Unions deny people the right to choose. They deny people the right to think for themselves. And they charge them for the privilege.


John Smith wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? I'm sure you'll come up with something stupid

Travel expenses are a good example. Should a person be allowed to accept a job that pays just below minimum wages, if they have zero travel costs, when the alternative is a long, expensive commute for a minimum wage job?

Or what if the alternative is being on the dole because the unions have succeeded in denying them the right to work?

These are the sorts of real life problems that the unions don't care about when they get on their high horse and deny people the right to work.

Another is even simpler - should people be allowed to accept the job that they actually want to do, rather than only the jobs that some imbecile union thug thinks they should?


Gnads wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 7:44pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:36pm: whiteknight wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:30pm: There most certainly should be a minimum wage.  Thank heavens for the good unions of Australia.   :)  Would you deny someone the right to choose for themself to work for slightly less at a job they preferred to do, or the only one they are able to get? Freediver the shonky slave labour hire arsehole. Why should bosses be in Unions & workers not? Answer the question.

That's a pretty stupid question Gnads.


Gnads wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 7:47pm:

All you're doing is advocating for someone to be a scab & to take less to get their job.

This is a tired old mantra that the unions get their mindless cheerleaders to chant.

I am advocating that people be allowed to think for themselves, rather than have the unions do it for them. Because the unions ultimately serve themselves.


Gnads wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 7:50pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:39pm: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:47pm: whiteknight wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:46pm: I would prefer the person where ever they work, was paid no less than the minimum wage.   :( Do you understand that if you deny people the right to work, they get paid nothing? You make them unemployed. Now that you understand the consequences, would you like to have another go at answering? Would you deny someone the right to choose for themself to work for slightly less at a job they preferred to do, or the only one they are able to get? What makes you think the what you would prefer ought to over-ride what they prefer? Do you consider them to be incapable of thinking for themselves? After all, you do not know and do not care about their specific circumstances, but they do. They might even get paid less because of your actions, once you consider all the other costs you impose on them by denying them the right to choose for themselves. People have the right to work for whatever they want. If you want you can register as a small business and clean peoples houses for $2hr, the only thing you can't do is employ someone else to do the same. Anyone can work for a low income if they need to survive. For some its easier to lean on the government than putting in the effort to survive. When you earn less than the dole what would be the point in that sort of stupidity?

Who said anything about working for less than the dole Gnads?


Gnads wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 7:53pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? So you want people to have 2 maybe 3 jobs to survive ... like they have to do in the US?

Again, not what I am saying Gnads.


Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 9:04pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages.

No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible.

I think everyone has a right to join the labor party: unions or not.

I personally prefer Jasin saying “ I’m a confederate “ but it bothers me not if your with the union.

Two years ago I left my job of 7 years and took a $300 a week haircut to my wages to work both closer to home and more so too work for a particular manager who/she is a living legend in my industry.

Best career move I have ever made.

It’s not always about $$$

See, I  told you that you'd come up with something stupid.

Didn't Gina want to employ mine workers for $2 an hour?   :-/

Bobby. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:31pm:

Didn't Gina want to employ mine workers for $2 an hour?   :-/

She would if she could, and the unions would have you believe she could employ Australians at that price.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 1:31pm: Didn't Gina want to employ mine workers for $2 an hour?   :-/ She would if she could, and the unions would have you believe she could employ Australians at that price.

She said it - what a greedy fat capitalist.   :o

I'm pretty sure if you look up what she actually said, it is something quite different, and undeniably true. This is just another mindless union scare tactic.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 1:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 1:31pm: Didn't Gina want to employ mine workers for $2 an hour?   :-/ She would if she could, and the unions would have you believe she could employ Australians at that price. She said it - what a greedy fat capitalist.   :o

FDs hero

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:46pm:

I'm pretty sure if you look up what she actually said, it is something quite different, and undeniably true. This is just another mindless union scare tactic.

Why couldn't she say -

the universe created all this wealth in the ground just waiting for us to dig up and sell.
There is enough for us all to be rich.
I will pay you well for your efforts.

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:30pm:

See, I  told you that you'd come up with something stupid.

At least I’m reliable 😅

Bobby. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 1:46pm: I'm pretty sure if you look up what she actually said, it is something quite different, and undeniably true. This is just another mindless union scare tactic. Why couldn't she say - the universe created all this wealth in the ground just waiting for us to dig up and sell. There is enough for us all to be rich. I will pay you well for your efforts.

Yes and then we all break into singing the National anthem and hug.
That’s what should have happened but it didn’t and it won’t.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 12:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible.

If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14

The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12

It will operate like that right through the pay scale.

Quote:

Rinehart’s call to pay workers $2 a day out of touch and just plain wrong Gina Rinehart is not only Australia’s richest person, she is also clearly the most out of touch and cold-hearted Australian, based on her latest attack on workers and their rights, say unions. ACTU President Ged Kearney said it was almost inconceivable that anyone would consider paying workers $2 a day a fair concept, let alone the richest person in the country advocating for it. “If Gina Rinehart seriously thinks Australians should be competing with African workers who are paid $2 day, then she has no idea about fairness or equality – the values on which Australia was built,” Ms Kearney said. “It’s time we stopped listening to people like Ms Rinehart, who continually shows she has no interest in using her wealth to grow Australian jobs or support the local economy and now she appears to be suggesting we should look to Africa for our future. “Perhaps she wouldn’t feel so buoyant about the African workplace relations system if she personally had to work surrounded by war, poverty and disease – let alone live on such abysmal wages. Ms Rinehart’s attitude is an insult to millions of working Australians.” https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/media110745acturelease120905-rinehart-final-v2.pdf

FD - Did a union at some time make you pay someone a fair wage ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:10pm:

Quote: Rinehart’s call to pay workers $2 a day out of touch and just plain wrong Gina Rinehart is not only Australia’s richest person, she is also clearly the most out of touch and cold-hearted Australian, based on her latest attack on workers and their rights, say unions. ACTU President Ged Kearney said it was almost inconceivable that anyone would consider paying workers $2 a day a fair concept, let alone the richest person in the country advocating for it. “If Gina Rinehart seriously thinks Australians should be competing with African workers who are paid $2 day, then she has no idea about fairness or equality – the values on which Australia was built,” Ms Kearney said. “It’s time we stopped listening to people like Ms Rinehart, who continually shows she has no interest in using her wealth to grow Australian jobs or support the local economy and now she appears to be suggesting we should look to Africa for our future. “Perhaps she wouldn’t feel so buoyant about the African workplace relations system if she personally had to work surrounded by war, poverty and disease – let alone live on such abysmal wages. Ms Rinehart’s attitude is an insult to millions of working Australians.” https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/media110745acturelease120905-rinehart-final-v2.pdf

https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ginarinehart.jpg

New year, new powers to tackle wage theft affecting one million workers
Media Release - January 1, 2025 ACTU
Employers can face jail time or fines of up to $7.85 million under new laws criminalising wage theft that come into operation today, after a long union campaign.

More than one million Australian workers experience wage theft by being paid below the national minimum wage or the lowest junior or casual rates in the awards system.   :(

This includes one in three casual workers – or 875,000 casual employees – who are mostly working in the retail and hospitality sectors and 538,200 permanent workers, according to ACTU analysis of ABS data.

From today, an employer will now commit a criminal offence if they deliberately underpay their staff.   :)

A company can face fines of up to $7.85 million, or three times the amount of the underpayment, whichever is greater. An individual can face up to ten years in prison, and fines of up to $1.56 million, or three times the amount of the underpayment, whichever is greater.

Civil penalties for wage underpayments will also increase today by as much as 25 times for larger companies engaged in serious contraventions that could now be fined up to $4.95 million.

Overall estimates of the extent of wage theft vary widely given that it is a practice deliberately hidden by employers. Audits by the Fair Work Ombudsman estimate the figure is between $850 million to $1.55 billion in stolen wages each year.

Superannuation theft is also estimated to cost 2.8 million Australian workers $5.1 billion a year and nearly $41.6 billion over the last nine years, according to the Super Members Council.   :(

The new laws, introduced in the Closing Loopholes legislation in late 2023 are a direct response to widespread cases of wage theft that in many industries have become a standard business model. The new anti-wage theft laws cover all employers and employees covered by the Fair Work Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police will handle prosecutions, with investigations primarily conducted by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Other measures to combat wage theft introduced by the Albanese Government include making it much easier for workers to access small claims tribunals to pursue wage underpayments and the upcoming pay day super reforms.

Peter Dutton and the Coalition have voted against all changes to combat wage theft. 

Quotes attributable to ACTU Acting Secretary, Joseph Mitchell:

“The tough laws that come into force today will make a huge contribution to ending wage theft as a business model.

“After a decade of inaction on wage theft and national scandals at places like 7-eleven, Commonwealth Bank and at universities this action is welcome. Workers deserve every dollar of their pay and super should get the money that is owed them.

“Businesses are on notice and need to pay their workers properly, especially vulnerable younger workers.

“That shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say, especially in a cost-of-living crisis. But apparently, it’s a bridge too far for Peter Dutton and the Opposition that has voted against these laws and presided over the explosion of wage theft as a business model during their near-decade in government.”   

ENDS

NOTE:

ACTU analysis of workers’ underpayment is based on ABS Characteristics of Employment Survey data released in December 2024.

The Survey asks respondents to provide a dollar amount of their last pay, before tax or deductions, and how many hours of work they completed to earn that pay.

The ACTU analysis of those figures demonstrates that a little over one in three casual workers is currently being paid below national minimum wage or minimum junior rates of pay, including the 25 percent loading they should receive for foregoing job security and paid leave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDAwGqlIp7E

Note: it was 12 years ago and Australia did survive as did the rest of the western world - Sad for Gina of course.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale.

No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job.



Bobby. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:10pm: Quote: Rinehart’s call to pay workers $2 a day out of touch and just plain wrong Gina Rinehart is not only Australia’s richest person, she is also clearly the most out of touch and cold-hearted Australian, based on her latest attack on workers and their rights, say unions. ACTU President Ged Kearney said it was almost inconceivable that anyone would consider paying workers $2 a day a fair concept, let alone the richest person in the country advocating for it. “If Gina Rinehart seriously thinks Australians should be competing with African workers who are paid $2 day, then she has no idea about fairness or equality – the values on which Australia was built,” Ms Kearney said. “It’s time we stopped listening to people like Ms Rinehart, who continually shows she has no interest in using her wealth to grow Australian jobs or support the local economy and now she appears to be suggesting we should look to Africa for our future. “Perhaps she wouldn’t feel so buoyant about the African workplace relations system if she personally had to work surrounded by war, poverty and disease – let alone live on such abysmal wages. Ms Rinehart’s attitude is an insult to millions of working Australians.” https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/media110745acturelease120905-rinehart-final-v2.pdf https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ginarinehart.jpg

Thanks Bobby. So the lie came directly from the unions, and keeps getting mindlessly parroted.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 12:52pm:

Travel expenses are a good example

yes they are. If one can only find a job a distance away, and boss is only offering below award wage, how does the employee afford travel?

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Travel expenses are a good example yes they are. If one can only find a job a distance away, and boss is only offering below award wage, how does the employee afford travel?

You are confused John.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Thanks Bobby. So the lie came directly from the unions, and keeps getting mindlessly parroted.

You're welcome.



https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ginarinehart.jpg

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:32pm:

They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job.

the usuall employers union rhetoric with no bearing on reality

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:35pm:

You are confused John.

Only because you speak nonsense

Superannuation theft is also estimated to cost 2.8 million Australian workers $5.1 billion a year and nearly $41.6 billion over the last nine years, according to the Super Members Council.   :(

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. the usuall employers union rhetoric with no bearing on reality

Why do you think people get raises?

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job.

It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages.

You brought up the topic of why people get paid more than the minimum wage. It is nothing to do with what you claimed. Everyone who is not on minimum wage gets their salary dictated by market forces. That is why the unions cannot wave a magic wand and get everyone double the salary. The cost of minimum wages is higher unemployment. That is, it denies people the right to work and the right to decide for themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:58pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:49pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages. You brought up the topic of why people get paid more than the minimum wage. It is nothing to do with what you claimed. Everyone who is not on minimum wage gets their salary dictated by market forces. That is why the unions cannot wave a magic wand and get everyone double the salary. The cost of minimum wages is higher unemployment. That is, it denies people the right to work and the right to decide for themselves.

Quote:

salary dictated by market forces.

Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one.

Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 12:52pm:

Unions deny people the right to choose. They deny people the right to think for themselves. And they charge them for the privilege. John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 3:47pm: freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? I'm sure you'll come up with something stupid Travel expenses are a good example. Should a person be allowed to accept a job that pays just below minimum wages, if they have zero travel costs, when the alternative is a long, expensive commute for a minimum wage job? Or what if the alternative is being on the dole because the unions have succeeded in denying them the right to work? These are the sorts of real life problems that the unions don't care about when they get on their high horse and deny people the right to work. Another is even simpler - should people be allowed to accept the job that they actually want to do, rather than only the jobs that some imbecile union thug thinks they should? Gnads wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 7:44pm: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:36pm: whiteknight wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:30pm: There most certainly should be a minimum wage.  Thank heavens for the good unions of Australia.   :)  Would you deny someone the right to choose for themself to work for slightly less at a job they preferred to do, or the only one they are able to get? Freediver the shonky slave labour hire arsehole. Why should bosses be in Unions & workers not? Answer the question. That's a pretty stupid question Gnads. Gnads wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 7:47pm: All you're doing is advocating for someone to be a scab & to take less to get their job. This is a tired old mantra that the unions get their mindless cheerleaders to chant. I am advocating that people be allowed to think for themselves, rather than have the unions do it for them. Because the unions ultimately serve themselves. Gnads wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 7:50pm: Leroy wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:39pm: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:47pm: whiteknight wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 7:46pm: I would prefer the person where ever they work, was paid no less than the minimum wage.   :( Do you understand that if you deny people the right to work, they get paid nothing? You make them unemployed. Now that you understand the consequences, would you like to have another go at answering? Would you deny someone the right to choose for themself to work for slightly less at a job they preferred to do, or the only one they are able to get? What makes you think the what you would prefer ought to over-ride what they prefer? Do you consider them to be incapable of thinking for themselves? After all, you do not know and do not care about their specific circumstances, but they do. They might even get paid less because of your actions, once you consider all the other costs you impose on them by denying them the right to choose for themselves. People have the right to work for whatever they want. If you want you can register as a small business and clean peoples houses for $2hr, the only thing you can't do is employ someone else to do the same. Anyone can work for a low income if they need to survive. For some its easier to lean on the government than putting in the effort to survive. When you earn less than the dole what would be the point in that sort of stupidity? Who said anything about working for less than the dole Gnads? Gnads wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 7:53pm: freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? So you want people to have 2 maybe 3 jobs to survive ... like they have to do in the US? Again, not what I am saying Gnads. Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: freediver wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 8:55am: John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 6:39am: freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 8:07pm: What part of more money and more time did you not understand? no one is stopping anyone from paying more. The ones crying are those that want to pay LESS You cannot think of any ways in which minimum wages might stop people earning more? Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible.

No what's stupid is you denying the fact.

Some people inherit the hate of unions from their parents. It feels like this topic is likely generated from a lifelong parental influence.

It seems that a Union can cost the company a little in higher wages but offset it with better productivity, It seems that they make little difference economically but produce benefits in safety and such.

There is variability at both ends.

If a union is too strong the benefits disappear and if the company is too strong the same sort of thing happens as productivity safety and such suffer and add to costs.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 4:46pm:

Why do you think people get raises?

unions :D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 5:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:49pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages. You brought up the topic of why people get paid more than the minimum wage. It is nothing to do with what you claimed. Everyone who is not on minimum wage gets their salary dictated by market forces. That is why the unions cannot wave a magic wand and get everyone double the salary. The cost of minimum wages is higher unemployment. That is, it denies people the right to work and the right to decide for themselves. Quote: salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

So why do you think companies pay so many people above the minimum wage? Out of the kindness of their heart?

Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 11:15am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:49pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages. You brought up the topic of why people get paid more than the minimum wage. It is nothing to do with what you claimed. Everyone who is not on minimum wage gets their salary dictated by market forces. That is why the unions cannot wave a magic wand and get everyone double the salary. The cost of minimum wages is higher unemployment. That is, it denies people the right to work and the right to decide for themselves. Quote: salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster. So why do you think companies pay so many people above the minimum wage? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union?

There is no real connection to people having value or being perceived to have value and the market. The Market is contrived manipulated and very often corrupted.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 11:19am:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:15am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:49pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 12:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 9:04pm: Well they do stop people from earning less. Lower minimum wages put downward pressure on all wages. No they don't. More idiotic union mantras for the gullible. If the low wage is $10 an employee after a time is assessed to be doing well and increased to say $14 The Low wage gets pushed down to $8 and an employee is assessed to be doing well gets increased to $12 It will operate like that right through the pay scale. No it won't. Employees are not paid more because they are "assessed to be doing well". They are paid more so they don't leave for a better paying job. It is a national minimum wage, it doesn't apply to one company, the other company is likely paying the same rate - that is the point in forcing down wages it isn't just one company they are all on board for lower wages. You brought up the topic of why people get paid more than the minimum wage. It is nothing to do with what you claimed. Everyone who is not on minimum wage gets their salary dictated by market forces. That is why the unions cannot wave a magic wand and get everyone double the salary. The cost of minimum wages is higher unemployment. That is, it denies people the right to work and the right to decide for themselves. Quote: salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster. So why do you think companies pay so many people above the minimum wage? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? There is no real connection to people having value or being perceived to have value and the market. The Market is contrived manipulated and very often corrupted.

So why do you think companies pay so many people above the minimum wage? Out of the kindness of their heart?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 11:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:19am: There is no real connection to people having value or being perceived to have value and the market. The Market is contrived manipulated and very often corrupted. So why do you think companies pay so many people above the minimum wage? Out of the kindness of their heart?

People have skills that a business may need. They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. You can say CEO's wages are  market driven the fact is they are market rorted.

People say market but it is very wibbly wobbly - It mostly doesn't mean much more than a justification for a company to do what they were going to do anyway.

Quote:

They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market.

Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart?

Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 11:58am:

Quote: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union?

because they increase productivity or upskill

is drinking coolaid an prerequisite when you study economics?

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:58am: Quote: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? because they increase productivity or upskill

How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more?

Most people would probably work just as hard for half the money if that was all that was available on the job market. Many would probably work harder.

I love doing Volunteer work for the Community.
If I don't get paid.
I get laid. :)

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:48pm:

How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more?

You didn't ask why people upskill, You asked why some get paid more. I answered. A teller at woolies who has been there for 5 years, gets the same as a teller who has been there for one year. It only changes if their responsibilities or qualifications change.

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 1:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:48pm: How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more? You didn't ask why people upskill, You asked why some get paid more. I answered. A teller at woolies who has been there for 5 years, gets the same as a teller who has been there for one year. It only changes if their responsibilities or qualifications change.

I am asking you now. Would they bother upskilling if they did not get paid more?

You appear to think you are contradicting me, but you are not. You are just finding a different sounding way to say the same thing. If someone upskills and gets paid more than minimum wage as a result, they are still getting paid more because of job market forces.

All the unions can do is tweak the market a little bit at the very bottom end. They cannot do much, because they have to pretend they are not causing people unemployment or denying them the right to choose for themselves.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 2:35pm:

I am asking you now. Would they bother upskilling if they did not get paid more?

Self improvement. I've done many courses that haven't resulted in higher pay for me. I've done them because I benefit in other ways.


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 2:35pm:

If someone upskills and gets paid more than minimum wage as a result, they are still getting paid more because of job market forces.

At no point have I ever argued that market forces aren't one consideration. I've always said anyone is free to pay more than the minimum wage. What is it you think you're proving?


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 2:35pm:

All the unions can do is tweak the market a little bit at the very bottom end

a.k.a. the MINIMUM wage :D :D

Quote:

Self improvement. I've done many courses that haven't resulted in higher pay for me. I've done them because I benefit in other ways.

Were they work related? Would you do say, a medicine or law degree if the pay was no different to that of a painter?


Quote:

At no point have I ever argued that market forces aren't one consideration.

Are you arguing anything at all?


Quote:

What is it you think you're proving?

I am disproving the claim that market forces have no effect on salaries above minimum wage. Also, some of the other bits you left out of your quote, like this one: All the unions can do is tweak the market a little bit at the very bottom end. They cannot do much, because they have to pretend they are not causing people unemployment or denying them the right to choose for themselves. The unions of course would never admit to this reality. They want their mindless hacks to chant idiotic mantras like you see in this thread - that union agreements magically drive all salaries and we would all be on $2 an hour without them.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:58am: Quote: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? because they increase productivity or upskill How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more? Most people would probably work just as hard for half the money if that was all that was available on the job market. Many would probably work harder.

That's probably the stupidest statement you've ever made.

Why would any sane person work harder for less?

Thank phuk you're not a current politician.

With those sorts of notions I could see you becoming Australias 1st political assassination.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:58am: Quote: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? because they increase productivity or upskill How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more? Most people would probably work just as hard for half the money if that was all that was available on the job market. Many would probably work harder.

I was in a situation a number of years back where the employer were pushing through wage cuts in a modern award negotiation. In the end they were blocked but the reality it would mean that employees could not remain with the company and cover their expenses had it succeeded. There was about a 30% job turn over and that is even though it didn't work just the threat of it gave people the incentive to leave. Part of their decision making was in the realisation that this was not a good employer / not worth working for.

No many don't work harder in fact the ones who do work hard were the first out the door. All the lazy buggers stayed.

Gnads wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 4:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:58am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:55am: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? because they increase productivity or upskill How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more? Most people would probably work just as hard for half the money if that was all that was available on the job market. Many would probably work harder. That's probably the stupidest statement you've ever made. Why would any sane person work harder for less?

You are confused Gnads. Maybe read it again.


Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 8:07pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:48pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:58am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 11:55am: They would still need these people and pay them more if there was no market. Why would they pay them more? Out of the kindness of their heart? Is rejection of basic economics like a pre-requisite for joining a union? because they increase productivity or upskill How do you know they wouldn't do this without getting paid more? Most people would probably work just as hard for half the money if that was all that was available on the job market. Many would probably work harder. I was in a situation a number of years back where the employer were pushing through wage cuts in a modern award negotiation. In the end they were blocked but the reality it would mean that employees could not remain with the company and cover their expenses had it succeeded. There was about a 30% job turn over and that is even though it didn't work just the threat of it gave people the incentive to leave. Part of their decision making was in the realisation that this was not a good employer / not worth working for. No many don't work harder in fact the ones who do work hard were the first out the door. All the lazy buggers stayed.

None of that explains your original highlighted comment. Why would an employer pay someone more money if there was no risk of them leaving for an alternative employer?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 5:41pm:

Were they work related?

some were


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 5:41pm:

Are you arguing anything at all?

If I'm not, why are you getting your tits all worked up?


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 5:41pm:

I am disproving the claim that market forces have no effect on salaries above minimum wage.

No need to move the goal posts FD. Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect?  :D :D :D

Quote:

Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2025 at 5:45pm:

Quote: salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 2:54pm:

Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

[/quote]

market forces are a factor, they aren't the deciding factor

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 4:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

market forces are a factor, they aren't the deciding factor[/quote]

What is?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 2:54pm:

Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

[/quote]

CEO wages are not ten thousand times the average wage because of the market, it is because of market corruption. It is beyond the market the market is not relevant to it. Upper management wages are much the same.

We recently seen inflation and associated market price increases. we fairly quickly learned that it wasn't market it was mostly price gouging driving the increases and inflation.

Many places when you look at market influence you find management corruption instead.

Any time the market puts downward pressure on wages business and government intervene to suppress the impact. Wages have been artificially suppressed beyond the market for many decades. Wage increases for workers are not currently a factor of the market in any real way.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 6:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

CEO wages are not ten thousand times the average wage because of the market, it is because of market corruption. It is beyond the market the market is not relevant to it. Upper management wages are much the same.

We recently seen inflation and associated market price increases. we fairly quickly learned that it wasn't market it was mostly price gouging driving the increases and inflation.

Many places when you look at market influence you find management corruption instead.

Any time the market puts downward pressure on wages business and government intervene to suppress the impact. Wages have been artificially suppressed beyond the market for many decades. Wage increases are not currently a factor of the market in any real way.[/quote]

What about all the people between the minimum wage and highly paid CEOs? What, other than market forces, determines their wages? The generosity of those CEOs?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 6:07pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 6:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster. CEO wages are not ten thousand times the average wage because of the market, it is because of market corruption. It is beyond the market the market is not relevant to it. Upper management wages are much the same. We recently seen inflation and associated market price increases. we fairly quickly learned that it wasn't market it was mostly price gouging driving the increases and inflation. Many places when you look at market influence you find management corruption instead. Any time the market puts downward pressure on wages business and government intervene to suppress the impact. Wages have been artificially suppressed beyond the market for many decades. Wage increases are not currently a factor of the market in any real way.

What about all the people between the minimum wage and highly paid CEOs? What, other than market forces, determines their wages? The generosity of those CEOs?[/quote]


Quote:

What about all the people between the minimum wage and highly paid CEOs?

The strength of the union, the terms of the award, the company's productivity have an impact.

On the whole people in these wage groups have been falling behind what the market would dictate for many decades. Mid wages have been stagnant for decades, this is a function of increasing management power and government intrusion which has undermined any possible market impact.



Quote:

Why real wages have fallen in Australia but risen in most other OECD countries 12 July 2024 A changing workforce and the shift to enterprise bargaining have held back real wage growth, writes Professor John Buchanan. Australia is now in the same league as Lithuania, Estonia and Hungary when it comes to cutting real pay, according to a new OECD report. These are the only countries where cuts in real pay – pay adjusted for inflation – have been more severe for low-paid workers than those on higher salaries. The OECD’s latest Employment Outlook 2024 reports that, compared with the period immediately before the pandemic, real wages are lower today in 16 of the 35 countries. Australia’s real wages are 4.8% lower than pre-pandemic levels https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/07/12/why-real-wages-in-australia-have-fallen.html

Work for $2 an hour - you slaves.


https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ginarinehart.jpg

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 6:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 6:07pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 6:06pm: freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster. CEO wages are not ten thousand times the average wage because of the market, it is because of market corruption. It is beyond the market the market is not relevant to it. Upper management wages are much the same. We recently seen inflation and associated market price increases. we fairly quickly learned that it wasn't market it was mostly price gouging driving the increases and inflation. Many places when you look at market influence you find management corruption instead. Any time the market puts downward pressure on wages business and government intervene to suppress the impact. Wages have been artificially suppressed beyond the market for many decades. Wage increases are not currently a factor of the market in any real way. What about all the people between the minimum wage and highly paid CEOs? What, other than market forces, determines their wages? The generosity of those CEOs?

Quote:

What about all the people between the minimum wage and highly paid CEOs?

The strength of the union, the terms of the award, the company's productivity have an impact.

On the whole people in these wage groups have been falling behind what the market would dictate for many decades. Mid wages have been stagnant for decades, this is a function of increasing management power and government intrusion which has undermined any possible market impact.



Quote:

Why real wages have fallen in Australia but risen in most other OECD countries 12 July 2024 A changing workforce and the shift to enterprise bargaining have held back real wage growth, writes Professor John Buchanan. Australia is now in the same league as Lithuania, Estonia and Hungary when it comes to cutting real pay, according to a new OECD report. These are the only countries where cuts in real pay – pay adjusted for inflation – have been more severe for low-paid workers than those on higher salaries. The OECD’s latest Employment Outlook 2024 reports that, compared with the period immediately before the pandemic, real wages are lower today in 16 of the 35 countries. Australia’s real wages are 4.8% lower than pre-pandemic levels https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/07/12/why-real-wages-in-australia-have-fallen.html

[/quote]

I see you flailing your arms in the air, but I don't see you answering the question.

Special price today on whips and chains.   :(

What about you WK? Do you also think that something other than market forces determines salary for people earning above minimum wage?

Or are you just a cheerleader?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 6:56pm:

Work for $2 an hour - you slaves. https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ginarinehart.jpg

Not $2 an hour .... she said $2 per day.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 2:54pm:

Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

[/quote]

No-one seems to want to touch this one any more.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

No-one seems to want to touch this one any more.[/quote]

Try one of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsa2mRyagZ0

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

No-one seems to want to touch this one any more.

try take your sleeping mask off and read the replies again

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 5:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2025 at 4:43pm: No-one seems to want to touch this one any more. try take your sleeping mask off and read the replies again

Are you aware of what we were discussing yet John?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2025 at 5:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2025 at 5:15pm: freediver wrote on Jan 10th, 2025 at 4:43pm: No-one seems to want to touch this one any more. try take your sleeping mask off and read the replies again Are you aware of what we were discussing yet John?

your ability to swallow the cool aid without even stopping to breath

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 4:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 2:54pm: Quote: Can you show me where ANYONE said market forces have no effect? Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2025 at 5:45pm: [quote]salary dictated by market forces. Ho Ho Ho - you fell for that one. Market forces are the greatest rort of all time. It is just like trickle down and the loch Ness Monster.

market forces are a factor, they aren't the deciding factor[/quote]

What is a "deciding factor" John?