Friday, February 03, 2006

Labour Market Regulation Sucks

There is a flyer advertising the upcoming HR Nicholls Society's Conference in March. The flyer has nothing “offensive” on it whatsoever. But this is a university, so I guess mentioning Liberal Senator Nick Minchin’s name as the keynote speaker is a hanging offence.

The HR Nicholls society is a collection of industry leaders, businessmen and academics who are united by their pursuit of industrial relations reform. Unlike, say the Socialist Alliance, Amnesty International or the ABC, who come together to pursue an ideology, the Society members are bound by experience. The Society seems to collect those that have lost jobs, contracts, time and money, because of excessive, paternalistic, union and or government play. Its members are annoyed employers (the givers of jobs), who have had to jump through hoops to get someone on the payroll.

For the past 20 years the Society has advocated (successfully) for industrial relations reform throughout the States and Commonwealth.

The flyer, was grafittied by the School’s resident Marxist. Exercising his respect of everyone’s right to free speech (as the Left often does), he wrote “sucks” next to where the Society’s name appears in the title. Juvenile.

The next day, I walk past the flyer again. Someone, and I think I know who, wrote “labour market regulation” above the word “sucks.” It now reads: “labour market regulation sucks.” I agree. Score one for the good guys.

Day three. Our resident Marxist continues this high level debate and writes “de” next to the day old “regulation.” But adds to this, “Wanker” next to the good senator’s name. Tell me why is it that the left feel so threatened and inferior, that in the pursuit of any argument, at any level, they feel it is necessary to resort to a) personal abuses; and b) violence. As far as I can tell, the resident non-me right winger has taken the higher moral ground (the right road) and ceased bothering.

I have three labour market stories I want to share. All have occurred in the last month.

  1. G applies for a inter-departmental job opportunity, wanting to move from one federal department to another. He applied for the position in September. A low end job designed for a second year public servant. After the selection process moved along at its sluggish pace and all proper consideration is given to minorities, disabilities, women and the indigenous, G received an offer in December. He then has to wait until January for the position to be “gazetted” in the Commonwealth Gazette, and then must wait three weeks before he can start his new job. Can you imagine if this were a transfer from the NAB to ANZ? It’d take an hour.
  1. N and C apply for jobs as assistant nurses within the Canberra aged care system. Because C has a TAFE diploma in Health Science, he is ineligible – too overqualified – to apply. N dropped out from a Certificate III in photography. Lucky she cleared this up, because initially she to was deemed overqualified. The government wanted to keep the market open to only those with no skills. Warning to public: do not put you folks in public nursing homes because they think someone with no experience and a semester of photography is overqualified to look after your Nan.
  1. B, with no work history, and an illness which has kept him near bed ridden for three years, applies on Thursday for a job with a private firm. He is interviewed on Monday and began work on Tuesday.

I’m not that well versed in Union stories. Mostly, this is because Unions have been in mass decline since I’ve been working. If only government would follow suit.

Check out


Step Back said...

Could it be that the left feel it is necessary to resort to personal abuses for the same reason that you felt it was necessary to back up your racist tirade with a totally unnecessary slur like "finger painting"? Tell me...was that the higher moral ground you claim to be perched upon?

Timothy Bradley said...

Go ransack an embassy step back.

In the "fireworks" post, the fingerpainting reference wasn't a slur, it was tounge in cheek. It's like suggesting that the Germans are efficient but sexless, or that you lefties need less dope and more soap.

My point is still true. When losing an argument, the Left resort to personal abuse, name calling and physical abuse. You struggle because your arguments lack merit.

Case in point: what you have tried (here and elsewhere) to fight me on was not whether or not the Feds are too paternal in their approach to aboriginals. Rather you come out saying "don't listen to him he's a racist-Christian-Bush-loving-redneck."

At your next meeting you should move a motion to get a sense of humour.

(the quote in question is: "The OIPC looks after all things touched with the aboriginal brush (or should that be finger paint?)")

Step Back said...

And the right don’t? Then explain to me the motives behind the bombings of abortion clinics, violent protests anytime and anywhere there’s a change to gay marriage laws, and so on.

I’d never condone violence, certainly not in an effort to make a political point, but you can’t seriously believe that such violence is perpetrated by only one side of the spectrum.

And if you want to talk stupidity in the face of defeat, I have two words for you…Danna Vale. Remind me, which side of politics does she belong to?

Timothy Bradley said...

You point to an extreme fringe on the right SB.

Its not the mainstream response of the right to chain themselves to bull dozers, throw bricks at the police, vandalize every McDonalds and Starbucks in sight, put marbles on the ground to break the legs of police horses, break into university chancellor offices, set up page after page of websites insulting Bush's dialect problems, insist on calling Howard: "little Johnny" and belittling anyone who dares vote for a tax cut and added responsibility.

Yes the right has had its extremists, but at least they're extremists. How can the left defend itself? Why don't you try leaving your brick throwing to the basketball court?

Plus you only address one point: violence. What about the Left's intolerance, contempt and the intellectual smugness towards anyone who dares to vote for lower taxes and increased personal responsibility? I can tear down 30 posters on campus right now that make no argument, but just insult either Howard, Abbott, Bush or the overwhelming majorities that agree with them.