tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,452
- Reactions
- 6,504
The business man would be using HIS money.
Thomsons using other peoples money---those who have entrusted him with it.
BIG DIFFERENCE
Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?
- Thread starter dutchie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- craig thomson
The business man would be using HIS money.
Thomsons using other peoples money---those who have entrusted him with it.
BIG DIFFERENCE
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
An executive works for a private company and does not hold public office. Not quite the same.
Not if he's using his company supplied credit card . There is no difference to a union supplied credit card, they both use 'shareholders' money.
Oh really ? Plenty of ex businessmen go into Parliament. If he previously used a company credit card for escorts isn't that the same deal as Thomson ?
- Joined
- 25 July 2010
- Posts
- 1,120
- Reactions
- 284
If a business exec used shareholder funds to pay for hookers, I'm fairly sure he would have lost his job BEFORE the criminal investigation even came close - and they'd assist the police investigation too.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Yes. To be quite honest, I couldn't care less about the escorts. There wouldn't be a large company in this country that doesn't use them. It's the embezzlement of funds from the HSU that gets me. And in that sense, I could care less whether Thomson was embezzling money from BHP or the HSU.
Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if he was in the private sector because he would have been sacked in disgrace years ago. But that goes to the culture of some parts of the union movement, which is probably for another thread.
I'm not sure about that. If he was making money for the business, or had some control over the company secretary, then I think a blind eye may have been turned , even just to avoid embarrassment for the company, in which case it's no different to the Thomson case. I think there is probably a lot that could be turned up about the conduct of businessmen that is no different to the Thomson case.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Without evidence, that's a pretty hollow statement full of assumptions.
Australia has been ranked the least corrupt country in the G20 and 8th in the World. Hardly, the sort of environment that allows executives to steal, just because they're doing a good job.
http://www.news.com.au/business/australia-least-corrupt-country-in-g20/story-e6frfm1i-1226211210544
It depends on your definition of "theft".
Is travelling business class on airlines and staying at high priced hotels on shareholders funds when cheaper ones would suffice classified as "theft" ?
Private jets vs commercial airlines ?
Chauffer driven cars vs public transport ?
Execs have a lot of perks that they don't really need, and the shareholders are paying for them.
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
Remember Richard Pratt..lol
Maybe no ho will go on TV cause of tax, as I suspect they avoid paying the proper amount.
Also, I think the expensive ones are often respectable Uni students and mums and the exposure would be pretty harsh, unless your ID was protected, which would lower the worth, or you got offered a too big to refuse payout.
It would be not unknown for shareholder funds to be expended on gentlemans entertainment, under certain circumstances and jurisdictions, that may be acceptable.
He hasnt enacted that defence though, nor can he imo, expending Union Members funds in that way cannot be justified
Maybe no ho will go on TV cause of tax, as I suspect they avoid paying the proper amount.
Also, I think the expensive ones are often respectable Uni students and mums and the exposure would be pretty harsh, unless your ID was protected, which would lower the worth, or you got offered a too big to refuse payout.
It would be not unknown for shareholder funds to be expended on gentlemans entertainment, under certain circumstances and jurisdictions, that may be acceptable.
He hasnt enacted that defence though, nor can he imo, expending Union Members funds in that way cannot be justified
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
I take it you've never had a job that required a lot of travel.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Of course not, Thompson is being paid by the taxpayer and is protecting a corrupt Govt, that singles him out for special treatment.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Not in a private jet, no
Your faulty assumption is that using private jets doesn't save the company money.
I don't even know how to respond to that misreading... Think I might leave it because you are clearly not capable of ... well, its difficult to say what you are not capable of.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Well, they can simply cease to become shareholders if they don't approve of executive conditions.
If you seriously expect a CEO to travel to the other side of the world in economy, you're well and truly out of touch with business.
Ditto any expectation that they should get off a long flight and haul their bag on the train to the city.
Just silly.
And if you could explain why you are so defending the corrupt Craig Thomson, implicitly approving of him ripping off the low paid members of the HSU, that would be welcome.
- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
Or anyone for that matter. I use to travel a lot for work, and its amazing how many people seem to equate getting on a plane to being on holiday, which business travel is far from. Getting off a 15-20 hour flight and being expected to front up for a full day in the office is exhausting, even when flying business class. There's also an assumption that while on the flight you will be working. Part of the reason I left it all was I was over the long hours.
We stayed in Hilton equivalent hotels, which is hardly glamorous. Obviously more senior directors/VP's/Presidents would often stay at Westins etc but why shouldn't they? For longer stays, or in cities we often travelled to we were given serviced apartments. It was really a place to crash at night though, I certainly wasn't in the day spa getting a foot massage.
Re private jets, most of them are very basic (some of the small ones only have an "emergency" toilet, which is just a regular seat that you lift up in the main cabin) and very cramped. Everyone I know who flew on them (I never did myself), would take a commercial business class seat over a private jet any day of the week. Their main advantage is the time saved, especially when flying to obscure points on the map.
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
cr@p entertainment value though, and much less credible + less pay.
Federal Police wanting to ask questions later maybe ?..heat..
Strength in numbers would be best perhaps...maybe they are discreet...I dunno
Fact: someone was paying big $$ for services...can you imagine Tony Abbotts joy if the exact nature of the services is revealed. I believe many would be wishing for this.
On the other hand, whats Julia G gonna possibly say if it turns out to be particularly egregious
Originally Posted by Ruby
Brad, you are being naive in the extreme! You are making excuses for him. This man's greed, arrogance and complete disregard for other people led him to (knowingly) do what he has done. You seem to be suggesting he is not responsible for his actions. Spare me! He deserves no sympathy.
Well diddums! Poor little Craig! He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions. We all have to face up to what we do. He can get pastoral care if he wants it. There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.
Well Brad, you clearly must be having a bad day!!
I don't think Ruby needs my support, but she articulately sums up her feelings about the Thomson case and makes very valid points about your judgement of this dishonourable character.
That you offer no constructive criticism of her comments other than attempts to belittle her indicates that you should perhaps have a good look at yourself.
Brad, you are being naive in the extreme! You are making excuses for him. This man's greed, arrogance and complete disregard for other people led him to (knowingly) do what he has done. You seem to be suggesting he is not responsible for his actions. Spare me! He deserves no sympathy.
Well diddums! Poor little Craig! He created the pressure and can diffuse the situation any time he wants to by taking responsibility for his actions. We all have to face up to what we do. He can get pastoral care if he wants it. There are plenty of counsellors / psychologists / priests around.
Well Brad, you clearly must be having a bad day!!
I don't think Ruby needs my support, but she articulately sums up her feelings about the Thomson case and makes very valid points about your judgement of this dishonourable character.
That you offer no constructive criticism of her comments other than attempts to belittle her indicates that you should perhaps have a good look at yourself.
