 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crannypete
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
isunt this about some bloke which topped hismself this is sad and dont talk about other stuff in respect to this man brothers
_________________
"Throw a brother a couple of tickets?????? My arse is too tight" Black_white |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | [quote="member34258"]No fun stui.
I just find it truly jaw dropping that a grown man, or woman, has taken on the persona of a mentally challenged person. Truly sad.
Add to that the fact that I was invited to join a private forum that he/she was not, (and it's a forum of his favorite team!)and you can see why he/she is upset with me.
Very, very sad.
P.S. And now he/she is engaging with HAL. Truly sad!!![/quote]
Fair enough. The Cheech and Chong impersonation [b]is [/b]laid on with a trowell. 
Still, funny...like slapstick or vaudeville, is in the eye of the beholder.
PS. has anyone explained to them that voldemort is a Bot? |
Only if my eye is working. |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hal, Stop it! You're killing me 
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I have seen 2001 once. |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | I agree with what Stui and cranny have said, BUT the union is a unique employer, and that needs to be considered here.
So when this woman sues the union, she's taking money directly from the struggle for workers' rights and conditions. These are things which her husband fought to uphold. Furthermore, if her husband did indeed commit suicide because he was fired, then he clearly had a passion for the job.
I don't believe her husband would want this to happen at all, and even more broadly; I don't believe that taking money from the pockets of an organisation struggling for the rights of thousands of people is a good or progressive thing to do. |
I dont think i could agree less. When a union does something their entire existence is devoted to opposing, it seems to me to be actually worse than a 'normal' employer, and contains an element of hypocrisy.
As for the argument that she is taking money from the struggle for better rights and conditions...we sue hospitals (who we need much more than unions). Charities get sued. The government gets sued. This is the principal...no matter how altruistic your motivation, if you cause someone harm in a way the law is inclined to punish, you are liable to compensate the victim.
I make no comment on the actual merits of her claim, in fact it sounds a little bit rich...but the merits of this one case are irrelevant to the overarching principal. |
|
|
|
|
crannypete
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
well these are good points brother now i am a bit more confused
maybe just let her sue and see what she gets at the end of the day he may of deserved to be sacked he just didunt tell her and was too ashamed to tell her
if the union done nothing wrong then they wont pay any money if they did the insurance company coughs for it so who cares
i see what you mean though unions should be better than businesses this is true maybe they were but
_________________
"Throw a brother a couple of tickets?????? My arse is too tight" Black_white |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Zakal wrote: | | sherrife wrote: | I agree with what Stui and cranny have said, BUT the union is a unique employer, and that needs to be considered here.
So when this woman sues the union, she's taking money directly from the struggle for workers' rights and conditions. These are things which her husband fought to uphold. Furthermore, if her husband did indeed commit suicide because he was fired, then he clearly had a passion for the job.
I don't believe her husband would want this to happen at all, and even more broadly; I don't believe that taking money from the pockets of an organisation struggling for the rights of thousands of people is a good or progressive thing to do. |
I dont think i could agree less. When a union does something their entire existence is devoted to opposing, it seems to me to be actually worse than a 'normal' employer, and contains an element of hypocrisy.
As for the argument that she is taking money from the struggle for better rights and conditions...we sue hospitals (who we need much more than unions). Charities get sued. The government gets sued. This is the principal...no matter how altruistic your motivation, if you cause someone harm in a way the law is inclined to punish, you are liable to compensate the victim.
I make no comment on the actual merits of her claim, in fact it sounds a little bit rich...but the merits of this one case are irrelevant to the overarching principal. |
What did the union do "that its entire existence is devoted to opposing"? Is it not affected by normal forces that influence markets under the current capitalist system? Should it be run as a charity supporting the jobs of union bureaucrats? Anyway that's a side issue. But maybe check out what they did before accusing them of hypocrisy.
And citing the fact that charities and hospitals have already been sued is totally meaningless in the context of the MORAL argument I was making. Just because a few litigious wankers and their soulless lawyers act in that way in no way justifies the behaviour.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Omar, I've restrained my well documented issues with the union movement in this thread out of respect for the man who died, but mate, the idealistic view you have of unions died decades ago. Once you have dealt with a union official who is more concerned with one members opinion and preference than the fate of 50 other members of a rival union, you realise that idealism is dead and pragmatism holds sway.
Unions, despite their ideology and intent, are businesses and other unions are their competitors not their colleagues.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | Zakal wrote: | | sherrife wrote: | I agree with what Stui and cranny have said, BUT the union is a unique employer, and that needs to be considered here.
So when this woman sues the union, she's taking money directly from the struggle for workers' rights and conditions. These are things which her husband fought to uphold. Furthermore, if her husband did indeed commit suicide because he was fired, then he clearly had a passion for the job.
I don't believe her husband would want this to happen at all, and even more broadly; I don't believe that taking money from the pockets of an organisation struggling for the rights of thousands of people is a good or progressive thing to do. |
I dont think i could agree less. When a union does something their entire existence is devoted to opposing, it seems to me to be actually worse than a 'normal' employer, and contains an element of hypocrisy.
As for the argument that she is taking money from the struggle for better rights and conditions...we sue hospitals (who we need much more than unions). Charities get sued. The government gets sued. This is the principal...no matter how altruistic your motivation, if you cause someone harm in a way the law is inclined to punish, you are liable to compensate the victim.
I make no comment on the actual merits of her claim, in fact it sounds a little bit rich...but the merits of this one case are irrelevant to the overarching principal. |
What did the union do "that its entire existence is devoted to opposing"? Is it not affected by normal forces that influence markets under the current capitalist system? Should it be run as a charity supporting the jobs of union bureaucrats? Anyway that's a side issue. But maybe check out what they did before accusing them of hypocrisy.
And citing the fact that charities and hospitals have already been sued is totally meaningless in the context of the MORAL argument I was making. Just because a few litigious wankers and their soulless lawyers act in that way in no way justifies the behaviour. |
As i said, i was making no comment with regards this specific instance, i was responding in a general hypoethetical manner, to your general hypothetical comment.
I was merely challenging your assertion that unions should have some form of special exemption from being held accountable for their wrongs. IF they did something...IF...that would cause another entity to be held to account...they too should be held to account. IF....IF...they did something that they criticise 'normal' employers from doing, they are hypocrites....IF.
...and if they were to cite "market forces of a capitalist system" as justification for their conduct, they might want to think twice, because thats what every employer cites when they sack a thousand workers, right before the Unions get involved.
I accept your point about hospitals and charities on the basis that you (i assume) also appose any action for recovery against them? Its actually an issue im with you on, just not all the way.
People are waaayy to litigious to the point of ungratefulness when it comes to things like this. THey go into a risky surgery...often purely cosmetic or elective...the doctor does his job to a reasonable standard...things still go wrong, and the patient sues. The fact that they don't win is irrelevant, the Dr's premium still skyrockets.
However, this can only go so far. A doctor (or really anyone of this type) who acts in a way which is entirely negligent, reckless, or otherwise dangerous...below the standards the medical community holds out for itself...deserves to be held to account. It simply isnt fair to go into a simple operation (which will cost someone thousands) and encounter a doctor who is so manifestly incompetant or lazy that he leaves a retractor in your stomach cavity, resulting in your permanent injury...or death.
That kind of behaviour deserves punishment, and the victim deserves reparation. (wildly off topic at this point, but meh ). |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Point well made Zakal. No one warrants an excemption from accountability for negligence.
If a claim is made, an investigation should be conducted and if the organisation is found guilty of negligence or otherwise contributing to what happened, then they must be held accountable.
People volunteer for unpaid work at Hospitals. If they are injured and the hospital is deemed at fault, they can get compensation.
I certainly don't want to go down the american line of everyone being overly litigious.
IMO, any union that wanted to enforce accountabilities such as unfair dismissal and OH&S on employers but wanted to be exempt from the same accountabilities themselves would be hypocrites with zero credibility. (NB, I'm not suggesting for a second that the CEPU in this case are making that argument)
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
