Toyota is Gone. Goodbye Australian Car industry 1896-2017.

[vr94ss]

@Jester
I thought it only fair to memorialise you in my sig, Reaper style.. Anyone know what happened to Dakster?

 

[c2105026]

It's ridiculous to liken working conditions (ie laws governing employment conditions) between Australia and third world countries and say that's what employers would like to do. Intelligent, successful businesses, regardless of the industry, know that their employees are the most valuable asset they have. Countries like China and those in South East Asian are still developing industrial nations compared to Australia. They don't have the legislative protection that employees have in Australia AND, their societies have very different values on employee health and welfare. They live in conditions that we would never accept and their costs of living are much lower. They might like to live the lifestyles we do, but they know they can't yet because their society hasn't evolved to the extent that ours has as a "Western" democracy.

You might know of a few bosses who you believe would love to treat their Australian staff the same as a Chinese employer, but they wouldn't last two minutes if they tried to do so. Their "treatment" of their employees in third world countries is probably no worse than any other employers in those regions and only appear harsh because of what we are used to and accept as the norm here. No, I wouldn't work for $95 a week in Australia, but if that was sufficient to provide the basic essentials of life in Thailand or China, what's the problem? Given the much lower living costs over there, it's probably equivalent to a much higher income here, anyway.

Admittedly, a lot of the conditions we enjoy today arose through the efforts of unionism, but to those here who defend unions, why is it that unions account for only around 14% of the Australian workforce these days and that proportion continues to remain very low? Has the workforce at large decided that unions are becoming redundant, or are people genuinely fed up with militant unionism, which seems to be on the rise at present (thanks, Julia) and walking away?

Australia is becoming more white collared, I suppose; we obviously don't manufacture like we used to, less labouring etc. Not many white-collared unions out there. And if there is, membership is fragmented, and a union will have limited effectiveness. OTOH if you have a vast sea of people with basically the same job eg. holden workers, nurses, public school teachers; all going through the one employer; a union can be useful in collective bargaining. Imagine a High school principal negotiating 50 different individual teacher awards? Would be time prohibitive. Also, in some industries and large organisations eg. healthcare, education, a union can be useful if you strike difficulty with policy, protocol, difficulties with management etc.

That being said......unions do need to be very wary in looking for pay rises, for if you are in the private sector it will automatically mean your business you work for is less profitable. If your business is on shaky ground, it is utterly stupid to ask for anything more. This is where the auto workers came unstuck. If they pulled their head in and were a bit flexible, there may have been a difficult outcome. I also think it is unethical for a union to go out in solidarity with another over an issue that does not affect them, however I don't think that happens anymore. For the public sector, unionists there need to realise that there isn't a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds, and money spent paying say police more means less can go to healthcare, for example. As such, any increases should only be kept to CPI, unless there is productivity improvement.

That being said I do not recall any strikes occurring anywhere in the last 5-10 years that were publicised in the news. Unions are no more militant now than they have ever been. If you want industrial trouble, look to the 70s and 80s.

 

[vr94ss]

Australia is becoming more white collared, I suppose; we obviously don't manufacture like we used to, less labouring etc. Not many white-collared unions out there. And if there is, membership is fragmented, and a union will have limited effectiveness. OTOH if you have a vast sea of people with basically the same job eg. holden workers, nurses, public school teachers; all going through the one employer; a union can be useful in collective bargaining. Imagine a High school principal negotiating 50 different individual teacher awards? Would be time prohibitive. Also, in some industries and large organisations eg. healthcare, education, a union can be useful if you strike difficulty with policy, protocol, difficulties with management etc.

That being said......unions do need to be very wary in looking for pay rises, for if you are in the private sector it will automatically mean your business you work for is less profitable. If your business is on shaky ground, it is utterly stupid to ask for anything more. This is where the auto workers came unstuck. If they pulled their head in and were a bit flexible, there may have been a difficult outcome. I also think it is unethical for a union to go out in solidarity with another over an issue that does not affect them, however I don't think that happens anymore. For the public sector, unionists there need to realise that there isn't a bottomless pit of taxpayer funds, and money spent paying say police more means less can go to healthcare, for example. As such, any increases should only be kept to CPI, unless there is productivity improvement.

That being said I do not recall any strikes occurring anywhere in the last 5-10 years that were publicised in the news. Unions are no more militant now than they have ever been. If you want industrial trouble, look to the 70s and 80s.

Funny you mention Principals. Way back in the seventies the principal of our school gave us rights. Yep, Marist bros gave us rights. JMJ. It was a good thing, students got to put foward what we would like to see, learn etc. We got to build rockets and make their fuel then set fire to them on the school oval. Build model planes and have a couple of hours a week flying and discussing them and other aero ****. Smoking age was 16 then, upper highschool had a smoking room. Bet that's gone! Onya Br. Timothy.

Edit: Churchlands MB boys from those days might know him as Stringer. No better bloke to cop the cane from, it was a badge of honour! Top bloke.

 

[Ian Johnston]

Marist Bros, now thats another story on its own.:boxing:

 

[Jesterarts]

@Jester
I thought it only fair to memorialise you in my sig, Reaper style.. Anyone know what happened to Dakster?

That sign reads like on of those self help/empowerment tapes from the 90's. Haha.

 

[Immortality]

That's all well and good but given the opportunity business owners would rape their employees and grind them into the ground - just look at conditions and wages in China - Aus business owners would gladly do this given the opportunity.

With the right political support I would suggest that this is very possible for many medium to large businesses. Large publicly listed companies only really care about 1 thing and that is profit. The average Joe Blogs on the shop floor means nothing to the GM or CEO, your just another employee number on a spread sheet.

This is happening a lot in NZ.

I agree with you that competing is just not feasible. We have a standard of living here that would require people to have 5 jobs just to scrape by.

With that being said, instead of making things HARDER for manufacturing companies to stay here, everyone should be trying to make things EASIER. Across the board. Things like Carbon Tax for example, put great strain on an already struggling industry, adds more overheads and red tape.

I do believe that some unions do have a place. I believe they have achieved great things in the past. However theres a point where trying to achieve whats best for the work force becomes nothing but self righteous greed and being difficult for the sake of being difficult and thats exactly what we have seen from the Automotive Manufacturing industry.

The unions here have done absolutely nothing to help these companies survive. Theyve pushed this us and against them mantra right into the hands of foreign workers.

Toyota seemed completely willing to accept a higher price if the workers were willing to meet them half way. Unions strong armed it and here we are. They accelerated the process and forced the hand. Is having 8 days holiday instead of 21 days over Christmas truly worth pushing and losing your job over?

I do agree with a lot you have said, Unfortunately I don't know the finer details of exactly what conditions were in the contract so it's difficult to say if the request is reasonable or not however the method of negotiating or refusing to by setting almost impossible conditions to actually meet and discuss is appalling to say the least.

I went through some fairly tough negotiations 18 months ago, a lot of the staff were prepared to walk off the job, however that was the last port of call, not the first. In the end, we managed to negotiate a small pay rise without loosing any other conditions in the contract and a good many of the members think that we screwed them over...

Explain then, why employees (the hard working, dedicated kind) in Australia in NON-UNIONISED businesses are happier, earn more money and have better conditions of employment than unionised work forces. Explain too why such businesses are also some of the most prosperous in the country and show no signs of closing their doors any time soon.

This is probably mostly true for small to medium sided companies where the boss is probably on a first name basis with all his staff and gets his hands dirty when the work load demands it.

 

[c2105026]

This is probably mostly true for small to medium sided companies where the boss is probably on a first name basis with all his staff and gets his hands dirty when the work load demands it.

Looking at Australian bureau of statistics, Rajesh is only partially correct, some non-unionised workforces do earn more than unionised....however....for other industries and job types the reverse is also true.

 

[mpower]

It's ridiculous to liken working conditions (ie laws governing employment conditions) between Australia and third world countries and say that's what employers would like to do. Intelligent, successful businesses, regardless of the industry, know that their employees are the most valuable asset they have. Countries like China and those in South East Asian are still developing industrial nations compared to Australia. They don't have the legislative protection that employees have in Australia AND, their societies have very different values on employee health and welfare. They live in conditions that we would never accept and their costs of living are much lower. They might like to live the lifestyles we do, but they know they can't yet because their society hasn't evolved to the extent that ours has as a "Western" democracy.

You might know of a few bosses who you believe would love to treat their Australian staff the same as a Chinese employer, but they wouldn't last two minutes if they tried to do so. Their "treatment" of their employees in third world countries is probably no worse than any other employers in those regions and only appear harsh because of what we are used to and accept as the norm here. No, I wouldn't work for $95 a week in Australia, but if that was sufficient to provide the basic essentials of life in Thailand or China, what's the problem? Given the much lower living costs over there, it's probably equivalent to a much higher income here, anyway.

Admittedly, a lot of the conditions we enjoy today arose through the efforts of unionism, but to those here who defend unions, why is it that unions account for only around 14% of the Australian workforce these days and that proportion continues to remain very low? Has the workforce at large decided that unions are becoming redundant, or are people genuinely fed up with militant unionism, which seems to be on the rise at present (thanks, Julia) and walking away?

You're right, businesses are intelligent - why large multi-nationals are so smart in the US that most of them pay 0 tax and screw over the whole country!

The Corporate Rape of America | Bud Meyers

Jay Rockefeller at a hearing: "Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry...or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it." One billionaire claims the 1% works harder than the 99%.

Facebook Has Figured Out How to Pay $0 in Foreign Taxes. Here's How. - PolicyMic

The background: The Cayman Islands have long been a popular tax haven, providing individuals and corporations with the ability to shield their earnings from home country taxes, and enabling organized crime groups to launder their profits. Last week, the United States government signed an agreement with the Cayman Islands called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act that will require the country, and companies in it, to provide greater transparency.

Ireland’s role in tax avoidance, referred to as the “double Irish,” is more recent. It was pioneered by Apple, and according to a congressional hearing in May, the double Irish has saved Apple at least $74 billion in U.S. taxes since 2009. Tech companies like Intel, Google, LinkedIn, and Oracle have all adopted the practice, and are benefiting from similar savings. In the scheme, companies establish two Irish subsidiaries, one of which is held in a tax haven, usually the Cayman Islands. The non-Cayman subsidiary can then collect payments, which it pays to the Cayman subsidiary as royalties. Those royalties are written off as business expenses, reducing the share of taxable income in Ireland and avoiding U.S. taxes entirely.

The takeaway: Both Facebook and Hodge are likely right. Facebook’s exploitation of the tax loophole was almost certainly legal in nature, but there’s no question that the convoluted setup is explicitly geared toward avoiding taxes in highly profitable advertising markets like the UK. While Facebook shouldn’t necessarily be faulted for taking advantage of a known flaw, it’s also entirely fair for governments to exert pressure on Ireland in an attempt to rectify the situation.

Businesses run to increase their own bottom line, not yours. You are in fact a liability, a cost to be reduced if possible to 0 and if that's not possible to $2 an hour in India or China.

 

[Calaber]

You're right, businesses are intelligent - why large multi-nationals are so smart in the US that most of them pay 0 tax and screw over the whole country!

The Corporate Rape of America | Bud Meyers



Facebook Has Figured Out How to Pay $0 in Foreign Taxes. Here's How. - PolicyMic



Businesses run to increase their own bottom line, not yours. You are in fact a liability, a cost to be reduced if possible to 0 and if that's not possible to $2 an hour in India or China.

I will accept your arguments to a point. However, taking the first one into account, (ie the US), to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have tax havens like the Virgin or Cayman Islands for companies to register from or send profits to. Our banking systems are far more regulated than the open market system the US employs and their taxation system operates differently too. We have restriction here which the US businesses would never tolerate because they consider them to be "socialist", anti free-trading, or just plain illegal. (such as large duopolies being part owners of fuel supplies.)

The second point, regarding utilisation of foreign labour, has validity, because so many Australian companies have ceased local production and utilise foreign plants to manufacture goods under well known Aussie brands. This applies particularly to clothing, for example, where you pay a typical Australian type price for a shirt made in China or India, so the profit margins are probably enormous. But why did the company go to an overseas firm in the first place? Probably because legislation and wage demands made local production uneconomical and the firm would not have survived if they had tried to stay in Australia. Hardly "raping the workforce" - more like rational economic thinking. If local manufacturing costs exceed your sales capacity and profits, what else can you do? And is it really the employer's fault that those costs are too high?

 

[mpower]

I will accept your arguments to a point. However, taking the first one into account, (ie the US), to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have tax havens like the Virgin or Cayman Islands for companies to register from or send profits to. Our banking systems are far more regulated than the open market system the US employs.

The second point, regarding utilisation of foreign labour, has validity, because so many Australian companies have ceased local production and utilise foreign plants to manufacture goods under well known Aussie brands. This applies particularly to clothing, for example, where you pay a typical Australian type price for a shirt made in China or India, so the profit margins are probably enormous. But why did the company go to an overseas firm in the first place? Probably because legislation and wage demands made local production uneconomical and the firm would not have survived if they had tried to stay in Australia. Hardly "raping the workforce" - more like rational economic thinking. If local manufacturing costs exceed your sales capacity and profits, what else can you do? And is it really the employer's fault that those costs are too high?

Final point. (not directed exclusively at mpower).

To those on this forum who think that they are getting screwed by their employer, or whinge and bitch about working in this country and paying high taxes etc, why not nick off overseas and make that killing you obviously reckon is there to be made?

Come one, get real.

5 second google

Australian Brands' Use Of Cheap Overseas Labour Has Investors Worried | Business Insider

Qantas outsources its labour | Courier Mail Vital Interest Blog

Telstra tipped to outsource another 1000 Australian jobs

Your last point, if you are already rich you can benefit from moving operations overseas as trade restrictions continue to fall exposing our local farmers, manufacturers etc to wages pressure from sweat shops and slave labour in india and asia. If you are a regular joe - you're stuffed quite frankly.

Foreign firms flock to China despite business risks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The perils of doing business in China have come into focus again recently, with allegations that staff from the British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline paid $500 million in bribes over several years.

Four executives from GlaxoSmithKline were arrested in July, while its British-born head of China operations has been prevented from leaving the country.

There are now more than 40 Australians in Chinese jails - at least five of those are believed to have been jailed over commercial disputes.

The most high-profile case involved the former Rio Tinto employee Stern Hu, who was found guilty in 2010 of accepting bribes and stealing state secrets.

Earlier this year, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a briefing paper, warning the jailing of Australians was putting considerable strain on relations with China.

Sinogie Consulting managing director Bruce McLaughlin says many of the people who have fallen foul of the law in China have wrongly assumed that business is still done as it was 20 years ago – when connections would go a long way to getting deals done.