|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]1L66KhP0jYg&desktop[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]vDXtT8RCui8&feature[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]xI6zgfk&feature[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 28/8/2013 05:52:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Well if you have a narrow, shortsighted view like do, you can't make money. But if broaden your view you see that a 1.5% cut is revenue better spent in the hands of business operators to create jobs and boost investment than in the hands of bureaucrats with no wealth creation skills. You still didn't answer the question about who is going to pay for this tax cut to business.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]oPpQisoZqx4&feature[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:batfink wrote:mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino..... LOL Can guarantee you now that there aren't "gumps" working at Casinos. Maybe in the building industry under poor managers like you, but definitely not in gambling institutions. -PB i am an excellent manager thanks
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:34% is a disaster....](*,) ](*,) so 66% of cases are in unlawful....LOL
whenyou get to the court the vast majority of judges are ex ACTU and unionists..........LOL](*,) ](*,) You're an idiot. That's 34% of what actually MAKES IT to the commission. That doesn't even consider the applications that are dismissed prior to hearing, cases that lawyers and delegates don't see merit in and those dismissals that aren't even unfair. 66% is a lower conviction rate than a regular court of law, which is around 80% in Australia. notorganic wrote:Construction isn't special as an industry. All workers have expectations, and if a worker is not meeting expectations it's entirely lawful to transition them out of your business.
It just sounds like you are demanding changes in legislation to cover for poor management practice. It's shit like this which makes me think Batfink couldn't run a bath let alone a company. How can a guy who can't admit being wrong run anything? Obviously his recruitment is terrible if he keeps getting stuck with these employees. And obviously his man management is poor of he can't either get them to shape up or dismiss them for failing to perform.
|
|
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
This is getting silly. If people can't see that it's healthy for the economy to have people earn more and spend money then there's no hope.
Money in the hand if people is always better than money in the hand of government.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
thupercoach wrote:This is getting silly. If people can't see that it's healthy for the economy to have people earn more and spend money then there's no hope.
Money in the hand if people is always better than money in the hand of government. Except they don't spend it. They stockpile it.
|
|
|
|
|
imonfourfourtwo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
thupercoach wrote:This is getting silly. If people can't see that it's healthy for the economy to have people earn more and spend money then there's no hope.
Money in the hand if people is always better than money in the hand of government. Just seeing if you are consistent on this, what's your opinion on 1) The $900 surplus hand outs 2) The previous Coalition government collecting the highest tax to gdp ratio of 24.2%
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:batfink wrote:mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino..... LOL Can guarantee you now that there aren't "gumps" working at Casinos. Maybe in the building industry under poor managers like you, but definitely not in gambling institutions. -PB i am an excellent manager thanks Evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Batfink is a good leader. According to batfink. He also thinks Tony Abbott is a good leader. Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
bovs
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
thupercoach wrote:This is getting silly. If people can't see that it's healthy for the economy to have people earn more and spend money then there's no hope.
Money in the hand if people is always better than money in the hand of government. So, the government should minimise its surpluses by reducing taxes and/or directly funding employment through government services? Doesn't sound like you should be voting for the Libs at all... probably Liberal Democrats in the senate and 50/50 in the HoR but you'd probably lean to Labor over "budget crisis" Abbott. Seriously... Labor and Liberal both generically believe in strengthening the economy while taking some amount of tax to fund government services... the main differences only tend to be which services to fund and which people to tax. Libs aren't a "low-taxing party" as is evident by the high tax rates under Howard. Nor are they a "no services party" as is evident by their support for PPL, NDIS, Gonski and an NBN.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:Quote:Well if you have a narrow, shortsighted view like do, you can't make money. But if broaden your view you see that a 1.5% cut is revenue better spent in the hands of business operators to create jobs and boost investment than in the hands of bureaucrats with no wealth creation skills. You still didn't answer the question about who is going to pay for this tax cut to business. Big business will fund most of it. Taxpayer contribution will be no greater than the current scheme. Have to consider this PPL will deliver a substantial boost to the economy and productivity unlike Labors version.
|
|
|
|
|
Eastern Glory
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Eastern Glory wrote:rusty wrote:afromanGT wrote:Quote:not enough to account for the massive, unprecedented drop in boat arrivals, which virtually fell to zero While airport arrivals increased. Great, come on an airplane. At least this way we can verify you. Just out of interest, are there actually people out there who think these 'correct pathways' are available to these people? If so..... Just how...? :oops: don't even know how to word this... How is it possible to not get that most of the time, these correct channels don't exist to the citizens who actually need them most. So if they can afford 20k to get on a boat and have papers then why can't they catch a plane? -PB Surely you don't believe that that actually happens on a whilst basis? Because many of them aren't being allowed to just leave the country so easily. There is just so much to it, and many of them take any chance to get out. Says a lot when they are willing to risk everything to escape their current circumstances. This isn't a case of getting impatient whilst waiting in a bank queue.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
bovs wrote:Well if this is the case... why doesn't the Liberal party actually debate policy and ideology, rather than constantly scare-mongering about the state of the economy?
I'm not a Labor supporter... I'd probably vote for the Liberal Party at this election EXCEPT for the fact that they won't actually put forward a proper reason for anyone to vote for them. I don't consider "because Labor is crap" to be a good enough reason to vote Liberal. Not sure if you've been listening carefully enough. They have been debating policy, for example the PPL scheme we are talking about, the NBN on which the libs have their own version, as well as throwing their support behind NDIS and Gonski, as well as today releasing $30 billion in cuts. They have also said they will return the budget to surplus, which isn't exactly "scaremongering" as much as it is sound fiscal policy. A good reason to vote for the Coalition is their strong record on economic management, in which the previous Liberal government delivered something like ten surpluses, while the current government has delivered only deficits with absolutely no clue on how to restore balance to the economy and no balls to make cuts where needed. Was cringeworthy watching Ed Husic on Sky tonight, he basically admitted Labor had plan to return the budget to surplus in the near future. Labor people have this weird idea that debt will magically disappear over time, or some future government will take care of it. They are right, it will be the current opposition cum incumbent in September. Quote:If the Liberals want to sell this as something that is going to grow the economy and secure the future of Australia and part of a wider plan for social reform, they should do that.
At the moment they're selling it as, "Look we don't hate women... we're giving them money, see!" And at the same time bleating about how little money we have. Those business savings you mention won't go to the budget bottom dollar and the fact that the levy on big business is being offset by the corporate tax reduction just makes it WORSE because that's LESS money coming in to fix the "crisis". Cutting the corporate tax rate will stimulate the economy, boost productivity and create jobs. Giving it to business to reinvest in the economy rather than spend it on social programs will generate more revenue in the long term. Australia already has high corporate tax rate, one of the highest in the developed world, so we are due for a tax cut to make us more regionally domestically and regionally competitive. Getting rid of the silly carbon tax will also help lift the mood of businesses and make Australia more attractive to run and start business, thereby creating more revenue through increased business acitivty and revenue streams. Quote:If Tony Abbott chose the word "crisis". That's as in, "We have to do something and do it RIGHT NOW or we'll be up shit creek without a paddle". A 5-year transition of returning confidence to business to eventually pick up extra tax revenue off an increased GDP isn't a solution to a "crisis". I'm not sure he chose the word "crisis" though, did he? We're not in crisis yet, but we will be unless we get public expenditure under control. Cutting to the bone too early will cause damage so I get why the libs arent over committing on delivering a surplus right now, but we need a pathway to it. The best way to solve a crisis is to avoid one, so we need to treat this election as crisis aversion.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I really hope average Joe voter still doesn't see the Government Deficit as some kind of debt much like a Credit Card or Mortgage. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Capac
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:They have also said they will return the budget to surplus, which isn't exactly "scaremongering" as much as it is sound fiscal policy.
A good reason to vote for the Coalition is their strong record on economic management, in which the previous Liberal government delivered something like ten surpluses, while the current government has delivered only deficits with absolutely no clue on how to restore balance to the economy and no balls to make cuts where needed. Was cringeworthy watching Ed Husic on Sky tonight, he basically admitted Labor had plan to return the budget to surplus in the near future. Labor people have this weird idea that debt will magically disappear over time, or some future government will take care of it. They are right, it will be the current opposition cum incumbent in September. Well just saying "we'll return the budget to surplus" isn't in and of itself sound fiscal policy, especially when they keep backpeddling on when exactly the this mystical budget surplus will arrive. You can't simply dump expenditure and expect a surplus to magically bring the economy back into shape, it doesn't work that way, and it's why the LNP aren't promising to bring the surplus back in the first term, They're not stupid. The issue is then that they are critising the Labour government for not providing a surplus this year or not saying it will come next year but then agreeing they won't be able to do it until a second term. In that vein as well the current level of debt isn't even that bad; public debt is only at 26% of GDP, and while i agreeing that continuing budget deficit isn't positive to consumer confidence, we really aren't in much trouble of paying off debt or getting into and endless hole. rusty wrote:
Getting rid of the silly carbon tax will also help lift the mood of businesses and make Australia more attractive to run and start business, thereby creating more revenue through increased business acitivty and revenue streams.
Be fair, if the carbon tax is going to be negatively impacting business confidence through greater costs then the same thing will happen for the paid parental leave scheme. For the record I support both policies but if you are going to comment in one way against one then you have to acknowledge the other.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:I really hope average Joe voter still doesn't see the Government Deficit as some kind of debt much like a Credit Card or Mortgage.
-PB :lol: But you know that they all do. That's the problem. They see everything as being akin to 'personal debt', the idea that other nations can be indebted to us escapes their thought process entirely. This is exemplified by batfink's frequent dodging of said point.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]_9WefEtsZq0[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:[youtube]_9WefEtsZq0[/youtube] A shame that this won't hit the mainstream media.
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:batfink wrote:afromanGT wrote:batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:It's not unlawful dismissal to fire a worker that isn't performing to the expected standard after written performance or behavioural warnings.
It sounds like you don't know the legislation very well. condescending much....
i would suggest i know the legislation far better than you having been dealing with it on a first hand basis for many years....it's obvious you haven't come across professional bludgers and union bullies..... :lol: Condescending much? I would suggest you don't know the legislation as well as you think if you don't know how to apply it to relieve inadequate employees of their position. KPI's, monthly performance reviews, time and attendance issues and customer relations are all plenty adequate reasons to give written warnings cumulatively allowing you to fire a person. So if you're in a position where you've got issues with "professional bludgers" and "union bullies" working for you, perhaps you A) need to look at your inadequate recruitment, and B) re-learn workplace dismissal laws. Also, from the cases of unfair dismissal I've seen (I dealt with a few while I was at the Casino and IIRC the results of cases are readily available online) unless there's a fairly egregious aberration by the employer, the commission generally side with them. mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino..... the construction industry is riddled with court cases from unlawful dismissal so it's obviously easier in an admin / office enviroment as opposed to our industry............ Construction isn't special as an industry. All workers have expectations, and if a worker is not meeting expectations it's entirely lawful to transition them out of your business. It just sounds like you are demanding changes in legislation to cover for poor management practice. Of course you are right Matt......having experience in the construction industry yourself....what is your background again.....tele marketing for teletech???? and field maanger for roy morgan research???? however i must say your webpage looks rather impressive....... anyway keep up the trolling about being a poor manager it gives me a good laugh and brings a huge smile to my face.....and perhaps if you manage your organic cotton venture as well as i have managed my contracting firm you will end up lasting in business for 25 years as i have and end up successful and lead a varied and rewarding life. ;) good luck sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:batfink wrote:34% is a disaster....](*,) ](*,) so 66% of cases are in unlawful....LOL
whenyou get to the court the vast majority of judges are ex ACTU and unionists..........LOL](*,) ](*,) You're an idiot. That's 34% of what actually MAKES IT to the commission. That doesn't even consider the applications that are dismissed prior to hearing, cases that lawyers and delegates don't see merit in and those dismissals that aren't even unfair. 66% is a lower conviction rate than a regular court of law, which is around 80% in Australia. notorganic wrote:Construction isn't special as an industry. All workers have expectations, and if a worker is not meeting expectations it's entirely lawful to transition them out of your business.
It just sounds like you are demanding changes in legislation to cover for poor management practice. It's shit like this which makes me think Batfink couldn't run a bath let alone a company. How can a guy who can't admit being wrong run anything? Obviously his recruitment is terrible if he keeps getting stuck with these employees. And obviously his man management is poor of he can't either get them to shape up or dismiss them for failing to perform. you have anger management issues.....do you resort to abuse every time you are challenged????? you make a lot of assumptions.......where did i say i keep getting stuck with poor employee's?? where did i say that i can't get them into shape or dismiss employee's?? and how is my recruitment poor when i have 75% of my team as long team employee's?? you just seem to make shit up for the purposes of spewing vitriol....why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:batfink wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:batfink wrote:mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino..... LOL Can guarantee you now that there aren't "gumps" working at Casinos. Maybe in the building industry under poor managers like you, but definitely not in gambling institutions. -PB i am an excellent manager thanks Evidence seems to suggest otherwise. what evidence is that Matt....your imagination?????
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:Evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Batfink is a good leader. According to batfink. He also thinks Tony Abbott is a good leader. Nuff said. once again more assumption and misleading statements from you.... I can't recall saying Abbott is a good leader....actually i have repeatedly stated that i think Turnbull would be better but hey keep on slagging away with your shit if it keeps you happy.......as soon as someone doesn't agree with you , you resort to abuse it's your first line of defence
|
|
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Quote:MINISTERS and Labor factional powerbrokers are openly questioning whether Julia Gillard would have done a better job than Kevin Rudd as panic rises within the Government over its faltering campaign. Opinion: Loss might not see end of Rudd Party Games: 'Twice shy' forum crowds Rudd Leaders' debate and Day 24 coverage Despite Mr Rudd yesterday insisting he could still pull off a surprise win, his own ministers are quietly airing complaints about the Prime Minister and his closest adviser Bruce Hawker's strategic decision-making. One minister warned Labor's campaign lacked depth and was simply based on a failed "mythology" that Mr Rudd's celebrity would see voters flock back to Labor. "The mythology of Kevin that is contradicted by fact is that his popularity will lift all votes," a minister said. "The notion that it could just be about Kevin was complete and utter nonsense." Just two months since the Labor Party dramatically switched its leader, some senior members of the Government are now complaining that Ms Gillard would have performed better than Mr Rudd. The minister said Ms Gillard would have slowly improved Labor's vote, while under Mr Rudd it soared and then plummeted. "One of the questions that will be asked is would Gillard have met Rudd on the way down? In the end, we'll never know," the source said. "She made mistakes, no doubt, and she made mistakes under pressure. But she was much cooler under pressure and she coped with a greater intensity." A second minister said some Labor MPs who advocated Mr Rudd's return should be wondering whether they made the right call. Asked if marginal seat MPs would have had a better chance under Gillard, the minister said "they're too frightened to ask that question". Another senior Labor source said Mr Rudd's election campaign was "off message", was "not sticking with the theme each week" and "the PM seems rattled, disorganised". As disenchantment about Labor's election campaign increases, blame is being sheeted home to Mr Rudd and Mr Hawker. "Kevin wakes up with a bright idea. Bruce agrees with him and it happens," one senior party source said. "The rest of the party is left in the wake of a decision made by Kevin. That is not the way you should run an election campaign." Common complaints about Mr Rudd include that he has announced policies without consulting key campaign operatives and he has not stuck with key themes. Some say he started negative attacks on Mr Abbott too soon and wasted too much time attacking the media in a way that looked "petulant". One Labor powerbroker said the party would be better off without their reborn leader: "The dream outcome would be for us to marginally win and for Kevin to lose." Even one of the MPs who were instrumental in Mr Rudd's rise to power now admit his performance had been "patchy". But the senior Rudd supporter defended the leadership change, saying the new Prime Minister's lowest two-party-preferred vote in the polls of about 47 per cent was close to Ms Gillard's best result. ### Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/julia-gillard-may-have-performed-better-in-election-campaign-than-kevin-rudd-say-key-labor-party-figures/story-fnho52ip-1226706050447#ixzz2dGYiV8aU They can bring back Julia on the condition Liberals bring back Turnbull. Lol... As Labor panics and begins to unravel.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
It's a news.com.au article :lol: Hardly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:batfink wrote:afromanGT wrote:batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:It's not unlawful dismissal to fire a worker that isn't performing to the expected standard after written performance or behavioural warnings.
It sounds like you don't know the legislation very well. condescending much....
i would suggest i know the legislation far better than you having been dealing with it on a first hand basis for many years....it's obvious you haven't come across professional bludgers and union bullies..... :lol: Condescending much? I would suggest you don't know the legislation as well as you think if you don't know how to apply it to relieve inadequate employees of their position. KPI's, monthly performance reviews, time and attendance issues and customer relations are all plenty adequate reasons to give written warnings cumulatively allowing you to fire a person. So if you're in a position where you've got issues with "professional bludgers" and "union bullies" working for you, perhaps you A) need to look at your inadequate recruitment, and B) re-learn workplace dismissal laws. Also, from the cases of unfair dismissal I've seen (I dealt with a few while I was at the Casino and IIRC the results of cases are readily available online) unless there's a fairly egregious aberration by the employer, the commission generally side with them. mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino..... the construction industry is riddled with court cases from unlawful dismissal so it's obviously easier in an admin / office enviroment as opposed to our industry............ Construction isn't special as an industry. All workers have expectations, and if a worker is not meeting expectations it's entirely lawful to transition them out of your business. It just sounds like you are demanding changes in legislation to cover for poor management practice. Of course you are right Matt......having experience in the construction industry yourself....what is your background again.....tele marketing for teletech???? and field maanger for roy morgan research???? however i must say your webpage looks rather impressive....... anyway keep up the trolling about being a poor manager it gives me a good laugh and brings a huge smile to my face.....and perhaps if you manage your organic cotton venture as well as i have managed my contracting firm you will end up lasting in business for 25 years as i have and end up successful and lead a varied and rewarding life. ;) good luck sunshine :lol: being called a poor manager made you angry enough to look at my LinkedIn? Insecure much?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
You're a bad manager by your own admission when you whinged about not being able to fire people. Just stfu already batfink. Nobody cares. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:thupercoach wrote:This is getting silly. If people can't see that it's healthy for the economy to have people earn more and spend money then there's no hope.
Money in the hand if people is always better than money in the hand of government. Except they don't spend it. They stockpile it. See my two posts earlier Afro. They spend a fortune on all kinds of services which benefits the service providers. I'm one of those service providers so I should know.
|
|
|
|