off Australia.
 

I'll listen to what he has to say, but it had better be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fair Work - Crook Deck: High Stakes Poker
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
17K
sails
Fair Work Head Honcho Hides Risque Report
Replies
4
Views
4K
Calliope
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...