Union Cowardice

[dedja]

He could have reversed and driven away. No-one would have blamed him.

FFS, he was just trying to go to work ... not his fault or problem if other workers seem to have some sort of beef with the company

[redandblack]

Let's just say that sympathy for the workers' plight has been missing from many posts, but there's been a great deal of sympathy for the bloke who drove his car into a crowd and injured someone.

I wish I had a bit more time to scan my posts, as I can be sure the core argument will often be avoided in favour of semantic argument

[redandblack]

He could have reversed and driven away. No-one would have blamed him.

FFS, he was just trying to go to work ... not his fault or problem if other workers seem to have some sort of beef with the company

FFS, there was no-one working and he was there to keep the workers in line (pardon the pun).

Your ability to distill a complex situation into a simplistic one-sided argument is impressive, but IMO facile (pardon the tautolgy).

[dedja]

So people who stand in front of cars in a confrontational way don't have to take any responsibility?

An analogy could be the person who jumps off a jetty head first into shallow water and severs c2 and becomes a paraplegic, who then sues the council for having a jetty which tempted them to jump in the first place ... it's the same faarking logic to me.

So it's OK for people on a picket line to commit a few crimes here or there because the cause is noble and the company is evil?

It is 2011 isn't it?

I make no comment on the company and the way they may or may not treat their staff ... I'm only confining statements to the fact that everyone has the right to go to work without being bashed and having their car kicked in my fellow workers.

[Jimmy_041]

Let's just say that sympathy for the workers' plight has been missing from many posts, but there's been a great deal of sympathy for the bloke who drove his car into a crowd and injured someone.

I wish I had a bit more time to scan my posts, as I can be sure the core argument will often be avoided in favour of semantic argument

That is f***ing GOLD

The core discussion was about a worker and his right to cross a picket line and you bring up about everything else:

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.

[dedja]

Your ability to distill a complex situation into a simplistic one-sided argument is impressive, but IMO facile (pardon the tautolgy).

Your ability to see only what you want to see is equally impressive ... may I suggest a mirror perhaps?

[overloaded]

You are an ignorant fool redandblack

I rest my case

[dedja]

FFS, there was no-one working and he was there to keep the workers in line (pardon the pun).

talking to the missus that night

sorry Dear, I didn't get paid today because my workmates decided I wasn't allowed into work.

Oh, and I'm bleeding in a few places and the car has $5K damage.

When you use it tomorrow just remember that the driver's side mirror doesn't work now.

Other than that had a good day thanks ...

[smac]

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

Imagine the damage he'd have done reversing? At least going forward he could see what was there.

I'm not politicising, I'm humanising the situation. Not made mention of anyone belonging to a union. I'm in the wrong board, perhaps.

[dedja]

Unless you've played Test cricket you're not allowed in this one either ...

[redandblack]

I'll reply in more detail later.

I'll just have a break to wonder why it's impossible to have an alternative view without having to wade through a torrent of personal abuse.

I can imagine another conversation at home by the woman who was injured on the picket line not being paid her $6 an hour by a business owner worth $500 million, but that would stir up the anti-union brigade again.

I suppose abuse and cartoons pass for debate on here now.

No wonder I look forward to contributions by the reasonable conservative posters on here after that diatribe.

[dedja]

I'll just have a break to wonder why it's impossible to have an alternative view ...

LOL, what do you expect if you don't tolerate the views of others?

Maybe try to treat it as a debate, not a lecture ... just a suggestion.

[southee]

Let's just say that sympathy for the workers' plight has been missing from many posts, but there's been a great deal of sympathy for the bloke who drove his car into a crowd and injured someone.

I wish I had a bit more time to scan my posts, as I can be sure the core argument will often be avoided in favour of semantic argument

Yes , sympathy for the worker trying to get his car into work to make money to feed his family and pay the mortgage !!!

Shame on him !!!

[redandblack]

I'll just have a break to wonder why it's impossible to have an alternative view ...

LOL, what do you expect if you don't tolerate the views of others?

Maybe try to treat it as a debate, not a lecture ... just a suggestion.

What were you saying about that mirror, dedja?

Thanks for the fatherly advice, but I tend to post according to the way the poster I'm replying to has posted. I've been happily posting for years in this forum and have had no trouble at all with most, including most of the very good conservative-minded posters on here.

I'm surprised you didn't jump in when I was called an ignorant fool: presumably that type of post is OK.

We all post differently. Some only post one line, some are arseholes and troll, some get obsessed by others, but that's a forum for you.

You say I don't tolerate the views of others; perhaps you could give an example or two from this thread, but be fair. Look at the posts of those who have disagreed with me and apply the same standards.

Perhaps look in that mirror as well and conclude that you and some others just don't like my views. Perhaps read the "Danger - out of control" thread and see if some of the behaviour on here doesn't fit that mould.

Or perhaps I should just bow to the wisdom of your view that all the wrong resides with the workers in this case?

[dedja]

Not sure why you're directing venom at me ... I've been posting about the issue that the OP started this thread with, not 58 different tangents based on political biases.

I haven't posted anything personal about you ... please refresh my memory and highlight the posts in this thread if I'm mistaken.

If someone else is having a personal go at you then that's between you and them ... not sure why you're bringing me into that argument.

I have no idea what you're on about with any other stuff you have mentioned in that last post ... again, you must be mistaking me for someone else.

By the way, nice playing the man here ...

Your ability to distill a complex situation into a simplistic one-sided argument is impressive, but IMO facile (pardon the tautolgy).

[redandblack]

Nicely avoided

I didn't think you could back up your 'lecture' advice with any examples

[dedja]

likewise ...

[redandblack]

So your test cricket jibe wasn't directed at me, then

That's good, we can all move on.

[dedja]

no, that was at smac ... a joke from a long time past

[overloaded]

So your test cricket jibe wasn't directed at me, then

That's good, we can all move on.

Yep, definitely time to move on mate