Union Cowardice

[Dirko]

It's a pity that just having a different opinion to some can be met with abusive posts instead of debate and I'd hope that doesn't continue.

Can you point out the posts for me?

[overloaded]

OK redandblack, answer this...

Do you think the driver of the vehicle could have got out of his car and walked through the gates to his work? (which is his right to do so)

[wycbloods]

People should have a look at youtube for the incident you are referring to. The footage on the ABC was his second attempt to drive through the picket line.

How about some of you people asking for R&B to defend the workers actions comment on the death of Sarel Singh in Laverton when he was ordered by the same management to go and clean a machine that was still running which lead to his death.

Are you guys are defending that company?

[Bat Pad]

People should have a look at youtube for the incident you are referring to. The footage on the ABC was his second attempt to drive through the picket line.

How about some of you people asking for R&B to defend the workers actions comment on the death of Sarel Singh in Laverton when he was ordered by the same management to go and clean a machine that was still running which lead to his death.

Are you guys are defending that company?

Haven't seen anyone defending the company, I have seen them defending a man (who I believe worked for a different company) who got bashed trying to go to work.

[redandblack]

OK redandblack, answer this...

Do you think the driver of the vehicle could have got out of his car and walked through the gates to his work? (which is his right to do so)

No, I don't think he could or should have.

I disagree with any violence, whether by him breaking someone's arm by negligent driving, or by the picketers following that.

I was trying to point out that the story wasn't as one-sided as the reporter made it, to suit her own agenda.

SJABC, I won't point out the posts, because that will only start things up again. There is one on this thread, there was one deleted by the Mods and there have been several others over the recent journey.

Most who disagree with me are able to do it by debate, which is what the forum should be about.

Let's just move on.

[Sojourner]

R&B - I have read that a lady concerned suffered an injured arm, nothing about it being broken though, is that actually the case?

Another slant on the discussion might be the prices Coles / Woolworths pay to this company and the relevance of them having 80% of the market and the capacity to screw companies like this over...

[wycbloods]

maybe worth a read.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Baiada-is-playing-chicken-with-livelihoods-and-lives/

[overloaded]

No one deserves to work in an unsafe environment or be unfairly paid - couldnt agree more. If this is what they are doing in that factory then shame on them.

To have a union conduct a vicious and violent protest like they did is also shameful. This sort of conduct is what gives unions a stigma and a bad name. It is not excusable in any way.

We live in a free country where one does not have to be associated with a union or go on strike. This was a man trying to go to work (which again is his right) and was violently prevented from doing so. In any event, why would anyone want to be part of a union that conducts itself that way?

For those poor souls who find themselves working in an unsafe environment and being paid unfairly, tell your employer to stick it up his arse and choose a better employer who will provide a safe environment and better pay. Is this a simplistic and maybe unrealistic view?...maybe it is, but relying on union thuggery to bring about goodwill between the employer and employee is never going to have a fairy tale ending in this day and age.

[scoob]

No one deserves to work in an unsafe environment or be unfairly paid - couldnt agree more. If this is what they are doing in that factory then shame on them.

To have a union conduct a vicious and violent protest like they did is also shameful. This sort of conduct is what gives unions a stigma and a bad name. It is not excusable in any way.

We live in a free country where one does not have to be associated with a union or go on strike. This was a man trying to go to work (which again is his right) and was violently prevented from doing so. In any event, why would anyone want to be part of a union that conducts itself that way?
For those poor souls who find themselves working in an unsafe environment and being paid unfairly, tell your employer to stick it up his arse and choose a better employer who will provide a safe environment and better pay. Is this a simplistic and maybe unrealistic view?...maybe it is, but relying on union thuggery to bring about goodwill between the employer and employee is never going to have a fairy tale ending in this day and age.

Power and Credit Cards

[Baron Greenback]

Have you got both eyes open R&B? ... really open?

That fella had every right to go to work without harassment and without having his car damaged.

He drove slow enough for those in the picket to get out of the way, then they went crazy attacking him and his car.

There is NO place for that anywhere, especially not in Australia.

If I want to enter my workplace I have every right to lawfully enter, regardless if there is a picket line or not.

The blame rests fairly and squarely with those on the picket line.

Anyway, here it is ... you can judge for yourselves

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/b ... ne/3656228

Well said Dedja.

[Baron Greenback]

No one deserves to work in an unsafe environment or be unfairly paid - couldnt agree more. If this is what they are doing in that factory then shame on them.

To have a union conduct a vicious and violent protest like they did is also shameful. This sort of conduct is what gives unions a stigma and a bad name. It is not excusable in any way.

Exactly OL.
And the unions also made an unsafe working environment by harrassing that security guard.
Noone should have to put up with that crap.
Imagine if he just turned around and didn't bother going to work instead of trying to get through.
I'm sure his superiors wouldn't have looked upon that too kindly.

[smac]

By any definition he was assaulted, and acted within reasonable boundaries in response. It is unfortunate someone got hurt, but they should be held responsible for putting themselves in harms way, not congratulated for their stand. Another example of people forcing their views on others and getting angry when they don't acquiesce.

[wycbloods]

I'll blame his host employer Baiada for the broken arm sustained and the damage he recieved to his car and the abuse he copped as he was allegedly directed to drive through the picket line by management.

[redandblack]

The idea that someone can drive a car into a crowd of people, whether or not they should have been there is surely ridiculous.

If not, at what speed does it become wrong.

20kph, 40kph, 80kph, 200kph, never?

I find it hard to understand why there is so much vehemence by some against these workers' union. Of course there are bad unionists and union officials (sorry, they're always called 'bosses'), but I'll guarantee there are just as many bad company bosses (I mean, executives).

In this case, you have no sympathy at all for people earning a measly few dollars an hour from a company owned by someone worth $495 million. Someone who is allegedly breaking the law relating to wages and conditions in a workplace where someone was decapitated last year.

Several of the usual suspects have rushed to condemn my opinion on this again, fair enough, but I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone violence of any kind, by whoever it is.

I do have sympathy for the workers involved, though, but I'm a bit bewildered at your vehement defence of the very powerful over the very weak.

If you really want to know more about the politics behind this anti-union campaign by the Company, there's a revealing article on it in Crikey today.

It's just easier to blame union 'thugs', though.

[smac]

The idea that someone can drive a car into a crowd of people, whether or not they should have been there is surely ridiculous.

If not, at what speed does it become wrong.

20kph, 40kph, 80kph, 200kph, never?

I find it hard to understand why there is so much vehemence by some against these workers' union. Of course there are bad unionists and union officials (sorry, they're always called 'bosses'), but I'll guarantee there are just as many bad company bosses (I mean, executives).

In this case, you have no sympathy at all for people earning a measly few dollars an hour from a company owned by someone worth $495 million. Someone who is allegedly breaking the law relating to wages and conditions in a workplace where someone was decapitated last year.

Several of the usual suspects have rushed to condemn my opinion on this again, fair enough, but I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone violence of any kind, by whoever it is.

I do have sympathy for the workers involved, though, but I'm a bit bewildered at your vehement defence of the very powerful over the very weak.

If you really want to know more about the politics behind this anti-union campaign by the Company, there's a revealing article on it in Crikey today.

It's just easier to blame union 'thugs', though.

Have you watched the video and seen how this bloke was set upon? That'd be quite frightening. Mob mentality, with no place in society.

I have sympathy for their plight, but their methods are not acceptable.

[redandblack]

Well, that's ignored all the questions I've raised, but yes, I have watched the video and have repeatedly said I don't think violence has any place in such situations.

I would have thought that the psychology of such a situation would mean that the inevitable result of the driver's actions would be exactly what happened.

Neither action was excusable, IMO.

[Gozu]

The idea that someone can drive a car into a crowd of people, whether or not they should have been there is surely ridiculous.

If not, at what speed does it become wrong.

20kph, 40kph, 80kph, 200kph, never?

I find it hard to understand why there is so much vehemence by some against these workers' union. Of course there are bad unionists and union officials (sorry, they're always called 'bosses'), but I'll guarantee there are just as many bad company bosses (I mean, executives).

In this case, you have no sympathy at all for people earning a measly few dollars an hour from a company owned by someone worth $495 million. Someone who is allegedly breaking the law relating to wages and conditions in a workplace where someone was decapitated last year.

Several of the usual suspects have rushed to condemn my opinion on this again, fair enough, but I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone violence of any kind, by whoever it is.

I do have sympathy for the workers involved, though, but I'm a bit bewildered at your vehement defence of the very powerful over the very weak.

If you really want to know more about the politics behind this anti-union campaign by the Company, there's a revealing article on it in Crikey today.

It's just easier to blame union 'thugs', though.

Well said, R&B. With everything the unions have done for Australian society some of the ungrateful sods on here should be kissing their arses.

Union thuggery=bad

Driving a car into a crowd of people=understandable

What animals.

[smac]

Well, that's ignored all the questions I've raised, but yes, I have watched the video and have repeatedly said I don't think violence has any place in such situations.

I would have thought that the psychology of such a situation would mean that the inevitable result of the driver's actions would be exactly what happened.

Neither action was excusable, IMO.

I presume by 'all the questions', you mean the one that was in there? I took it as rhetorical, sorry.

If you are in fear for your safety, which he had every right to be, then the limit goes up I would imagine. Thankfully I haven't been in his position.

The protestors had an alternative to prevent the situation - by not acting like rabid dogs. The driver had little other choice given the actions of the protestors than to get away. If someone got in the way of him doing that then it's an unfortunate consequence of their own actions.

[redandblack]

If the protesters had alternatives, then the driver also did.

He could have reversed and driven away. No-one would have blamed him. The alternative he chose was to drive into the crowd and injure someone.

I'm still wondering why so many get stuck into the lowly paid workers and see nothing wrong with the actions of the $500 million dollar man or of one of his security guards injuring someone by reckless driving?

Unless it's OK if you're going less than 10kmh.

New road rule

[overloaded]

[quote="redandblack"]I'm still wondering why so many get stuck into the lowly paid workers and see nothing wrong with the actions of the $500 million dollar man or of one of his security guards injuring someone by reckless driving?[quote]
who on this thread is getting stuck into lowly paid workers???