Peter Costello (1 Viewer)

[absolution*]

Whats the verdict?

 

[PoeticDuck]

I dunno.....he's bearable.... has at least 3% more personality then John Howard does...and he knows how to crack a joke too...he's a bit more riskier the Howard is....perhaps slightly less conservative?

Still don't like his face.....reminds me of mashed potato...

 

[PoeticDuck]

I say bearable in the sense comparing to John Howard...Johnny makes my skin crawl. No more then that though.....i wouldn't poke him with a stick.

 

[Italian Hotshot]

Anyone see him dance in Parliament yesterday? He is pretty funny and witty, but cocky and very childish. Maturity of a 4 year old.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Costello would make a fine PM. Sure his jokes are childish, but i could point out childish calls from ANY prominant member of parliament.

But at the moment i'm still willing to listen to both sides tho, Beazley does seem strong on defence, and I think that alot of the economic ideas that labor have, besides protectionist ideas and their stance on industrial relations.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

gah...the liberals dont hate unions on anything other than ideological grounds...


THEY DO NOT IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVEITY...(unless of course you pay your employees 3 dollar and hour and the union strikes)

The plumbers union came to my dad's work trying to sign up his employee's, they ALL decided it was a crappy deal.
If Labor got what it wanted, they'd be forced to be under that union.

edit: By the way, where is YOUR proof that unions don't impact on productivity?
Most of what i've read (no, not just hsc eco, bus) says that unions effected productivity growth negitively.

 

[absolution*]

edit: By the way, where is YOUR proof that unions don't impact on productivity?
Most of what i've read (no, not just hsc eco, bus) says that unions effected productivity growth negitively.

Yeah, asqy is wrong.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I was wrong about u absolution.

 

[absolution*]

Bloody
commerce people...

I will clarify and state that strikes in themselves don't impact very much on productivity.

Still wrong...

 

[absolution*]

Do you really want me to prove you wrong darling?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol far beyond it's real impact? while unions were at their strongest productivity/growth was at its lowest... i kno that's oversimplified, but i don't want to get into everything.

 

[absolution*]

Ok. Here it goes.

Lets wind back the clock to the advent of The Workplace Relations Act in 1996, which was an initiative of the Howard government, putting significant constraints on the power of unions in Australia by making unionism non-compulsory, by shifting enterprise bargaining and wage claims away from unionism through the advent of AWAs and by removing the many powers of the AIRC when it comes to wage cases.

Now according to the Bereau of Stats, "there has been an average annual number of 61 working days lost per thousand employees due to disputes since the introduction of the WR Act. In the 10 years prior to the commencement of the WR Act, the average rate was 174."

Now applying some simple mathematics...

61 working days per 1000 employees (per annum) equates to

61/365 days per 1000 employees

which is equal to 0.167 days of a year being forgone per 1000 employees

According to 2002-03 stats, there are 10,074,800 people in the workforce.

Thus, 0.167/1000x10,074,800 = 1682.4916

Therefore through union disputation 1682.4916 years of workforce capacity is forgone per year.

This however is relatively smaller than the "10 years prior" figures which would indicate..

174/365 = 0.4767

0.4767/1000x8,881,200(workforce 10 years prior) = 4233.77 years of workplace labour capacity forgone per year through disputation.

Therefore, through the advent of the WRA (1996) through workplace disputation only, the labour force is..

4233.77/1682.4916 = 2.51637 times more efficient with respect to union disputation since 1996.

 

[absolution*]

Literal statistic interpretation is at odds with your postmodernist view to life.

Oh asqy, just admit that im right and that Howards workpace relations reforms are beneficial to the economy....

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think making our economy run in the most efficient way, while still looking after some aspects of society, leads to a much nicer society and life for ALL of us, however it can widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
Virtual Monopolies should be forced to spread the wealth a little more, and smaller businesses have competition to force them to do that.

 

[leetom]

Ok. Here it goes.

Lets wind back the clock to the advent of The Workplace Relations Act in 1996, which was an initiative of the Howard government, putting significant constraints on the power of unions in Australia by making unionism non-compulsory, by shifting enterprise bargaining and wage claims away from unionism through the advent of AWAs and by removing the many powers of the AIRC when it comes to wage cases.

Now according to the Bereau of Stats, "there has been an average annual number of 61 working days lost per thousand employees due to disputes since the introduction of the WR Act. In the 10 years prior to the commencement of the WR Act, the average rate was 174."

Now applying some simple mathematics...

61 working days per 1000 employees (per annum) equates to

61/365 days per 1000 employees

which is equal to 0.167 days of a year being forgone per 1000 employees

According to 2002-03 stats, there are 10,074,800 people in the workforce.

Thus, 0.167/1000x10,074,800 = 1682.4916

Therefore through union disputation 1682.4916 years of workforce capacity is forgone per year.

This however is relatively smaller than the "10 years prior" figures which would indicate..

174/365 = 0.4767

0.4767/1000x8,881,200(workforce 10 years prior) = 4233.77 years of workplace labour capacity forgone per year through disputation.

Therefore, through the advent of the WRA (1996) through workplace disputation only, the labour force is..

4233.77/1682.4916 = 2.51637 times more efficient with respect to union disputation since 1996.

That's rediculous. The figures may be correct, but an exact historical example is needed for corroboration. Strikes will inevitably lead to lesser production than if there were no strikes, but depending on the scenario, the strike may have been entierly justified and the loss in production/output is made up for in the gain in workers rights.

However, it is possible I guess that a strike may have been entirely uncalled for, and that the blame for the fall in production can be laid upon the Union calling for strike.

That's why we have the Industrial Relations Commission- they determine a strikes' neccesity.

Yes, from a purely statistical point of view, strikes are detrimental to maximum production, but you fail to take into account any rise in working conditions that would have come about as a result of the strike.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well it's one of the few situations where i feel laissez-faire markets don't really work towards the greater good of society.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Still a bloody dirty communist!

I think i need to go have a shower, i feel so dirty

 

[absolution*]

I can't post articles here...which is a shame...

but thesescreen shots will help you find them...or you can use your own worth and find the heaps and heaps of articles weighing up the pros and cons.

http://img163.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img163&image=gfhrfgh2mv.jpg


JSTOR > type in your search > thousands of articles.

Id like to debate you, not UNSW phD scum.

 

[absolution*]

Perhaps considering disputation in an international context may benefit my argument. Under the Hawke/Keating Government ...

 

[absolution*]

That's rediculous.

What i find ridiculous is:

1) You cant spell ridiculous
2) You look exactly like that hyper-active twat from Neighbours
3) Your entire argument is proliferating the grounds on which disputation has positive effects when it is fairly obvious that i was in fact, not championing the social destructionism of unionism, but merely representing the significant economic constraints it places on the economy in an effort to prove asqy wrong.