Reds under Every Bed
Am so cranky, as always...
Lets just do an exercise in compare and contrast shall we:
John McDonald doing his little rant on a building site.
and
from the transcript of 4 Corners broadcast 18/06/07
Now apparently the difference between the first and and second incidents are that the first is an example of union bully-boy tactics and proof that the Unions are under the bed and going to ruin the economy (even if that means their members losing their jobs and living on the street obvs). The second is merely 'colourful' language and in no way having any bearing on the type of workplace that gives employees no choice but to accept AWAs and exerts the kind of pressure that can drive some to suicide...
Why is Rudd scrambling to hose this down is beyond me. Well not really, he's reacting to concerns in the community. I just don't know why he isn't just pointing to the quote above and saying "Listen, I know McDonald is an idiot, and his behaviour is unacceptable, but can we look at the bigger issue here people: Big Business considers you little worker bees to be worthless, below contempt, and here's the proof"
And the media is very happy to play along with this - further entrenching the public's hate and distrust of the Union Ogre.
Not happy.
Lets just do an exercise in compare and contrast shall we:
John McDonald doing his little rant on a building site.
and
from the transcript of 4 Corners broadcast 18/06/07
GREG WINN, TELSTRA CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER (voice only, 30 May 2007):
We're not running a democracy. We don't manage by consensus. We're criticised for it but the fact of the matter is we run an absolute dictatorship and that's what's going to drive this transformation and deliver results.
It's a cultural issue. If you can't get the people to go there, and you try once and you try twice, which is sometimes hard for me but I do believe in a second chance, then you just shoot 'em and get them out of the way you know and put people in that you can teach the new business process to and drive on.
And that's the kind of thing that you have to do if you're serious about changing things and we are obviously changing.
Now apparently the difference between the first and and second incidents are that the first is an example of union bully-boy tactics and proof that the Unions are under the bed and going to ruin the economy (even if that means their members losing their jobs and living on the street obvs). The second is merely 'colourful' language and in no way having any bearing on the type of workplace that gives employees no choice but to accept AWAs and exerts the kind of pressure that can drive some to suicide...
Why is Rudd scrambling to hose this down is beyond me. Well not really, he's reacting to concerns in the community. I just don't know why he isn't just pointing to the quote above and saying "Listen, I know McDonald is an idiot, and his behaviour is unacceptable, but can we look at the bigger issue here people: Big Business considers you little worker bees to be worthless, below contempt, and here's the proof"
And the media is very happy to play along with this - further entrenching the public's hate and distrust of the Union Ogre.
Not happy.
Labels: Cranky (again), Latte Sipping
posted by actonb at 2:43 pm
6 Comments:
No, AB, Rudd is reacting to concerns in the Labor party polling machine. Twats like Joe Macdonald give John Howard free kicks at Labour, at a time he can not afford them. Link Labor to union thugs and watch the polls plummet. People dont want that shit any more.
Macdonald and his shadow boxer, Kevin Reynolds, are obese toads who have lined their own huge guts (and penthouse apartments, too) with the wealth of thier positions. They are dinosaurs from an age that needs eradicating, because it has no place in society in 2007.
As for Greg Winn, such attitudes toward success are often the reason why businesses succeed or fail. Telstra is not there to be nice. It is there to deliver a profit. It does so through telecommunications. If it fails to deliver, its customers will go elsewhere. Mediocrity should not be tolerated (listen up Gen Y!). If you want touchy feely, go work for a mum and dad store where he does the books and she mans the till. In big business, if your competition is drowning, you don't save them, you put a hose in their mouth (Ray Kroc, mastermind of MacDonalds).
The irony that I would never vote Liberal should not be lost.
Dude,
I have hesitated to comment thus yet because I wasn't entirely sure what I thought about all this.
So I'll dot-point it, and maybe I'll come to a reasoned argument by the time I finish (then again, perhaps not).
1. I have cancelled my Telstra service on the strength of that 4 Corners documentary. Referring to people in thw workplace as "savages" is frankly unacceptable.
2. I agree with your nuanced argument re McDonald, but don't think there's much room for nuance in the news-grab world of politics (sad, but not sure how to fix that).
3. I think Mountjoy has a point that there are some union leaders (not all, most are damn lovely people) who push the envelope way too far, particularly when it comes to threatening violence against employers. Does that mean they should be expelled from the Party? I'm not sure - I guess that's what the constitution that the Labor Party has on its web site is for.
4. Re the entrenching of union ogre-ness, yes, you've definitely got a point there. But some of that (not all of it - one wonders what the Building Commission is up to with secret surveillance) could have been avoided by not behaving like a complete dickhead in front of cameras.
5. Unions are good. I like them. I'm a member of one, and go to lots of their events.
6. Building workers can now be fined and imprisoned for refusing to detail the content of union meetings. How the hell is that right?
hmmm. No, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive point in there.
But thanks MsB, I agree that there doesn't seem to be much consistency in people's characterisation of groups as "good" or "bad". A level playing field in the employment world would be something we could well aspire to, we certainly don't have it now.
I've worked in the construction game as a consultant for nearly 10 years and the type of behaviour exhibited by this fat union bloke is far from uncommon. There was a time in the not so distant past when union officials made a living out of bullying people. To say i wasnt shocked by his colourful language is an understatement.
As for telstra, yeh the average person may be shocked but, they arent exactly running a charity...if they go bust every employee would lose their jobs. Most people in the corporate would accept this. Plus they must have alot of 'dead wood' they need to clear from their days as a public entity now they have to compete.
The difference is, that the union guy threatened physical violence while the telstra guy didnt.
I should point out that when I expressed lack of clarity about whether people who threatened violence should be expelled from the ALP, the point I was making was that I'm not sure if there is anything in their constitution which prohibits it.
But having not read the document, I don't actually know.
Mushroom - I agree that Telstra would do better by their employees if they did not go bust. But I also think there's a big difference between institutionalised workplace bullying and "clearing out dead wood". As well as a bigger difference again between a happy productive workforce and a cowed, frightened, intimidate workforce (which labour market research suggests is much less productive).
GW
Donnie - I had a feeling you would know of McDonald, being our WA correspondant. I understand why this is happening. I just don't like it. And I know how Big Business works. I work for Small Business that is true (a Mum & Dad store if you will!) but we are agents for a couple of Really Big Businesses and know what pressure is applied to get results.
GW - I'm not the member of a Union at this point in time. But I have been, and MrB still is. And I think I've explained on your blog why I'm definitely on the 'Unions R Good' side of the argument. They just need to change and adapt and confront the reasons why their memebership is falling so dramatically. There is a place for unionism is our workplaces. And I don't know why the Media aren't pointing out the fact that all these Employers' Groups are in fact UNIONS. But with the vested interests of very few at heart.
Shrooms - I wasn't shocked by his language either. Although I thought that was standard in the Building Industry :). I was shocked by Greg Winn's language however. Because of the way he referred to his employees. True they're not running a Charity, but as GW points out, there's a difference between treating employees with respect but expecting results, and what Telstra does. Don't you think that the Unions realise that businesses need to survive in order to keep their members in jobs? To think they would prefer a phyrric victory over Big Business that resulted in loss of jobs and livlihoods is just ridiculous.
And 'physical violence'? Don't you think referring to 'shooting 'em' not the slightest bit inappropriate? Especially when demonstrated that such practises led to the suicide of some employees? I find that just as abhorrant as the McDoanld's antics.
McDonald and Reynolds are just parasitic dinosaurs that belong back in the UK in the 1950's. They use vitriol and abuse to threaten and intimidate workers and employees. Shroom is right, though - what the public saw is just a mild dose of the sort of stuff that has gone on in the past. The irony is, if the unions can present an intelligent, and measured face like Greg Combet did while the Tasweigen Two were underground, they will gain some respect. But explaining that some of the rock apes who bow and scrape at McDonald and Reynold's feet may just take a generation....
Post a Comment
<< Home