And so it ends. Australia has regained the Ashes once again (annual cricket contest between England and Australia. 3-0 so far with two tests to play. Pretty ordinary performance for England this year, especially since it has only been 15 months since the last Ashes campaign. Both teams haven’t changed that much after all.
But there are a few key differences. Like all things regarding cricket, the statistics tell the story about the better team.
Firstly, the Australian batting. In the ’05 series, the batsman looked a little dodgy (especially the middle order of Clarke, Martyn and Gilchrist) and it was only the tailender efforts of Shane Warne and Brett Lee that kept us in the fight. This series tells a different story. The Australian middle order batting has been strengthened with the addition of Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke. Bloody hell, where have they been hiding Hussey for the last 5 years? In the 3 tests during the Ashes, he has scored 415 runs at a bradman-esque average of 138.33. Not bad for a guy who couldn’t buy an international game 2 years ago. Still, you can’t blame the Aussie selectors that much; his domestic batting averages in Australian before being picked in the international squad were a bit ordinary (mid 30’s in seasons 2000-2003, raising to 40’s in 2004 and 50’s in 2005 when he was picked). Just goes to show what can happen when you spend too much time kicking ass in England (where he averaged in the 70’s and 80’s).
Michael Clarke has also performed well in this series (373 runs at 124). Being dropped from the Australian Test Team has done wonders for his mental temperament, which to be fair, was a little dodgy. Shane Watson gets injured and in comes Michael Clarke, not a bad swap at all. He will be in the side for a long, long time, unless he steals some of Warnies hair gel. (Or his smokes).
Don't forget the mighty warrior, Ricky Ponting. I thought he was a bit too fired up and a little fragile previously (especially when he had a go at harmless Phil Tuffnell at the Allan Border Medal last year, after the retired English spinner delivered a comedic carve up of Australia’s ashes campaign). However, the rage has worked a treat and he has regained the ashes. He out captained his rival (Freddy Flintoff, who was not the same man as he was last year), kept Warnie out of the nightclubs (and out of the blonds) and was the man the Australians relied on. Also contributed a little with the bat (524 runs @ 104). He will go down as a true great of the game.
On the Australian bowling front, the find of the season has been the form of Stuart Clarke (’06 Ashes results: 16 wickets at 18). The English just couldn’t handle his McGrath-like line and length and his unplayable leg cutters. Not a bad return for a guy with only 7 tests to his name and at the ripe old age of 31. As long as his body stays ok (he tends to be a little injury prone), he will add a few more tests to his kitty in the next 5 years. And the "old firm" of McGrath (13 wickets @ 25) and Warne (14 wickets @ 35) tormented the Poms once again. The disappointment was the form of Brett Lee (8 wickets @ 58). He will have to do better than that in the future if he wants to be the heir to McGrath’s throne.
On the Pommie side of things, the English batting has been a little bit fragile this time around. With the exception of the Warnies mate, Kevin Pieterson (398 runs for the series at 79.60) and Paul Collingwood (345 @ 69) the batting was ordinary. The great man of last year, Andrew Flintoff, has had a disappointing series so far (120 runs @ 24)
But it was the English bowling attack that has been abysmal. Again Flintoff, ordinary (7 wickets @ 49) That’s worse figures than Brett Lee. Giles (3 @87), Anderson (2 @ 155) and the ever-homesick Harmison (6 @ 75) were just there to make up the numbers. The only bright sparks were Matthew Hoggard (12 wickets @ 33) and the amazing Ashes Debut of Monty Panesar (8 wickets @ 29). The fact that Monty went to second on the English wicket taker list for the series after one game tells the story. The Barmy Army must have been thinking, where is Simon Jones when you need him?
So there it is. Two more games in the series to go, but the replica urn is heading back to Australia. Lets hope from the spectators point of view the English continue to fight and Australia don’t fall back into the old trap of "Dead Rubber" syndrome. The inflated ticket prices deserve a competitive contest. Now, if only we could keep the real urn here where it belongs instead of sending it back to some cabinet at Lords.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The destruction of a moderate muslim
I have been reading about the plight of Iktimal Hage-Ali the other day and how she has been implicated in a drug scandal.
For those that don’t know, Hage- Ali is a young Muslim woman, age 22, who is deputy chairwoman of the NSW Youth Advisory Board and was recently named as a finalist for the 2007 NSW Young Australian of the year.
She is also a moderate spokesperson for a religion that needs more moderates to speak out. Unfortunately, the voice of Islam in Australian is usually a hardline male cleric, so to read the opinions of a young, literate woman who defends her faith is a welcome change. This has not sat well with a lot of the hardline leaders of the Islam faith as she doesn’t mind having a sip of champagne (This is against the rules of Islam apparently). She has also publicly criticised the Muslim cleric leader in Australia, Sheikh Hilali, about his previous comments regarding "uncovered meat" when describing secular women who dress in skimpy or revealing clothing. There seems to be a lot of Muslims out there who wish she was less outspoken.
And it seems that the hardliners have got their wish. It has been reported far and wide in the press that Hage-Ali was arrested in regards to a cocaine ring. While she was released without charge, it appears the other three people arrested with her were charged with drug offences.
Now drugs seem to be an issue that causes a lot of friction in Australia at the moment, and everyone has an opinion of whether it is better to treat drugs as a criminal menace or a health issue. Both opinions have some validity.
But for me, the only thing that matters is that she was released without charge. As far as the law is concerned, she is innocent. I would think that should be the end of the scandal and she should be able to go about her business of helping her community.
Unfortunately that has not been the case. She has been vilified in her community as not being a proper role model for Islam and threatened with sacking from the
NSW Attorney Generals Department, where she works. Her News Limited Blog is also down. She has voluntarily given up her award for NSW Young Australian of the year. All for being arrested but not charged.
So what is the issue here? That she knows people who use or deal drugs? I would hazard a guess that most people under the age of 40 know someone who takes drugs on a regular basis. And it seems everyone knows the person in their circle who can obtain drugs on demand. Indeed lots of people under the age of 40 take drugs and hold respectable positions in the community.
And it’s not as if Muslim people are immune from the temptation of drug use. Internationally, Afghanistan is one of the biggest cultivators of opium, even under the militant Islamic rule of the Taliban. And young people of every religion are subject to peer pressure, especially if they assimilate into the wider community.
The only criticism I have with Iktimal is that she caved in too early. She should have fought the good fight to clear her name, stressed that she was not charged with any offences, and rode out the media storm. You have to fight the jackals of the press or they will eat you alive. And some support from the community who she had helped so much as well as some family members would also have been appreciated I’m sure. They were conspicuous by their silence.
The whole affair makes me wonder who was responsible for the leak. Was it elements of the anti-Islam lobby who wanted to cut down an articulate, moderate female who spoke the mainstream language? Or was it the hardline Muslim community for exactly the same reason.
For those that don’t know, Hage- Ali is a young Muslim woman, age 22, who is deputy chairwoman of the NSW Youth Advisory Board and was recently named as a finalist for the 2007 NSW Young Australian of the year.
She is also a moderate spokesperson for a religion that needs more moderates to speak out. Unfortunately, the voice of Islam in Australian is usually a hardline male cleric, so to read the opinions of a young, literate woman who defends her faith is a welcome change. This has not sat well with a lot of the hardline leaders of the Islam faith as she doesn’t mind having a sip of champagne (This is against the rules of Islam apparently). She has also publicly criticised the Muslim cleric leader in Australia, Sheikh Hilali, about his previous comments regarding "uncovered meat" when describing secular women who dress in skimpy or revealing clothing. There seems to be a lot of Muslims out there who wish she was less outspoken.
And it seems that the hardliners have got their wish. It has been reported far and wide in the press that Hage-Ali was arrested in regards to a cocaine ring. While she was released without charge, it appears the other three people arrested with her were charged with drug offences.
Now drugs seem to be an issue that causes a lot of friction in Australia at the moment, and everyone has an opinion of whether it is better to treat drugs as a criminal menace or a health issue. Both opinions have some validity.
But for me, the only thing that matters is that she was released without charge. As far as the law is concerned, she is innocent. I would think that should be the end of the scandal and she should be able to go about her business of helping her community.
Unfortunately that has not been the case. She has been vilified in her community as not being a proper role model for Islam and threatened with sacking from the
NSW Attorney Generals Department, where she works. Her News Limited Blog is also down. She has voluntarily given up her award for NSW Young Australian of the year. All for being arrested but not charged.
So what is the issue here? That she knows people who use or deal drugs? I would hazard a guess that most people under the age of 40 know someone who takes drugs on a regular basis. And it seems everyone knows the person in their circle who can obtain drugs on demand. Indeed lots of people under the age of 40 take drugs and hold respectable positions in the community.
And it’s not as if Muslim people are immune from the temptation of drug use. Internationally, Afghanistan is one of the biggest cultivators of opium, even under the militant Islamic rule of the Taliban. And young people of every religion are subject to peer pressure, especially if they assimilate into the wider community.
The only criticism I have with Iktimal is that she caved in too early. She should have fought the good fight to clear her name, stressed that she was not charged with any offences, and rode out the media storm. You have to fight the jackals of the press or they will eat you alive. And some support from the community who she had helped so much as well as some family members would also have been appreciated I’m sure. They were conspicuous by their silence.
The whole affair makes me wonder who was responsible for the leak. Was it elements of the anti-Islam lobby who wanted to cut down an articulate, moderate female who spoke the mainstream language? Or was it the hardline Muslim community for exactly the same reason.
Monday, December 18, 2006
The name is Blond, James Blond
Went to see a great movie on the weekend. It was the new James Bond movie, “Casino Royale” I’ve only got one word to say, “Wow”!
Well, I have a little bit more to say :-) Now just to let you know I have been a fan of the James Bond movies for a long time. For me, James Bond sums up the perfect existence for a guy with the maturity level of a teenager. Hanging out in casinos, shooting bad guys, playing with the latest gadgets and pulling beautiful women who don’t seem to have an issue with sex on the first date (or sex within 5 minutes of meeting an aging brit who buys them a drink).
But the negatives have been building up in the last couple of Bond films. Don’t get me wrong, I am not adverse to Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He bought a sense of smoothness to Bond that was missing since the end of the Roger Moore days. Timothy Dalton (the bond between Roger Moore and Brosnan) was a very physical Bond, but was a little lacking in the charm department. He was more of a cold assassin, rather than the smooth operator that Sean Connery and Roger made the role. So Pierce was a welcome change.
The problems were with the movies themselves. Golden Eye was great but the rest started to go off on some dodgy tangents. They tended to be formulaic, by the numbers action films populated by crazy villains and dodgy lines
For example: -
1. “Tomorrow Never Dies”…Crazy Media Baron starts a war between China and England for ratings
2. “The World is not enough”…Crazy Oil Baroness kills her father, seduces Bond and tries gets her even crazier boyfriend to cause a nuclear explosion in Turkey
Also famous for one of the dodgiest final lines in any movie: ”I though Christmas only came once a year” when sleeping with Christmas Jones.
3. “Die another Day”…Crazy Korean Colonel gets a face lift to look like a Brit and tries to take over South Korea using a dodgy power glove attached to a giant space mirror.
They were not great movies at the end of the day. Indeed, it was only the women that made the Bonds watchable. Halle Berry, Michelle Yeoh and Sophie Marceau
are all classy chicks who made the films worth watching.
However, Bond has come back with the newest addition. Casino Royale is a classic in the genre, the best since "Goldeneye" and could be my favourite Bond movie of all time. I was a little worried when they first mentioned they were using Casino Royale as the source material (a spoof movie was made in the late 60’s of this book starring Woody Allen and Peter Sellers), but they pulled it off.
The casting of Daniel Craig was a masterstroke. Coolness personified with the blue eyes and chiselled features. He also brings a cheeky charm as well to the role and a vulnerability that was missing to the Bond persona. Bond makes mistakes, almost dies a couple of times and even has a bit of difficulty getting his double 0 status. Yes, it’s a pre qual to “Dr No”, but thankfully set in the 2000’s rather than a 1960’s simulation. I didn’t think it would work, but it does.
It’s also the most physical Bond I have seen. While the previous Bonds have been a little reluctant to get the hands (or fists) dirty, Daniel Craig gets absolutely hammered in a lot of fight scenes. He also hands a fair bit of punishment out.
So do yourself a favour and embrace the new Bond. I liked it so much I’m off to buy the book.
Well, I have a little bit more to say :-) Now just to let you know I have been a fan of the James Bond movies for a long time. For me, James Bond sums up the perfect existence for a guy with the maturity level of a teenager. Hanging out in casinos, shooting bad guys, playing with the latest gadgets and pulling beautiful women who don’t seem to have an issue with sex on the first date (or sex within 5 minutes of meeting an aging brit who buys them a drink).
But the negatives have been building up in the last couple of Bond films. Don’t get me wrong, I am not adverse to Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He bought a sense of smoothness to Bond that was missing since the end of the Roger Moore days. Timothy Dalton (the bond between Roger Moore and Brosnan) was a very physical Bond, but was a little lacking in the charm department. He was more of a cold assassin, rather than the smooth operator that Sean Connery and Roger made the role. So Pierce was a welcome change.
The problems were with the movies themselves. Golden Eye was great but the rest started to go off on some dodgy tangents. They tended to be formulaic, by the numbers action films populated by crazy villains and dodgy lines
For example: -
1. “Tomorrow Never Dies”…Crazy Media Baron starts a war between China and England for ratings
2. “The World is not enough”…Crazy Oil Baroness kills her father, seduces Bond and tries gets her even crazier boyfriend to cause a nuclear explosion in Turkey
Also famous for one of the dodgiest final lines in any movie: ”I though Christmas only came once a year” when sleeping with Christmas Jones.
3. “Die another Day”…Crazy Korean Colonel gets a face lift to look like a Brit and tries to take over South Korea using a dodgy power glove attached to a giant space mirror.
They were not great movies at the end of the day. Indeed, it was only the women that made the Bonds watchable. Halle Berry, Michelle Yeoh and Sophie Marceau
are all classy chicks who made the films worth watching.
However, Bond has come back with the newest addition. Casino Royale is a classic in the genre, the best since "Goldeneye" and could be my favourite Bond movie of all time. I was a little worried when they first mentioned they were using Casino Royale as the source material (a spoof movie was made in the late 60’s of this book starring Woody Allen and Peter Sellers), but they pulled it off.
The casting of Daniel Craig was a masterstroke. Coolness personified with the blue eyes and chiselled features. He also brings a cheeky charm as well to the role and a vulnerability that was missing to the Bond persona. Bond makes mistakes, almost dies a couple of times and even has a bit of difficulty getting his double 0 status. Yes, it’s a pre qual to “Dr No”, but thankfully set in the 2000’s rather than a 1960’s simulation. I didn’t think it would work, but it does.
It’s also the most physical Bond I have seen. While the previous Bonds have been a little reluctant to get the hands (or fists) dirty, Daniel Craig gets absolutely hammered in a lot of fight scenes. He also hands a fair bit of punishment out.
So do yourself a favour and embrace the new Bond. I liked it so much I’m off to buy the book.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
When fondness makes the heart go absent (Apologies to the Whitlam's)
I was thinking about long distance relationships the other day and how I believe they are prone to failure. I was wondering if there were any independent stats about success/satisfaction rates in Long Distance relations (both married pairs and non-married)
So I did my usual trick and went to the web. It appears there are not a lot of statistics out there. It seems to be a case where everybody has an opinion on Long Distance relationships, but no one can actually back up an opinion with some hard data. Sociology/Psychology students of the world, get cracking! I think there is a PhD out there waiting for you.
One site, which claims to have some information, is the unimaginatively titled "Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships". Here is the link to the website -------------------------------------------------------->http://www.longdistancerelationships.net
While it provides an interesting read, I am worried about the true scientific nature of this institute. It is a division of JF Milne Publications, which as a remarkable coincidence also publishes the "Long Distance Relationships: The complete guide" The website is run by the author of the book. I’m not interested in opinion’s ons here at scottythegoat (only I’m allowed to do that!), but actual facts and figures.
However, a link from this site did provide some up to date research on Long Distance Relationships (or LDR’s as they are called). -----------------------------------------------------------> http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3124212
In this paper, Amber Roberts studied 274 college students in 2003, some of whom were in LDRS (Long Distance Relationships) and other’s in PR’s (geographical close relationships). The study showed that there was no discernible difference in relationship satisfaction between those students in LDR and those in PR’s. Rather it was the management of the distance in a relationship rather than actual distance that decided whether partners were happy. It also showed that those who were committed to being in the relationships would be able to make it work.
So there you go. Maybe Long Distance relationships in themselves are not the problem. It’s the type of people getting into them! Almost like a Long Distance Relationship is a catalyst that exposes the strengths/weaknesses of the partners involved and can either make the relationship soar or deliver the coup de grace to the wounded beast. Of course, it could just mean that college students have no idea what a relationship is about!
As for the goat, I believe that physical and emotional closeness are two very important things in a relationship. How can you have that when your partner are hundreds of kilometre’s away? I also think the fact that both parties don’t see each other often can cause partners to romantisize the relationship, to make it something that it never was, thus prolonging an already unsatisfying union.
To me, if you are not experiencing life together with the love of your life, then what is the point? When you find that special someone, it should be, to quote the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond!"
So I did my usual trick and went to the web. It appears there are not a lot of statistics out there. It seems to be a case where everybody has an opinion on Long Distance relationships, but no one can actually back up an opinion with some hard data. Sociology/Psychology students of the world, get cracking! I think there is a PhD out there waiting for you.
One site, which claims to have some information, is the unimaginatively titled "Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships". Here is the link to the website -------------------------------------------------------->http://www.longdistancerelationships.net
While it provides an interesting read, I am worried about the true scientific nature of this institute. It is a division of JF Milne Publications, which as a remarkable coincidence also publishes the "Long Distance Relationships: The complete guide" The website is run by the author of the book. I’m not interested in opinion’s ons here at scottythegoat (only I’m allowed to do that!), but actual facts and figures.
However, a link from this site did provide some up to date research on Long Distance Relationships (or LDR’s as they are called). -----------------------------------------------------------> http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3124212
In this paper, Amber Roberts studied 274 college students in 2003, some of whom were in LDRS (Long Distance Relationships) and other’s in PR’s (geographical close relationships). The study showed that there was no discernible difference in relationship satisfaction between those students in LDR and those in PR’s. Rather it was the management of the distance in a relationship rather than actual distance that decided whether partners were happy. It also showed that those who were committed to being in the relationships would be able to make it work.
So there you go. Maybe Long Distance relationships in themselves are not the problem. It’s the type of people getting into them! Almost like a Long Distance Relationship is a catalyst that exposes the strengths/weaknesses of the partners involved and can either make the relationship soar or deliver the coup de grace to the wounded beast. Of course, it could just mean that college students have no idea what a relationship is about!
As for the goat, I believe that physical and emotional closeness are two very important things in a relationship. How can you have that when your partner are hundreds of kilometre’s away? I also think the fact that both parties don’t see each other often can cause partners to romantisize the relationship, to make it something that it never was, thus prolonging an already unsatisfying union.
To me, if you are not experiencing life together with the love of your life, then what is the point? When you find that special someone, it should be, to quote the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond!"
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Flame Trees
As I was watching the recent media coverage of bush fires taking place around Australia, a pertinent question was posed to me. Where does all the water come from to fight the fires? I was thinking, that’s a bloody good question. I mean I presume it comes from rivers, dams bore water and the like, but I didn’t really know for sure.
So I went to the NSW Rural Fire service website and found this link -------http://rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?CAT_ID=216
It appears that there is an act in NSW Legislation called the Rural Fires Act 1997. This allows an office of the Rural Fire Service to basically use any water from any source to control or fight a fire. It also says that no payment can be charged for this water. I don’t think they even keep a record of the water that is being used. Here is a link to the legislation for those interested----------http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+65+1997+FIRST+0+N/?autoquery=(FragmentSGML%3D((%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22)))%20AND%20((RecordType%3D%22ACTFRAG%22%20and%20Repealed%3D%22N%22)%20OR%20(RecordType%3D%22SRFRAG%22%20and%20Repealed%3D%22N%22))&dq=Document%20Types%3D%22Acts,%20Regs%22,%20Exact%20Phrase%3D%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22,%20Search%20In%3D%22Text%22&fullquery=(((%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22)))
Apparently farmers can ask NSW Agriculture department for compensation for lost water from their properties, but it doesn’t really help us city folk who have to cop the lack of water through no fault of our own.
Now I’m thinking in today’s world of water restrictions, that’s a little cavalier. I’m all for using what ever it takes to fight fires close to populated areas or when there is a danger of human loss of life. However it does appear that the rural fire service has been fighting fires in the wilderness as well, using water-bombing aircraft. This is done when it is almost impossible to approach the site of the fire by road (meaning there is no people in clear and present danger)
Maybe its time to rethink this approach, or at least keep track of the water being used to fight fires every year. Maybe start using flame-retardants other than water to fight fires 20 KM away from populated areas?
The Rural Fire Service of NSW does a great job and holds an almost hero-like status in our community. I just believe that more "water conservative" policies should be employed by them rather than just giving them a blank cheque for water use.
So I went to the NSW Rural Fire service website and found this link -------http://rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?CAT_ID=216
It appears that there is an act in NSW Legislation called the Rural Fires Act 1997. This allows an office of the Rural Fire Service to basically use any water from any source to control or fight a fire. It also says that no payment can be charged for this water. I don’t think they even keep a record of the water that is being used. Here is a link to the legislation for those interested----------http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+65+1997+FIRST+0+N/?autoquery=(FragmentSGML%3D((%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22)))%20AND%20((RecordType%3D%22ACTFRAG%22%20and%20Repealed%3D%22N%22)%20OR%20(RecordType%3D%22SRFRAG%22%20and%20Repealed%3D%22N%22))&dq=Document%20Types%3D%22Acts,%20Regs%22,%20Exact%20Phrase%3D%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22,%20Search%20In%3D%22Text%22&fullquery=(((%22Rural%20Fires%20Act%22)))
Apparently farmers can ask NSW Agriculture department for compensation for lost water from their properties, but it doesn’t really help us city folk who have to cop the lack of water through no fault of our own.
Now I’m thinking in today’s world of water restrictions, that’s a little cavalier. I’m all for using what ever it takes to fight fires close to populated areas or when there is a danger of human loss of life. However it does appear that the rural fire service has been fighting fires in the wilderness as well, using water-bombing aircraft. This is done when it is almost impossible to approach the site of the fire by road (meaning there is no people in clear and present danger)
Maybe its time to rethink this approach, or at least keep track of the water being used to fight fires every year. Maybe start using flame-retardants other than water to fight fires 20 KM away from populated areas?
The Rural Fire Service of NSW does a great job and holds an almost hero-like status in our community. I just believe that more "water conservative" policies should be employed by them rather than just giving them a blank cheque for water use.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Its not easy, being green
Once again the Green movement have shown they are not really interested in solutions to global warming.
John Howard announced yesterday that he was investigating setting up a Carbon Trading scheme. Good news for those of us, who are worried about global warming, you would think? You bet. In theory, the Green movement should be breaking out the champagne. To get John Howard, a climate sceptic, to the stage where he is investing time and money into carbon trading is a huge achievement.
However, the problem, according to the Greens is that he has stocked the task force board (the task force who will determine how the scheme will work and see if it is relevant) with Coal and energy industry types.
Now, it is true that Peter Coates company Xstrata is a big coal exporter, but isn’t that a good thing that he has a say in how a carbon trading scheme will work? Surely if a carbon trading scheme is implemented that has the approval of a guy, whose company probably contributes a huge amount of Greenhouse gases both here in Australia and abroad, that is a good thing.
It makes me wonder if the Greens are more upset that Howard is actually doing something about the environment. If he did nothing on this issue, he could be losing votes to the Green and Labor parties. Now he might be clawing some votes back by showing he is concerned about the environment. The Howard haters must be going crazy.
Let’s not beat around the bush. A carbon-trading scheme must have the approval of the guys doing the polluting and who are most likely to use it, otherwise it will be useless. Lets get some real solutions to Global warming out there that will be used by industry.
John Howard announced yesterday that he was investigating setting up a Carbon Trading scheme. Good news for those of us, who are worried about global warming, you would think? You bet. In theory, the Green movement should be breaking out the champagne. To get John Howard, a climate sceptic, to the stage where he is investing time and money into carbon trading is a huge achievement.
However, the problem, according to the Greens is that he has stocked the task force board (the task force who will determine how the scheme will work and see if it is relevant) with Coal and energy industry types.
Now, it is true that Peter Coates company Xstrata is a big coal exporter, but isn’t that a good thing that he has a say in how a carbon trading scheme will work? Surely if a carbon trading scheme is implemented that has the approval of a guy, whose company probably contributes a huge amount of Greenhouse gases both here in Australia and abroad, that is a good thing.
It makes me wonder if the Greens are more upset that Howard is actually doing something about the environment. If he did nothing on this issue, he could be losing votes to the Green and Labor parties. Now he might be clawing some votes back by showing he is concerned about the environment. The Howard haters must be going crazy.
Let’s not beat around the bush. A carbon-trading scheme must have the approval of the guys doing the polluting and who are most likely to use it, otherwise it will be useless. Lets get some real solutions to Global warming out there that will be used by industry.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Work to Live
I was perusing my favourite web sites (as per normal) when I discovered that www.brainbox.com.au started talking about work and the fact that Australians are working harder than ever. This is always a topic that gets emotions going. We all seem to believe we are working too hard. So I was curious, is this just in I.T, or is it across the board?
So I went to the site with all the answers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au). I found this statistical report on Hours worked between the years of 1985 and 2005. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/0f152d0eab2c88bdca2571b000153da2!OpenDocument
It actually raises some interesting points. In the 20 years between 1985 and 2005, the average hours worked by all workers (Full time and Part Time) has actually dropped from 35.8 to 34.7 a week. This can be explained by the rise of Part Time work in certain industries. So for some of us, working hours have decreased over the last 20 years, especially if we are working part time.
Things become clearer when we explore the stats for full time workers. In the 20 years the statistics measure, average weekly hours worked for full time employees increased from 40.2 hours to 41.9 hours. When you compare this with the fact that standard award hours are 37.5 a week, it appears most of us are working at least an extra 4.4 hours a week for no pay. As it is an average figure, there must be a few people working far in excess of this. In fact the stats suggest that 30% of full time workers are working in excess of 50 hours a week. (That’s an extra 12.5 hours a week than standard) Another 2-3 hours a day!
The report has some flaws. It doesn’t say whether this potential overtime is paid or unpaid. It doesn’t measure whether the work is being done at home or at the office. But still, if 1 in 3 or so workers are at the office for 10 hours a day, or doing a few hours of the weekend every week, that’s a lot of people spending time working when they could be spending time with their family or friends.
So why do we do it? I can only speculate. The death of the lunch hour could be one reason. Look around the time of 12:30 PM in my work place, and you will see the vast majority of people still at their workstations, fork in hand, eyes fixed on their screens. Only a few people in my immediate team actually leave the office for lunch. This means that they could be perusing files, reading material while ploughing into their leftover spaghetti from last nights dinner. Twenty years ago, lunch was a big thing, now it’s a waste of time.
It could also be competition. According to the stats, the vast majority of people working in excess of 50 hours are managers of owners of businesses. I can understand the owners of business working longer hours; after all building your business is a powerful motivator. The manager’s however are a different story. These are guys who have a lot of autonomy to set their own hours, yet they are putting in more than anyone else is. Could it be the oversight requirements? Or is it just a race between managers to position themselves for the next step up the corporate ladder? If you work hard, set the example, upper management will notice me?
Speaking for myself, I can understand the idea of working hard to prove yourself. I was once a work-aholic (runs in the family), though my brush with illness has destroyed that feeling. Now I’m all about working my 37.5 hours and no more. And my managers don’t complain. It probably has hurt my chances of promotion, but for me, I don’t want to go back to the days of living to work. That way madness lies.
So I went to the site with all the answers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au). I found this statistical report on Hours worked between the years of 1985 and 2005. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/0f152d0eab2c88bdca2571b000153da2!OpenDocument
It actually raises some interesting points. In the 20 years between 1985 and 2005, the average hours worked by all workers (Full time and Part Time) has actually dropped from 35.8 to 34.7 a week. This can be explained by the rise of Part Time work in certain industries. So for some of us, working hours have decreased over the last 20 years, especially if we are working part time.
Things become clearer when we explore the stats for full time workers. In the 20 years the statistics measure, average weekly hours worked for full time employees increased from 40.2 hours to 41.9 hours. When you compare this with the fact that standard award hours are 37.5 a week, it appears most of us are working at least an extra 4.4 hours a week for no pay. As it is an average figure, there must be a few people working far in excess of this. In fact the stats suggest that 30% of full time workers are working in excess of 50 hours a week. (That’s an extra 12.5 hours a week than standard) Another 2-3 hours a day!
The report has some flaws. It doesn’t say whether this potential overtime is paid or unpaid. It doesn’t measure whether the work is being done at home or at the office. But still, if 1 in 3 or so workers are at the office for 10 hours a day, or doing a few hours of the weekend every week, that’s a lot of people spending time working when they could be spending time with their family or friends.
So why do we do it? I can only speculate. The death of the lunch hour could be one reason. Look around the time of 12:30 PM in my work place, and you will see the vast majority of people still at their workstations, fork in hand, eyes fixed on their screens. Only a few people in my immediate team actually leave the office for lunch. This means that they could be perusing files, reading material while ploughing into their leftover spaghetti from last nights dinner. Twenty years ago, lunch was a big thing, now it’s a waste of time.
It could also be competition. According to the stats, the vast majority of people working in excess of 50 hours are managers of owners of businesses. I can understand the owners of business working longer hours; after all building your business is a powerful motivator. The manager’s however are a different story. These are guys who have a lot of autonomy to set their own hours, yet they are putting in more than anyone else is. Could it be the oversight requirements? Or is it just a race between managers to position themselves for the next step up the corporate ladder? If you work hard, set the example, upper management will notice me?
Speaking for myself, I can understand the idea of working hard to prove yourself. I was once a work-aholic (runs in the family), though my brush with illness has destroyed that feeling. Now I’m all about working my 37.5 hours and no more. And my managers don’t complain. It probably has hurt my chances of promotion, but for me, I don’t want to go back to the days of living to work. That way madness lies.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Absolutely Fabulous
Congratulations to Australia. The Federal Government passed the law allowing human embryo cloning for medical research. Yes, our medical scientists (who are some of the best in the world), now have a chance to play around with embryonic stem cells to hopefully work on cures for debilitating conditions like Parkinsons disease and cancers.
However I must admit, I am not an impartial observer on this issue. I have a disease (thankfully one that is chronic rather than fatal or debilitating) so I think any advancement that may one day eradicate this affliction is a pretty good thing. And it seems the vast majority of our elected politicians agree with me. And the rest of Australia. The vast majority of Australian citizens, and indeed world citizens want the cloning of embryo’s for medical research (a poll in smh.com.au had it at 80% of 3000 replies for the bill)
It is a loaded issue though. Just look at some of the arguments put up by John Howard and the politicians that voted against the bill.
John Howard (Liberal): " I think we live in an age where we have slid too far into relativism. There must be some absolutes in our society"
Kevin Rudd (Labor): "I find it difficult to support a legal regime which allows creation of a form of human life with the single purpose of allowing the conduct of experimentation"
Sophie Mirabella (Liberal): "Therapeutic cloning is a step in the wrong direction, a depraved practice reflecting nothing more than the turpitude’s of modern scientific egos in their race to the bottom of the ethics ladder"
You notice that a lot of these arguments are not based on the science but on the politician’s personal views. Which is about the usual. But I have to give John Howard credit on this on. In allowing the conscience vote, thus allowing all the members of his party to vote the way they want to, we see the best of our Parliamentary system. Instead of the leaders of the government making the decisions and the backbenches having to vote on party lines, bills that enjoy majority support (other than Liberal Party support) get a chance at getting passed. If only it was always like this.
But the focus of my missive today is the John Howard argument. "There must be some absolutes in our society". I will have to disagree with this one. As I get older, I start to realise that the idea of absolutes is a bit of a luxury. When you are a kid, you deal almost exclusively in absolutes. Stuff like, "Your family loves you", "Dad is indestructible" As you get older, and your knowledge increases, you realise that these are less clear. Sometimes Family members hurt each other. They may not mean to, but they do. Sometimes your Dad has a heart attack, not on purpose, but it happens. Even the Ten commandments (I’m a lapsed Catholic) are not immune to this. "Thou shall not kill" for example. Tell that to the soldiers protecting Australia during wartime. What about when protecting yourself and/or your family? Capital punishment, (which I am not a fan of, but does occur in the world), is another complex situation that does not have a simple answer. These are complex issues that have valid arguments for and against. They
demand better thinking than a flippant "That’s wrong because it is".
I am glad that the vote for Therapeutic Embryonic Cloning was subject to the same rigorous testing as the potential cures will be. It’s a victory for common sense and democracy.
However I must admit, I am not an impartial observer on this issue. I have a disease (thankfully one that is chronic rather than fatal or debilitating) so I think any advancement that may one day eradicate this affliction is a pretty good thing. And it seems the vast majority of our elected politicians agree with me. And the rest of Australia. The vast majority of Australian citizens, and indeed world citizens want the cloning of embryo’s for medical research (a poll in smh.com.au had it at 80% of 3000 replies for the bill)
It is a loaded issue though. Just look at some of the arguments put up by John Howard and the politicians that voted against the bill.
John Howard (Liberal): " I think we live in an age where we have slid too far into relativism. There must be some absolutes in our society"
Kevin Rudd (Labor): "I find it difficult to support a legal regime which allows creation of a form of human life with the single purpose of allowing the conduct of experimentation"
Sophie Mirabella (Liberal): "Therapeutic cloning is a step in the wrong direction, a depraved practice reflecting nothing more than the turpitude’s of modern scientific egos in their race to the bottom of the ethics ladder"
You notice that a lot of these arguments are not based on the science but on the politician’s personal views. Which is about the usual. But I have to give John Howard credit on this on. In allowing the conscience vote, thus allowing all the members of his party to vote the way they want to, we see the best of our Parliamentary system. Instead of the leaders of the government making the decisions and the backbenches having to vote on party lines, bills that enjoy majority support (other than Liberal Party support) get a chance at getting passed. If only it was always like this.
But the focus of my missive today is the John Howard argument. "There must be some absolutes in our society". I will have to disagree with this one. As I get older, I start to realise that the idea of absolutes is a bit of a luxury. When you are a kid, you deal almost exclusively in absolutes. Stuff like, "Your family loves you", "Dad is indestructible" As you get older, and your knowledge increases, you realise that these are less clear. Sometimes Family members hurt each other. They may not mean to, but they do. Sometimes your Dad has a heart attack, not on purpose, but it happens. Even the Ten commandments (I’m a lapsed Catholic) are not immune to this. "Thou shall not kill" for example. Tell that to the soldiers protecting Australia during wartime. What about when protecting yourself and/or your family? Capital punishment, (which I am not a fan of, but does occur in the world), is another complex situation that does not have a simple answer. These are complex issues that have valid arguments for and against. They
demand better thinking than a flippant "That’s wrong because it is".
I am glad that the vote for Therapeutic Embryonic Cloning was subject to the same rigorous testing as the potential cures will be. It’s a victory for common sense and democracy.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
David Koch’s Sunrise Joke of the Day
There was controversy aplenty on Sunrise (Channel 7 early morning show) late last week (the 2ndof December) when David Koch, one of the hosts did his joke of the day.
Finding out exactly what was said is a little difficult but I believe it is this variant of the Bill Clinton joke. Just swap John Howard for Bill Clinton, Kevin Rudd for Al Gore and Janet Howard for Hillary.
Bill Clinton steps out onto the White House lawn in the dead of winter. Right in front of him, on the White House lawn, he sees "The President Must Die" written in urine across the snow. Well, old Bill is pretty pissed off.
He storms into his security staff's headquarters and yells, "Somebody wrote a death threat in the snow on the front damn lawn! And they wrote it in urine! Son-of-a-bitch had to be standing right on the porch when he did it! Where were you guys?"
The security guys stay silent and stare ashamedly at the floor. Bill hollers, "Well dammit, don't just sit there! Get out and FIND OUT WHO DID IT! I want an answer, and I want it TONIGHT!"
The entire staff immediately jumped up and raced for the exits. Later that evening, his chief security officer approaches him and says, "Well Mr. President, we have some bad news, and we have some really bad news. Which do you want first?"
Clinton says, "Oh Hell, give me the bad news first." The officer says, "Well, we took a sample of the urine and tested it. The results just came back, and it was Al Gore's urine."
Clinton says, "Oh my god, I feel so ... so betrayed! My own vice president! Damn. Well, what's the really bad news?"
The officer replies, "Well, it's Hillary's handwriting."
Gutsy stuff from Kochie, especially for a morning show. Apparently a lot of Channel 7 executives and an unnamed Government minister rang to complain. Kochie started issuing apologies like nobodies business.
I think there might be a little more editorial control on the joke segment in the future. (Even though I think the joke is pretty funny)
Finding out exactly what was said is a little difficult but I believe it is this variant of the Bill Clinton joke. Just swap John Howard for Bill Clinton, Kevin Rudd for Al Gore and Janet Howard for Hillary.
Bill Clinton steps out onto the White House lawn in the dead of winter. Right in front of him, on the White House lawn, he sees "The President Must Die" written in urine across the snow. Well, old Bill is pretty pissed off.
He storms into his security staff's headquarters and yells, "Somebody wrote a death threat in the snow on the front damn lawn! And they wrote it in urine! Son-of-a-bitch had to be standing right on the porch when he did it! Where were you guys?"
The security guys stay silent and stare ashamedly at the floor. Bill hollers, "Well dammit, don't just sit there! Get out and FIND OUT WHO DID IT! I want an answer, and I want it TONIGHT!"
The entire staff immediately jumped up and raced for the exits. Later that evening, his chief security officer approaches him and says, "Well Mr. President, we have some bad news, and we have some really bad news. Which do you want first?"
Clinton says, "Oh Hell, give me the bad news first." The officer says, "Well, we took a sample of the urine and tested it. The results just came back, and it was Al Gore's urine."
Clinton says, "Oh my god, I feel so ... so betrayed! My own vice president! Damn. Well, what's the really bad news?"
The officer replies, "Well, it's Hillary's handwriting."
Gutsy stuff from Kochie, especially for a morning show. Apparently a lot of Channel 7 executives and an unnamed Government minister rang to complain. Kochie started issuing apologies like nobodies business.
I think there might be a little more editorial control on the joke segment in the future. (Even though I think the joke is pretty funny)
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
And the winner is…Rudd!
Yes Kevin Rudd has won the battle of the year…Leadership of the most inept opposition party in Australia. (Not including the state opposition parties of course)
But seriously, it is an interesting move by the Federal Labour Party of Australia. It will either be a masterstroke (if Labour wins government in the Federal election next year), or a stupid move (if John Howard goes marching on). The proof will be in the pudding I guess.
What is a benefit of a leadership change is that it shows movement. The Liberal Party, with control over legislation and tax payers dollars, always looks busy but the opposition looked a little tired under the Kim Beazley banner. Now with relatively young leadership (Big Kev is 49), Labour looks a little more energised. And its good to see a female in the Deputy Leadership (Yes, I know Jenny Macklin was deputy leader but really, no one else knew).
All I can hope is that Kevin’s vision and leadership is a little more exciting and relevant than his taste in gifts (Regular goat readers will recognise this joke, not that there are many of you J For everyone else see previous post about the charity gift).
As for Big Kim…it appears that he will retire after the next election. It’s a little bit of a sad end for the man. The media will say that his key legacy was the defence portfolio when he was a minister under Hawke and Keating, but as it appears mismanagement and accounting problems remain, I don’t know if that is such a lasting and positive thing.
Vale Kim, you will probably get an offer to appear on "Dancing with the stars" real soon
But seriously, it is an interesting move by the Federal Labour Party of Australia. It will either be a masterstroke (if Labour wins government in the Federal election next year), or a stupid move (if John Howard goes marching on). The proof will be in the pudding I guess.
What is a benefit of a leadership change is that it shows movement. The Liberal Party, with control over legislation and tax payers dollars, always looks busy but the opposition looked a little tired under the Kim Beazley banner. Now with relatively young leadership (Big Kev is 49), Labour looks a little more energised. And its good to see a female in the Deputy Leadership (Yes, I know Jenny Macklin was deputy leader but really, no one else knew).
All I can hope is that Kevin’s vision and leadership is a little more exciting and relevant than his taste in gifts (Regular goat readers will recognise this joke, not that there are many of you J For everyone else see previous post about the charity gift).
As for Big Kim…it appears that he will retire after the next election. It’s a little bit of a sad end for the man. The media will say that his key legacy was the defence portfolio when he was a minister under Hawke and Keating, but as it appears mismanagement and accounting problems remain, I don’t know if that is such a lasting and positive thing.
Vale Kim, you will probably get an offer to appear on "Dancing with the stars" real soon
Monday, December 4, 2006
Do they know its Christmas time at all?
Another year goes by and so there another office Christmas party takes place. We had ours last Friday and it was a fun night. A good dinner, plenty of beers, a decent band belting out the best songs of 20 years ago and a good group of people. In my 9 years of my working life, I have always had a great time on these things, even though there are plenty of potential snags that can bring the best of careers to a sketching halt. Just a quick google search on the web can generate a hundred tales of woe.
So to educate the masses, which is what I do, I have come up with my definitive list of how to enjoy yourself at the party without killing your career.
Here are the seven rules of Christmas Party edicate
1. Do attend: I cannot believe the number of people who don’t like going to the Christmas Party. In my team of 4, I was the only one who rocked up. Pretty poor effort in my opinion. Some people seem to think their non-attendance at the Christmas Party is like a protest vote. They think "I don’t like the company so I am not going to go to the Christmas Party" will show the company their displeasure. Not quite the case people. Managers don’t care; they are still getting boozy. Go, have fun and drink some beer on the boss.
2. Drink: Nothing like someone rocking up to the Christmas Party and staying cold sober the entire time. No one likes a party pooper. You don’t have to get drunk (though it helps), but get into the spirit and you will have a lot more fun. Besides, it’s free!
3. If you are going to pash someone, do it discretely: Kissing the hot HR chick on the dance floor might gain you plenty of kudos from your workmates, but when the photo gets back to the wife and/or husband, its not going to do anyone any favours. Keep it away from the public eye. And remember the fateful words, "What happens at the Chrissy party, stays at the Chrissy party"
4. Hugs are fine: Its amazing what a bit of alcohol can do to the friendship levels. That anal accountant who gives you a glare in the lift yesterday now suddenly announces that he is your new best friend. If he wants to give you a hug, what’s the harm? Might make it a little easier to get that next cab charge when you need it. Just watch out for the grope!
5. Dance: After the inevitable speeches, dodgy gifts and the Managing Director has thanked you for another year of soul destroying labour, the cover band or DJ will start up the 80’s hits. Time to boogie. This is where the best fun of the Christmas party occurs. If you have rhythm, by tripping the light fantastic on the dance floor, your value in the company will rise. The lads will say, bloody hell, this guys a bit of a player; I might invite him to the next pub effort. The chicks will say, hey, he can dance, he might be good in bed, and he’s worth inviting to the next company drinks.
If you can’t dance, still get up there and have some fun. Everyone can do the 80’s shuffle and knows the actions to "YMCA" You will still be 100% better off than the staid folk who sit at the tables by themselves.
6. Don’t tell the boss what you think…about work: At some stage at the Christmas Party, you will have to talk to the boss while under the influence. If you do, talk about anything but work. Say his cricket team sucks; his football team is ordinary or even that his dress sense leads a lot to be desired. Still on safe grounds. But if you question his management, there are real problems. To say St George Rugby League Club is ordinary may hurt your boss, but is a perfectly valid thing to say at a Christmas Party and easily forgotten But to say you think his management sucks is something he is bound to remember in the cold hard light of sobriety.
7. Go home.. Unless you are single: Now this is the big one. The band is a memory; the ugly lights have been switched on. Someone is talking about a pub up the road, or worse, a nightclub a block away. Unless you are single, go directly home. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Refuse all tempting offers home from women bearing lifts. You are not in the right spirit to make correct decisions at this stage so go home to your girl/guy who is there with comforting words and sleepy cuddles. You’ll thank me in the morning.
So there it is. The 7 rules of Christmas party fun that will ensure you are invited to the next one and won’t be greeted by shamed looks/sacking on Monday morning and/or a letter from the divorce lawyer.
So to educate the masses, which is what I do, I have come up with my definitive list of how to enjoy yourself at the party without killing your career.
Here are the seven rules of Christmas Party edicate
1. Do attend: I cannot believe the number of people who don’t like going to the Christmas Party. In my team of 4, I was the only one who rocked up. Pretty poor effort in my opinion. Some people seem to think their non-attendance at the Christmas Party is like a protest vote. They think "I don’t like the company so I am not going to go to the Christmas Party" will show the company their displeasure. Not quite the case people. Managers don’t care; they are still getting boozy. Go, have fun and drink some beer on the boss.
2. Drink: Nothing like someone rocking up to the Christmas Party and staying cold sober the entire time. No one likes a party pooper. You don’t have to get drunk (though it helps), but get into the spirit and you will have a lot more fun. Besides, it’s free!
3. If you are going to pash someone, do it discretely: Kissing the hot HR chick on the dance floor might gain you plenty of kudos from your workmates, but when the photo gets back to the wife and/or husband, its not going to do anyone any favours. Keep it away from the public eye. And remember the fateful words, "What happens at the Chrissy party, stays at the Chrissy party"
4. Hugs are fine: Its amazing what a bit of alcohol can do to the friendship levels. That anal accountant who gives you a glare in the lift yesterday now suddenly announces that he is your new best friend. If he wants to give you a hug, what’s the harm? Might make it a little easier to get that next cab charge when you need it. Just watch out for the grope!
5. Dance: After the inevitable speeches, dodgy gifts and the Managing Director has thanked you for another year of soul destroying labour, the cover band or DJ will start up the 80’s hits. Time to boogie. This is where the best fun of the Christmas party occurs. If you have rhythm, by tripping the light fantastic on the dance floor, your value in the company will rise. The lads will say, bloody hell, this guys a bit of a player; I might invite him to the next pub effort. The chicks will say, hey, he can dance, he might be good in bed, and he’s worth inviting to the next company drinks.
If you can’t dance, still get up there and have some fun. Everyone can do the 80’s shuffle and knows the actions to "YMCA" You will still be 100% better off than the staid folk who sit at the tables by themselves.
6. Don’t tell the boss what you think…about work: At some stage at the Christmas Party, you will have to talk to the boss while under the influence. If you do, talk about anything but work. Say his cricket team sucks; his football team is ordinary or even that his dress sense leads a lot to be desired. Still on safe grounds. But if you question his management, there are real problems. To say St George Rugby League Club is ordinary may hurt your boss, but is a perfectly valid thing to say at a Christmas Party and easily forgotten But to say you think his management sucks is something he is bound to remember in the cold hard light of sobriety.
7. Go home.. Unless you are single: Now this is the big one. The band is a memory; the ugly lights have been switched on. Someone is talking about a pub up the road, or worse, a nightclub a block away. Unless you are single, go directly home. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Refuse all tempting offers home from women bearing lifts. You are not in the right spirit to make correct decisions at this stage so go home to your girl/guy who is there with comforting words and sleepy cuddles. You’ll thank me in the morning.
So there it is. The 7 rules of Christmas party fun that will ensure you are invited to the next one and won’t be greeted by shamed looks/sacking on Monday morning and/or a letter from the divorce lawyer.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Work Choices…about 5 years too early
I was reading with interest about the protest march in Sydney recently regarding the Work Choices legislation. Even Morris Iemma, the Premier of NSW participated (strictly for political reasons I think). He knows he is on a winner with this one. There is no doubt that there are a lot of people in Australia who feel threatened by these change to industrial relations. Unions are particularly worried about the changes as the legislation severely limits their power to call strikes etc. That was why Morris was there (Labour party man that he is).
But as for me, I’m not quite sure of the fuss really. Work Choices strips workers of some of their entitlements its true. Things like penalty rates and overtime can all be removed from Workplace agreements and Individual contracts. Employers in businesses of 100 employees or less can sack people purely for "operational reasons" and are immune from the unfair dismissal laws (apart from discrimination in regards to age, sex, sexual orientation etc). All potentially look bad for the worker on paper.
As an IT worker for the last 9 or so years, I have been governed by a Workplace Agreement for most of that time for my conditions. I have always had to negotiate pay rises and conditions with my employer, and have had no problems doing so. I have also had to deal with the potential bogeyman of sub continent out sourcing of my work. Some will say I have been lucky so far in still having a job. But I have never needed a union, nor felt the lack of one. I believe my skills and experience speak for themselves.
And unfortunately the nature of Unions has changed dramatically. Since the basic rights of the worker have been enshrined in law, they have been more committed to political activism than protecting the worker. Where is the Union fight for maternity Leave and Paternity Leave? Where is the work/life balance fight? Most of these initiatives have come from business themselves rather than any protracted Union fight. You are more likely to see the ACTU at an environmental rally than a fight for women’s pay equality.
An argument for unions is that in jobs where huge amounts of skills are not required, union power is the only power available. A person manning a checkout in a department store has a lot less clout at the negotiating table than an I.T professional. And it is a valid argument. Still, no one wants to be a checkout person all his or her life. This is a time where skills are the most important part of employment. If you don’t have them, you have go and get them.
But from an economic viewpoint, I think the reason for the legislation is due to employee shortages and the aging of the workforce. Businesses know that soon they will have to compete heavily for the best and most skilled workers (especially if they want younger workers). This will mean that the power will be with employee rather than the employer. What John Howard (the Prime Minister) and his business cronies want is to level the playing field a little, maybe a little earlier than they had to. If employers can sack workers for operational reasons and reduce pay and overtime, they believe that this will keep employees in check and keep a lid on workers demands for pay rises, even as their potential value to business increases.
Howard is a master opportunist. I believe he thought that these changes had to go in at some stage in the near future, and decided that it would be easier to do so while the Federal Coalition had control over both houses of parliament. It is a fairly good idea. When you are strong, do the unpopular things.
And it is not just employers who benefit. While employee wages will go up under Work Choices (due to the increased value of the employee), they will not go up exorbitantly (as they might have under the existing awards). Wages under control = inflation under control. If inflation is under control, so are interest rates (as the Reserve Bank wants low inflation above all else). Also, if labour costs are under control, the prices of goods and services will also be fairly static. Which is good for the consumer. Ie You and me.
The government governs for all, including business. Just because a policy is pro-industry, does not mean it is bad for the worker. A good economy with high employment, low prices for goods, benefits us all.
But as for me, I’m not quite sure of the fuss really. Work Choices strips workers of some of their entitlements its true. Things like penalty rates and overtime can all be removed from Workplace agreements and Individual contracts. Employers in businesses of 100 employees or less can sack people purely for "operational reasons" and are immune from the unfair dismissal laws (apart from discrimination in regards to age, sex, sexual orientation etc). All potentially look bad for the worker on paper.
As an IT worker for the last 9 or so years, I have been governed by a Workplace Agreement for most of that time for my conditions. I have always had to negotiate pay rises and conditions with my employer, and have had no problems doing so. I have also had to deal with the potential bogeyman of sub continent out sourcing of my work. Some will say I have been lucky so far in still having a job. But I have never needed a union, nor felt the lack of one. I believe my skills and experience speak for themselves.
And unfortunately the nature of Unions has changed dramatically. Since the basic rights of the worker have been enshrined in law, they have been more committed to political activism than protecting the worker. Where is the Union fight for maternity Leave and Paternity Leave? Where is the work/life balance fight? Most of these initiatives have come from business themselves rather than any protracted Union fight. You are more likely to see the ACTU at an environmental rally than a fight for women’s pay equality.
An argument for unions is that in jobs where huge amounts of skills are not required, union power is the only power available. A person manning a checkout in a department store has a lot less clout at the negotiating table than an I.T professional. And it is a valid argument. Still, no one wants to be a checkout person all his or her life. This is a time where skills are the most important part of employment. If you don’t have them, you have go and get them.
But from an economic viewpoint, I think the reason for the legislation is due to employee shortages and the aging of the workforce. Businesses know that soon they will have to compete heavily for the best and most skilled workers (especially if they want younger workers). This will mean that the power will be with employee rather than the employer. What John Howard (the Prime Minister) and his business cronies want is to level the playing field a little, maybe a little earlier than they had to. If employers can sack workers for operational reasons and reduce pay and overtime, they believe that this will keep employees in check and keep a lid on workers demands for pay rises, even as their potential value to business increases.
Howard is a master opportunist. I believe he thought that these changes had to go in at some stage in the near future, and decided that it would be easier to do so while the Federal Coalition had control over both houses of parliament. It is a fairly good idea. When you are strong, do the unpopular things.
And it is not just employers who benefit. While employee wages will go up under Work Choices (due to the increased value of the employee), they will not go up exorbitantly (as they might have under the existing awards). Wages under control = inflation under control. If inflation is under control, so are interest rates (as the Reserve Bank wants low inflation above all else). Also, if labour costs are under control, the prices of goods and services will also be fairly static. Which is good for the consumer. Ie You and me.
The government governs for all, including business. Just because a policy is pro-industry, does not mean it is bad for the worker. A good economy with high employment, low prices for goods, benefits us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)