I thought that it was the case, and a quick check seems to confirm, that while the federal government has first bite of the cherry the states could still levy income tax, though it might be impractical to do so, and that the federal government could in turn deny them grants.
This doesn't make it impossible though for the states to levy income tax and would address the narrow tax base with which the states currently operate. And apparently the states collecting an income tax surcharge via the ATO is being considered by the Henry Tax Review.
Aside from addressing the narrow tax base this is a good idea because it would mean the states would not be as reliant on indirect taxes which are inherently regressive. Though what is meant by a surcharge would have to be developed.
However the suggestion to remove stamp duty seems to be an effort to move more of the costs of speculation on to those who don't speculate, generally those who can't afford to do so. It would facilitate idle speculation at the expense of those who are productive.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Taxpayer funding of brainwashing?!?!
The Greens have just managed to uncover significant increases in government funding for Exclusive Brethren institutions, that are generally being referred to as schools despite a merely superficial resemblance to anything resembling education being conducted.
Apparently taxpayers are not only subsidising this cult (as designated by Kevin Rudd) to warp the minds of their young, they are doing it to an increasingly greater extent as time goes on.
Disturbingly the EB institutions get significantly more than the resources provided to public schools. Apparently under the Howard government the Exclusive Brethren somehow managed to have their schools rated at the same level of need as remote Aboriginal schools.
In unrelated news, in Tasmania the Liberal Party is facing court next week over advertisements made in conjunction with two members of the Exclusive Brethren during the last state election. The EB's fronted an attack campaign against the Greens, but the campaign was coordinated by the Liberals.
So again and again the Exclusive Brethren attack the Greens on behalf of the Liberals. At the same time the Liberals arrange millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to be diverted from public education to the Exclusive Brethren. It really seems like someone should be going to jail.
Of course of most concern is the warping of so many young minds by this cult, however the fact that this warping is being funded by taxpayers, and is coming at the expense of funding for public education does add salt to the wound.
Apparently taxpayers are not only subsidising this cult (as designated by Kevin Rudd) to warp the minds of their young, they are doing it to an increasingly greater extent as time goes on.
Disturbingly the EB institutions get significantly more than the resources provided to public schools. Apparently under the Howard government the Exclusive Brethren somehow managed to have their schools rated at the same level of need as remote Aboriginal schools.
In unrelated news, in Tasmania the Liberal Party is facing court next week over advertisements made in conjunction with two members of the Exclusive Brethren during the last state election. The EB's fronted an attack campaign against the Greens, but the campaign was coordinated by the Liberals.
So again and again the Exclusive Brethren attack the Greens on behalf of the Liberals. At the same time the Liberals arrange millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to be diverted from public education to the Exclusive Brethren. It really seems like someone should be going to jail.
Of course of most concern is the warping of so many young minds by this cult, however the fact that this warping is being funded by taxpayers, and is coming at the expense of funding for public education does add salt to the wound.
Friday, August 7, 2009
"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of martyrs"
There is a lot of interesting things in what might be termed Islamic history but probably more accurately Middle Eastern history. Especially of interest is the period that is now called the Islamic Golden Age. In this time, long before the European Enlightenment, even before the Renaissance the middle east was playing host to a civilisation that was by far the epicentre of progress.
Interestingly, like the European Renaissance the impact of foreign thinking was a significant part of what stimulated this revolution in thought. The House of Wisdom was a library that also undertook the process of translating texts from Persian, and subsequently other languages, into Arabic. Irionically this process would preserve many European classical writings, lost in Europe itself, that when translated into latin would help start the European Renaissance in much the same way.
The Middle Eastern Enlightenment also had an encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, very much like the Encyclopedie of the European Enlightenment. Apparently this work was similarly compiled by a team of intellectuals, covered the whole gamut of human knowledge of the time, and as much as possible given the cultural context indulged in freethinking beyond the strictures of the dominant faith.
The thinkers of this enlightenment, to a large degree free from the constraints of the local religion, made incredible strides forward in many facets of technology, mathematics, and the development of science, as well as in many of the sciences individually. These advances were later imported into Europe and might otherwise have been lost.
What went wrong? It seems likely that many of the smartest people in this culture were trying to break free of Islam, at least to a degree. They managed for awhile, but ultimately failed and the conservative backlash destroyed the enlightened subculture that they had developed.
It seems likely the christian invasion of the Middle East during the Crusades most likely contributed to the end of the Middle Eastern Enlightenment, though the Mongol hordes probably didn't help. Whatever happened it meant that Europe, comparatively a backwater at the time managed to race ahead when it experienced its own Enlightenment.
It seems likely the christian invasion of the Middle East during the Crusades most likely contributed to the end of the Middle Eastern Enlightenment, though the Mongol hordes probably didn't help. Whatever happened it meant that Europe, comparatively a backwater at the time managed to race ahead when it experienced its own Enlightenment.
Of course our religious types too try to lay claim to anything good in western culture despite their representatives having often actively opposed the progress at the time. Of course the worst among them are also simultaneously doing their utmost to return us to a time before the Enlightenment, and of course they may yet succeed, as this certainly seems to have happened previously in the Middle East.
Will history find balance by the Islamic attacks on the West contribute to the end of the Western Enlightenment?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Secularism versus atheism
I have been thinking recently about secularism versus atheism. Certainly atheism is a more militant concept, and perhaps because of that more enjoyable. It is easy and amusing to mock the religious fundamentalists.
However there is the risk that you come to resemble that which you despise, strident and intolerant. Not necessarily, or inevitably surely, but a risk. However, perhaps that kind of militantism is indeed what is needed to combat the rise of religious fundamentalism.
Maybe in the ecology of ideas perhaps fire must be fought with fire, fundamentalism with strong atheism. Certainly the former has spread dangerously far outside of its original niche, and the latter is similarly evolving and adapting so as to move out of its traditional niche, in large part in response to the former.
However I have my doubts that strong atheism will by itself be able to turn back the rising tide of superstition. The niche for strong atheism, whilst growing, would have difficulty capturing the middle ground.
The costs involved in becoming and being a strong atheist, essentially independent thought, are too high for most people. In contrast in terms of thinking it is relatively easy to become and be a religious fundamentalist, just uncritically accept whatever you are told by a designated source.
However there is the risk that you come to resemble that which you despise, strident and intolerant. Not necessarily, or inevitably surely, but a risk. However, perhaps that kind of militantism is indeed what is needed to combat the rise of religious fundamentalism.
Maybe in the ecology of ideas perhaps fire must be fought with fire, fundamentalism with strong atheism. Certainly the former has spread dangerously far outside of its original niche, and the latter is similarly evolving and adapting so as to move out of its traditional niche, in large part in response to the former.
However I have my doubts that strong atheism will by itself be able to turn back the rising tide of superstition. The niche for strong atheism, whilst growing, would have difficulty capturing the middle ground.
The costs involved in becoming and being a strong atheist, essentially independent thought, are too high for most people. In contrast in terms of thinking it is relatively easy to become and be a religious fundamentalist, just uncritically accept whatever you are told by a designated source.
Actually by requiring the outsourcing of thinking to others fundamentalism has an evolutionary advantage over a meme that requires time and effort to be invested in thinking, though obviously the quality of the thinking is detrimentally effected.
However strong atheism does play an important part in balancing the ecology, as it changes the environment it which it operates, and the middle has to adapt to it as well, instead of just the fundamentalists.
Secularism however is not militant, and is all about the middle ground, staking it out as a common ground where everyone can safely come together.
"George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:
It also seeks to reduce the costs involved in conflict between different religious groups, by seeking to have public life based on common secular values, based on what it is required for people to survive and get along.
Such a system has been essential to the evolution of modern society, and history has shown that the costs of sectarianism can be very high indeed. It has never been easy for one sect to establish a seeming monopoly on a society, and the ability to do so is less so now due to the realities of the modern world.
However strong atheism does play an important part in balancing the ecology, as it changes the environment it which it operates, and the middle has to adapt to it as well, instead of just the fundamentalists.
Secularism however is not militant, and is all about the middle ground, staking it out as a common ground where everyone can safely come together.
"George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.
Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was." (Wikipedia Secularism article)
It also seeks to reduce the costs involved in conflict between different religious groups, by seeking to have public life based on common secular values, based on what it is required for people to survive and get along.
Such a system has been essential to the evolution of modern society, and history has shown that the costs of sectarianism can be very high indeed. It has never been easy for one sect to establish a seeming monopoly on a society, and the ability to do so is less so now due to the realities of the modern world.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
LiPA 4 EB
It seems possible that the Liberal Party of Australia (LiPA) and the Exclusive Brethren (EB) have been caught in bed together, again.
It is possible that the Liberals have been forced to do their own dirty work in the Mayo by-election, but they are of course big believers in outsourcing.
Therefore I suspect that the Liberals are once again using the EB's as their footsoldiers in campaigns they don't want to be seen fighting.
It is possible that the Liberals have been forced to do their own dirty work in the Mayo by-election, but they are of course big believers in outsourcing.
Therefore I suspect that the Liberals are once again using the EB's as their footsoldiers in campaigns they don't want to be seen fighting.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Wind vetoes `Clean Coal'
The irony of the launching of the world's first scientific demonstration of carbon sequestration by Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson being spoilt by strong winds seems to have been overlooked by the media.
The quest to clean coal by carbon geo-sequestration is an unproven technology, that at this point is more public relations exercise than actual solution.
Even if it should work will not be available for years, ie too late. It is therefore naturally attracting a lot of investment from the government as Climate Change policy in this country is written by the largest polluters, aka the Greenhouse Mafia. Business as usual, reality be damned.
Generating power from the wind however is an established technology and as recent events show there is a lot of wind about, apparently more and more in fact as the effects of Climate Change kick in. Earth to Martin, come in. Hello? Where is that wood? Who left all these trees lying about?
As Andrew Bartlett points out sequestration should not be dismissed out of hand but a rational analysis says we can't pin any significant hopes on it, let alone sit around and assume it will work and save us all. The opportunity cost of the focus on sequestration is huge in terms of investment in renewable energy technologies, you know, the technologies that actually work.
The above report doesn't indicate whether it was a bright sunny day, but it does remind me of the cartoon that I saw on a postcard once of two guys standing in a flat landscape under a blaring sun looking down and saying there must be a source of energy down there somewhere.
Or perhaps of that `parable' about the Christian who drowns believing God will save him after ignoring the radio announcement, row boat and the helicopter God sends (which I heard on the West Wing - Take this Sabbath Day).
Martin Ferguson roasting under a burning sun, barely able to stand in the cyclonic wind conditions is finally washed away in a turbulent flood all the while desperately trying to scrub coal clean is his leisurely search for a clean source of energy. Don't worry, no need to rush, coal company public relations experts are on the job. Yeah, we're saved.
Still stockpiling canned goods not the craziest idea so long as you remember to get a manual can-opener.
The quest to clean coal by carbon geo-sequestration is an unproven technology, that at this point is more public relations exercise than actual solution.
Even if it should work will not be available for years, ie too late. It is therefore naturally attracting a lot of investment from the government as Climate Change policy in this country is written by the largest polluters, aka the Greenhouse Mafia. Business as usual, reality be damned.
Generating power from the wind however is an established technology and as recent events show there is a lot of wind about, apparently more and more in fact as the effects of Climate Change kick in. Earth to Martin, come in. Hello? Where is that wood? Who left all these trees lying about?
As Andrew Bartlett points out sequestration should not be dismissed out of hand but a rational analysis says we can't pin any significant hopes on it, let alone sit around and assume it will work and save us all. The opportunity cost of the focus on sequestration is huge in terms of investment in renewable energy technologies, you know, the technologies that actually work.
The above report doesn't indicate whether it was a bright sunny day, but it does remind me of the cartoon that I saw on a postcard once of two guys standing in a flat landscape under a blaring sun looking down and saying there must be a source of energy down there somewhere.
Or perhaps of that `parable' about the Christian who drowns believing God will save him after ignoring the radio announcement, row boat and the helicopter God sends (which I heard on the West Wing - Take this Sabbath Day).
Martin Ferguson roasting under a burning sun, barely able to stand in the cyclonic wind conditions is finally washed away in a turbulent flood all the while desperately trying to scrub coal clean is his leisurely search for a clean source of energy. Don't worry, no need to rush, coal company public relations experts are on the job. Yeah, we're saved.
Still stockpiling canned goods not the craziest idea so long as you remember to get a manual can-opener.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Education: the numbers still don't add up
The Liberal government has just announced in its budget that it will be putting $5 billion in a Higher Education Fund.
While it is true that investment in education is about the best way for a government to spend money, something Howard et al have neglected to date, this fund will only spend at most the profits from the fund on universities.
This means that the $5 billion will not be spent on universities but invested in the market. I don't know where the money from the Future Fund is invested but the same people will be investing our tax dollars from the Higher Education fund as well.
As they are appointed by Howard et al it is not unreasonable to wonder where the money is going. Regardless it is not actually going to universities. It does sound impressive though so it has served its purpose.
The reality is that even with the new money from this budget the proportion of GDP spent on education has still decreased over the period of the Howard government from 2 percent to 1.6 percent.
This lack of investment in education will have a long term detrimental effect on Australia's productivity and our competitiveness.
Assuming of course we have a long term given the complete lack of attention giving to addressing global warming in the budget.
While it is true that investment in education is about the best way for a government to spend money, something Howard et al have neglected to date, this fund will only spend at most the profits from the fund on universities.
This means that the $5 billion will not be spent on universities but invested in the market. I don't know where the money from the Future Fund is invested but the same people will be investing our tax dollars from the Higher Education fund as well.
As they are appointed by Howard et al it is not unreasonable to wonder where the money is going. Regardless it is not actually going to universities. It does sound impressive though so it has served its purpose.
The reality is that even with the new money from this budget the proportion of GDP spent on education has still decreased over the period of the Howard government from 2 percent to 1.6 percent.
This lack of investment in education will have a long term detrimental effect on Australia's productivity and our competitiveness.
Assuming of course we have a long term given the complete lack of attention giving to addressing global warming in the budget.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Stop press: Liberal does his own dirty work
On Saturday during the NSW state election Liberal (LiPA) Senator Bill Heffernan stole Greens how-to-vote cards and started handing them out while misrepresenting the Greens' drugs policy. Usually the LiPAs contract out their dirty work like attacks on the Greens' drugs policy to Family First (aka the Fundamentalist Front) or the Exclusive Brethren (aka nutjobs).
Just for the record the Greens' drugs policy is based on the premise that the current approach to drugs has failed, and that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one. It still requires that dealers be dealt with by the criminal justice system. It does NOT, repeat NOT, advocate giving, or selling, drugs to children or indeed anyone else.
Anyway, reportedly Senator Heffernan then threatened to charge a Greens' candidate with assault if he were so much as touched in the course of an attempt to retrieve the stolen cards. Given that one of the Greens' core tenets is peace and non-violence Heffernan was presumably fairly safe, and was merely invoking the law as a means of intimidation.
This is indeed one of the main uses for the law but its blatant use in this way by a lawmaker is disturbing, though not surprisingly so, especially from Senator Heffernan who is mainly known for using parliamentary privilege to make false accusations against a High Court judge, and more generally as Howard's number one inhouse go-to-guy for dirty work in NSW.
It is somewhat irionic that when challenged about his continuing to misrepresent the Greens even after returning the stolen how-to-vote cards Heffernan said, "Anyone who wants to have a bit of biffo with me on this point, I invite them to step up to the plate." It certainly sounds like he is desperate to charge someone with assault, or assault someone. An angry, angry man.
I don't know if Heffernan has broken any laws by misrepresenting himself as a member of the Greens, though most likely not given the loose nature of the electoral laws drawn up by the major parties specifically to allow such abuses. Ethically however pretty much par for the course for the LiPAs, and we know how they love to stay those unethical courses.
If he has broken any laws he almost certainly won't be held to account, let alone be made to pay the so-called ultimate price of losing his seat. Certainly he wasn't after the much more serious incident when he eventually retracted the manufactured accusations against the High Court judge whose decisions he didn't like. Indeed he retained his number one position on the Coalition senate ticket in NSW and was therefore of course guaranteed re-election in 2004.
So this latest incident will merely serve as a further reminder, beyond the continuing presence of Heffernan in public life, of the contempt the LiPA hold for democracy, especially and ironically a liberal one.
Just for the record the Greens' drugs policy is based on the premise that the current approach to drugs has failed, and that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one. It still requires that dealers be dealt with by the criminal justice system. It does NOT, repeat NOT, advocate giving, or selling, drugs to children or indeed anyone else.
Anyway, reportedly Senator Heffernan then threatened to charge a Greens' candidate with assault if he were so much as touched in the course of an attempt to retrieve the stolen cards. Given that one of the Greens' core tenets is peace and non-violence Heffernan was presumably fairly safe, and was merely invoking the law as a means of intimidation.
This is indeed one of the main uses for the law but its blatant use in this way by a lawmaker is disturbing, though not surprisingly so, especially from Senator Heffernan who is mainly known for using parliamentary privilege to make false accusations against a High Court judge, and more generally as Howard's number one inhouse go-to-guy for dirty work in NSW.
It is somewhat irionic that when challenged about his continuing to misrepresent the Greens even after returning the stolen how-to-vote cards Heffernan said, "Anyone who wants to have a bit of biffo with me on this point, I invite them to step up to the plate." It certainly sounds like he is desperate to charge someone with assault, or assault someone. An angry, angry man.
I don't know if Heffernan has broken any laws by misrepresenting himself as a member of the Greens, though most likely not given the loose nature of the electoral laws drawn up by the major parties specifically to allow such abuses. Ethically however pretty much par for the course for the LiPAs, and we know how they love to stay those unethical courses.
If he has broken any laws he almost certainly won't be held to account, let alone be made to pay the so-called ultimate price of losing his seat. Certainly he wasn't after the much more serious incident when he eventually retracted the manufactured accusations against the High Court judge whose decisions he didn't like. Indeed he retained his number one position on the Coalition senate ticket in NSW and was therefore of course guaranteed re-election in 2004.
So this latest incident will merely serve as a further reminder, beyond the continuing presence of Heffernan in public life, of the contempt the LiPA hold for democracy, especially and ironically a liberal one.
Plea or Else
Before his mock trial could even really get under way David Hicks has apparently entered a plea of guilty to providing material support for terrorism.
I don't know if this is one of those laws that didn't exist at the time Hicks was meant to have broken them but reports have indicated that it relates to his having trained with al Quaeda and having met Osama bin Laden. How this actually assists terrorism is not clear, though granted it isn't good. Essentially though he seems to have admitted to having met people who at the time were not on the payroll of the CIA.
Meeting bin Laden is obviously significantly worse than meeting Brian Burke which only leaves a taint but isn't as yet a crime in itself. However, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and then Alexander Downer helped channel hundreds of millions of dollars to him. To me that sounds more like material support, and yet charges are yet to be laid. No doubt only a matter of time.
Hicks' plea has been reported as a plea bargain but as they still seem to be talking about how long his sentence will be, and where it might be served, they seemed to have missed out significant parts of the bargain.
The Howard government, no doubt relieved at not having to go through with the whole mock trial, as it seems at this point no one is buying it anymore, has called game over and declared themselves the winners. Hicks has pled guilty, case closed, can we please talk about something else in the run up to the election.
Interestingly our behated Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has come out and said Hicks probably won't appeal his sentence. How does Ruddock come to this conclusion? Apparently an appeal would jeopardise any transfer deal, a transfer meaning Hicks serving his sentence in Adelaide near his family.
So an appeal would mean staying at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely instead of being moved to a prison in Adelaide, presumably where laws and human rights are still upheld (one can only hope). There is also a date, though yet to be determined, where it is agreed you would be let out (though possibly let out but put under a control order). Compared to eternity in Guantanamo irresistible, and not something easily given up.
The Australian and American governments in their desperation for a political fix are openly threatening that should Hicks decide that maybe he didn't get a fair trial what with the being held for years without charge, and the torture, and isolation, and so forth, he will be left to the tender mercies of those who run Guantanamo apparently beyond the reach of any law, essentially forever.
I don't want to quibble but this doesn't strike me as a fair trial. You can either plead guilty, or go before a kangaroo court and spend the rest of your life being tortured. Would you like some thinking music? Perhaps loud and played 24 hours a day until you say `Guilty'. Who wouldn't take this deal? Contrary to the governments' pr spin this just adds another chapter to the miscarriage of justice.
Hicks certainly did something wrong, but nothing that could warrant his treatment at the hands of the american government or his abandonment by the Australian government. He can never get a fair trial now. The only hope is that those who have held him, clearly also guilty, but of much greater crimes, are one day made accountable and given the fair trial they have denied Hicks. This is not a hope to pin anything to though.
I don't know if this is one of those laws that didn't exist at the time Hicks was meant to have broken them but reports have indicated that it relates to his having trained with al Quaeda and having met Osama bin Laden. How this actually assists terrorism is not clear, though granted it isn't good. Essentially though he seems to have admitted to having met people who at the time were not on the payroll of the CIA.
Meeting bin Laden is obviously significantly worse than meeting Brian Burke which only leaves a taint but isn't as yet a crime in itself. However, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and then Alexander Downer helped channel hundreds of millions of dollars to him. To me that sounds more like material support, and yet charges are yet to be laid. No doubt only a matter of time.
Hicks' plea has been reported as a plea bargain but as they still seem to be talking about how long his sentence will be, and where it might be served, they seemed to have missed out significant parts of the bargain.
The Howard government, no doubt relieved at not having to go through with the whole mock trial, as it seems at this point no one is buying it anymore, has called game over and declared themselves the winners. Hicks has pled guilty, case closed, can we please talk about something else in the run up to the election.
Interestingly our behated Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has come out and said Hicks probably won't appeal his sentence. How does Ruddock come to this conclusion? Apparently an appeal would jeopardise any transfer deal, a transfer meaning Hicks serving his sentence in Adelaide near his family.
So an appeal would mean staying at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely instead of being moved to a prison in Adelaide, presumably where laws and human rights are still upheld (one can only hope). There is also a date, though yet to be determined, where it is agreed you would be let out (though possibly let out but put under a control order). Compared to eternity in Guantanamo irresistible, and not something easily given up.
The Australian and American governments in their desperation for a political fix are openly threatening that should Hicks decide that maybe he didn't get a fair trial what with the being held for years without charge, and the torture, and isolation, and so forth, he will be left to the tender mercies of those who run Guantanamo apparently beyond the reach of any law, essentially forever.
I don't want to quibble but this doesn't strike me as a fair trial. You can either plead guilty, or go before a kangaroo court and spend the rest of your life being tortured. Would you like some thinking music? Perhaps loud and played 24 hours a day until you say `Guilty'. Who wouldn't take this deal? Contrary to the governments' pr spin this just adds another chapter to the miscarriage of justice.
Hicks certainly did something wrong, but nothing that could warrant his treatment at the hands of the american government or his abandonment by the Australian government. He can never get a fair trial now. The only hope is that those who have held him, clearly also guilty, but of much greater crimes, are one day made accountable and given the fair trial they have denied Hicks. This is not a hope to pin anything to though.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Mammonite Mining Magnates
The Australian Mines and Metals Association have released a report saying AWA's are not eliminating worker's conditions. However it becomes clear that this report is in fact based purely on the mining industry. So conditions have not in fact worsened in an industry desperate for workers to satisfy the booming Chinese influenced market. Have these champions of industry forgotten about the basic concept of supply and demand, or are they as seems more likely lying mammonite bastards.
How surprising that on average in an industry currently renowned for how desperate it is to get ever more workers, to the extent that there are consequent labour shortages in many professions and trades, especially in WA and Qld, conditions for workers aren't worsening. Mining companies aren't in a position to screw over much of their workforces just at the moment. Hooray, how very reassuring. Likely these figures also include generous contracts for management skewing the averages. To generalise this figures to the economy as a whole is just a blatant lie.
Bizarrely the report seems to suggest that while wages in the mining industry have indeed gone up they have not kept pace with increases in productivity. So apparently miners are indeed still getting stiffed. This constant call from management to link wage increases to increases in productivity has always been manifestly unfair because it means workers have to continue working harder and harder just to keep pace with inflation. Real wages stagnate while companies reap the benefits of increases in productivity and don't pass them along to the people who actually do the work. It's a con.
More so of a con when wages don't keep pace with increases in productivity, so workers are working harder but any increases in reward do not correspond. And what happens when the boom is over, or the labour shortage situation is stabilised and supply starts to catch up with demand? What will happen to people's working conditions then? Nothing good. They will be at the mercies of the kind of people who will peddle this kind of bald faced lie to the public.
How surprising that on average in an industry currently renowned for how desperate it is to get ever more workers, to the extent that there are consequent labour shortages in many professions and trades, especially in WA and Qld, conditions for workers aren't worsening. Mining companies aren't in a position to screw over much of their workforces just at the moment. Hooray, how very reassuring. Likely these figures also include generous contracts for management skewing the averages. To generalise this figures to the economy as a whole is just a blatant lie.
Bizarrely the report seems to suggest that while wages in the mining industry have indeed gone up they have not kept pace with increases in productivity. So apparently miners are indeed still getting stiffed. This constant call from management to link wage increases to increases in productivity has always been manifestly unfair because it means workers have to continue working harder and harder just to keep pace with inflation. Real wages stagnate while companies reap the benefits of increases in productivity and don't pass them along to the people who actually do the work. It's a con.
More so of a con when wages don't keep pace with increases in productivity, so workers are working harder but any increases in reward do not correspond. And what happens when the boom is over, or the labour shortage situation is stabilised and supply starts to catch up with demand? What will happen to people's working conditions then? Nothing good. They will be at the mercies of the kind of people who will peddle this kind of bald faced lie to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)