Michaelia Cash backflip

I jumped the gun. The other day in "Common Sense Prevails", I declared, prematurely it seems, that the government had refused to release the confidential volumes of Dyson Heydon's final report to the ALP MPs "to protect the physical well being of several witnesses and their families" (from Labor blocked from seeing secret union volumes).  

As of this morning's news, "Michaelia Cash backflips over union report", the government has changed its rather fickle 'mind' and is intending to release these confidential volumes to one selected member of each opposition party as well as the independents.

Mmm. It seems the need to get the legislation through overrides the need to "to protect the physical well being of several witnesses and their families". 

Well you know my view. So lets leave it at that. Who knows they may change their mind again.

Aye, there's the rub.

Over the past 18 months the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC)  played out on our media like a slow motion Shakespearean tragedy. With all the accouterments of these plays; human vices writ loud and large; greed, duplicity, double dealing, leading to falls from grace and of course piles of bodies. We have yet to see the final body count as we are but midway through the play, but they are already piling up.

In recent days the drama has again come front and center as, rumors have it that, the Turnbull government in order to woo cross-bench support for mooted new legislation, is considering giving these accidental powerhouses of decision making access to the confidential volume(s) of Commissioner Dyson's final report.

Now Labor wants to get into the act and has asked for similar access. Ay there's the rub.

What type of information would be confidential?

No doubt Dyson Heydon (DH) had good reasons to make one volume of his 6 volume final report confidential. What would be good reasons? Admittedly I am only speculating, but I can see at least three, and there may be many more.

1. It names sources.
It could contain the names of sources who have provided information to the TURC. Some of this may have been only been made in exchange for a guarantee of anonymity.  The sources may have been exposed to corrupt Unions in their dealings and may remain in positions that would leave them vulnerable if they were identified.

Sources may be ; -

• serving members of a Union in senior roles who could lose their position or even worse. Unions have been known to resort to plain old thuggery.
• employer's who fear retribution from their Unions through industrial action or worse.
• past or even currently serving MPs, who could face retribution in various forms including loss of pre-selection. 
• current or past legal representatives of Unions who are passing on client confidential information. The consequences again can be serious.
• ex Union officials who are appointees to government and semi government authorities. eg Fair Work Australia just to consider an example. I seem to recall a certain Fair Work judge who did give evidence to the TURC. Who knows what else could be under the covers.

In short, sources could come from any sphere that has insider knowledge of Union corruption. Many if not most of these sources have very good reasons to protect their anonymity. Exposure of their names would put them at grave risk of various forms of retribution.

2. Evidence in progress
There may be evidence of Union corrupt dealings not yet in the public domain that DH would like to share with law enforcement authorities, to allow them to act on the evidence before its general release. Such evidence may be vital to ensure success in persecuting offenders but its uncontrolled release by alerting offenders as to its existence may make prosecution more difficult.

3. Cases not covered
No doubt as DH sifted through the vast volumes of material over the 18 month duration of the enquiry he had to select which cases to cover. In this selection he would have come across many instances of potential corruption that needed further exploration. The confidential volume may contain details of potential corruption that required further investigation. Exposure of these could allow the perpetrators to 'cover up' and make prosecution impossible.

Would you trust the keys to your house to a potential burglar?

Now we can return to the question whether to give or not to give the confidential volume to the ALP?

The ALP is wedded to the Union movement. More than Half federal Labor MPs have union origins, and affiliated unions take a leading role in setting ALP policies at the national conference. Quite simply it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between an ALP MP and a Union official. They seem to talk as two faces with one creature.  None typifies this close relationship between ALP and the Unions more than the brothers O'Connor. Brother Brendan is the ALP's Opposition Employment spokesman. Brother Michael is the National Secretary of the CFMEU, which happens to be the Union with the dubious honour of having the largest number of corruption charges identified by the TURC.

Given this close relationship should the government release the confidential report to the ALP? In all good conscience could the ALP be trusted not to leak, accidentally or otherwise, any of the potentially damaging information to its brother the Union movement?

Would the proverbial 'fair minded lay observer' think it reasonable to give the confidential volume on Union corruption to the Labor party? I think not.

ALP must jettison Union ties

I guess this is the pointy end of the problem for the ALP. Its close relationship with the Union movement has made it difficult for it to be seen as an independent judge of Union corruption.

The ALP's dealing with the TURC has been totally irrational. Rather than enthusiastically siding with the workers as opposed to corrupt Union officials, and supporting the TURC, it has done the opposite. It has simply echoed the Unions' repeated calls to stop the TURC  or to discredit the commissioner. Its apparent hysteria and repeated denial of corruption despite overwhelming well documented evidence, seems to be counterproductive. It seems to be 'running a protection racket' for corrupt Union officials against their members.  This strategy is not serving the ALP nor the country. Australia needs two strong, independent, political parties. When Unionism represents under 15% of the workforce how can the ALP justify 50% of its MPs having Union backgrounds.

Isn't it time for the ALP to jettison those close Union ties and really become the party of the workers.

Are secret Union deals simply extortion?

The TURC sittings this week have hardly raised a murmur in our 'distracted' press. I write 'distracted' but many other adjectives, unprofessional, feckless, irresponsible, incompetent, may be more suitable.

The statements of Thiess employees could be described as nothing less than bombshells casting asunder all of Bill Shorten's past testimony and the media's dismissal of smoking guns. What is more smoking than direct affirmation that the special 'side deals' were negotiated by Bill Shorten as secretary of the Victorian branch of the AWU. Deals whereby Thiess would make secret payments of large sums to the Union in exchange for industrial peace. 

It is all there. Secret payments for sham invoices for services which were never provided. Sham invoices paid in full paid by Thiess and money received by the AWU. Why was Thiess paying the AWU ? They were buying industrial peace. No doubt had the company not paid they believed they would have suffered industrial disruption. 

Lets check the definition of extortion and protection racquet; - 

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

Mmm. Do you see any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their deal with Thiess? It seems the Union acts like common racketeers obtaining money in exchange for providing 'protection' from industrial action, by, no doubt, its own members. This smells awfully like extortion!

Make no mistake this payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses, who use these fraudulent funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions, but when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a bribe, it is extortion.

Where is the media?

The testimony by employers on the AWU fraud has been reported in the print media.

• SMH Oct 12, "Royal commission testimony: Invoices to Bill Shorten's AWU 'bogus' in EastLink union deal
• SMH Oct 13,Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000
• SMH Oct 14, AWU 'sold out' over 36-hour week, union royal commission told
• The Australian Oct 15, "ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex

However most surprisingly; for much of this week, the commentariat seems to have been on holidays! Except for Skynews' Paul Murray Live, discussion or even mention of the TURC, or the AWU, has been strangely absent from news bulletins and political programs. I may have missed some, but I cannot recall any reference to what should be a politically explosive issue on any of the ABC's news bulletins or indeed AM, PM or 730 programs. Astoundingly selective reporting!

Even when mentioned, there is a tendency for the media to regard this type of practice as an occasional slip up of an individual Union or individual Unionist. However evidence at the TURC seems to indicate otherwise. We have seen these types of criminal 'deals' at the CFMEU, the HSU, and now at the AWU. It is very likely a widespread prctice.

It seems that most of our media media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payments from employers a crime. This is despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Is the media shying away from reporting on a problem whose magnitude and political impact is potentially catastrophic to one of our leading political parties? You can draw your own conclusion. For me, I believe we have a significant problem. Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but by failing to report on it without fear or favour, our media seem to find it acceptable!

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Where are the voices against corruption?

With but a few hours to go before we find out Dyson Heydon's verdict on himself, what more can be said?  Everyone has been at it over the past few weeks.

In all the outrage about possible 'perception of apprehended bias' by the Royal Commissioner much of the commentariat has lost focus. As a result I feel a need to re-iterate what I believe are the core issues and why a change in commissioner at this time would not be in our common interest.

• The TURC was set up to find Union corruption and it has succeeded. Several Union officials have already been charged and some 60 specific complaints against unionists are now under investigation with many likely to lead to charges. The TURC under DH has uncovered extensive criminality in many of our largest Unions.
• The corrupt practices of their officials has had substantial impact on Union members. In cases where member funds have been misappropriated (HSU, CFMEU), members have no doubt borne the costs through membership fees. But even worse, in those cases where through 'sweetheart deals' Union(AWU) leaders negotiated away their members' benefits, members lost income. It is clearly not in members' interests to have corrupt Union officials. 
• It has been argued by some, that the TURC was not necessary since 'criminal acts' by Union officials would have been picked up by existing law enforcement agencies. However the fact is that there has been no action by existing law enforcement bodies despite these offences stretching back over decades.
• The Union movement has been trying to sabotage the TURC even before it started,  initially calling it a witch-hunt then more recently attacking the Royal Commissioner. Doesn't the Union movement and the ACTU want to eliminate corruption in its ranks? Where are the voices of the honest Union leaders who don't want corruption in their organisations? 
• Similarly, ALP elected representatives in both state and federal governments, who always claim they are on the side of the workers, have joined if not preceded Unions' calls of 'witch-hunt' and bias. Aren't ALP MPs on the workers' side? I know of only one ALP ex parliamentarian, who has spoken out in favour of the TURC, and Martin Ferguson should be applauded for it. Nevertheless it begs the question why haven't we heard any current ALP MPs admonishing corrupt Union leaders and supporting the work of the TURC? 
• Had the ALP taken an anti-corruption stance they would have earned the respect of the electorate and indeed the Unions' members. By not supporting the TURC, by calling for its commissioner to recuse himself, by calling for the TURC to be disbanded the ALP are siding with corrupt officials, against Unions' members and against the best interest of all Australians.
• So too our media. While they see themselves as the objective last stand in the defence of truth, our collective media seem to have fallen far short of this ideal. Except for a handful of 'Right' leaning commentators the media have failed to stand in support of Union members and against Union corruption.
• An attack on the 'umpire' during a game is unforgivable in any sport. Legitimate questions of bias can be, and often are, raised after the game is over when judgement is made in a objective manner. The attacks on DH should have been raised after the commission had completed its work. There would have been no downside in this, as DH's rulings are only the first step in the process and will always be tested in either parliament or in a court of law (see post 4 reasons why DH should stay).

No matter which way the decision by DH the tactic of attacking a serving Royal Commssioner while the commission is active will have consequences, including; -

• As a direct result of the perceived success of the 'mass-media-outrage' tactic the commentariat, comprising mass media, social media, politicians and vested interests (Unions in this case), are more polarised than ever and more willing not to look objectively at any issue if it goes against their leanings. 
• No Royal Commission into any matter which has a political implication will be able to do its work without loud open claims of bias. This tactic has been shown to work and therefore will be used again. This will be true even if DH stays. The laws related to criticism of Royal Commissioners has to be enforced to prevent this happening in future.
• If DH leaves and a new RC is appointed, expect to hear the claims of bias again and again.

Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

On fair-minded lay observers..

'Fair minded lay observers' seem to have popped into our milieu of late. What the heck are they?

Can we find one?

Is a parking cop fair minded when he books me while I am standing next to the yellow Maserati which has been parked for just 1 hour in a no-parking zone?  Or is he simply picking on me because of my pink hair and tattoos, or indeed my Maserati?

Ok perhaps an extreme example. Try this.

What would a fair-minded lay observer say about a Human Rights Commission president who postponed a review of 'children in detention' when the numbers were rising rapidly under a Labour Government, till after a change of government when the numbers were falling rapidly?

No? No that one? Ok lets try again.

What would a fair minded lay observer think of a Union lawyer arguing a Royal Commissioner recuse himself because "he is guilty of apprehended bias" after his Union has been exposed as corrupt with many of its members already facing criminal charges?

I guess you can see where I am going with this, but bear with me.

The argument over 'apprehended bias' by Dyson Heydon in his role as TURC commissioner has taken centre stage.

The term was new to me till recently. So I have had to do some quick Googling.  There are of course many references, all rather legalese.  Apprehended Bias is the criterion used to determine whether a judge has sufficient impartiality to rule on a matter.

The NSW judicial commission provides this definition; -

"The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself by reason of apprehended bias is “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”: Judicial Commission of New South Wales

And to further clarify; - 

" the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. . . . [The] test is "what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through conclude." ( Source Reasonable apprehension of Bias )

With the TURC, the decision is up to Dyson Heydon (DH) and we will know his decision in due course.

I have already recorded my position vis-a-vis the justice of this attack but would like to add some points specifically addressing the Apprehended Bias attack. (4 reasons why Dyson Heydon should stay)

• The claims of Apprehended Bias are disingenuous
• The claimants have evident bias themselves
• Some of the claimants arguments do not support Apprehended bias

The claims of Apprehended Bias are disingenuous. 

The Unions raising the claim do so not because they believe DH will be not be impartial. They use it as a convenient argument in order to ;

• weaken the TURC by eliminating an effective commissioner
• deflect attention from the corruption already exposed and prevent more being exposed
• taint the work of the TURC and thereby mitigate the findings of the commission against them
• minimise the political damage to both the Union movement and the ALP by their association with corrupt practices
• generally obfuscate, throw enough mud so some will stick.

The claimants have evident bias themselves

The ACTU, the AWU and the CFMEU through their solicitors each made claims of apprehended bias against DH. How seriously should we gauge their claims of AB. Do they meet the criteria of being fair-minded lay observers?

Certainly not! The CFMEU has been implicated in wide-spread corrupt practices with many of its members likely to face criminal charges. So too the AWU with two ex Union organisers to face criminal charges, and exposure of suspect Union deals which disadvantage workers. The ACTU represents all the unions and therefore has an overarching self interest to minimise the political damage caused by the exposure of corrupt practices.

So none of the claimants are fair minded lay observers. They are clearly biased in their claims, so we should treat them with suspicion.

Some of the claimants arguments do not support Apprehended bias

I guess this last of my points is the most important. While we will generally accept that the Unions have a vested interest in discrediting the TURC and will use any argument that serves that purpose, are they arguing something they don't believe? That is a lot harder to prove. 

Indeed it is and I don't claim to have foolproof evidence but at least sufficient 'smoke' to suggest there is a 'fire'. 

Reproduced below is the reported testimony of Mr Newlinds the barrister for the ACTU at the TURC arguing the case for Apprehended Bias; - 

11.03am: Now, Mr Newlinds focuses on Justice Heydon’s reputation: “We know that you’re the Honourable Dyson Heydon. When I say we, I mean the lawyers in this room, and we know that you have particular skills as a lawyer and as a judge and for that matter as an academic.”

He goes on to make the interesting point that, while the “hypothetical bystander” may not know about Heydon’s “razor sharp mind” or “mind like a steel trap”, they would bear in mind Mr Heydon’s resume.

He says: “We know that you’re a man with a reputation for having a razor sharp mind, to use another cliche, a mind like a steel trap. I think my learned friend is correct in saying that the hypothetical bystander that this matter must be judged by, he or she doesn’t know that ... They do know that you were appointed to the High Court, that you were appointed to the COA of NSW, then to the HC of A and served for the best part of a decade, I think, and that the executive branch of government has seen you as a person appropriate to carry out this very important, difficult and fact intensive inquiry. (source The Australian )

Paraphrasing , Mr Newlinds argues that those in the legal fraternity respect DH 's ability to weigh arguments and come to impartial rulings, but that the lay observer does not know this and therefore may see him as being biased.

In other words, Mr Newlinds argues solicitors like himself accept that DH is impartial, but despite this DH is guilty of Apprehended bias as a lay observer would not have this insiders' knowledge.

However returning to the clarification of how to apply the 'apprehended bias' criterion; -

" the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information." ( Source Reasonable apprehension of Bias )

So the lay observer must also acquaint themselves with those in the industry and therefore would come to the same conclusion as Mr Newlinds has, that DH will indeed be impartial.

Mr Newlinds has, perhaps inadvertently, presented a cogent argument for dismissing the Apprehended Bias claim against DH.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

4 reasons why Dyson Heydon should stay as TURC commissioner

Fresh from the successful scalp of Bronwyn Bishop the Media/ALP pack are at it again. This time the target is Dyson Heydon, the ex High court judge now leading the Trade Union Royal Commission(TURC). Universally acclaimed as a man of integrity he is now being hounded out of office. The next few days will prove whether this mass attack is successful.

But irrespective of the outcome, is this attack reasonable? Would his removal be just and in the best interests of our country or would it reward and thereby encourage and legitimize such unseemly political tactics as the new normal in Australia's political discourse.

Much has been said and written on this so I am sure everyone is familiar with the core facts. I will restrict my comments to make just four points.

1. There is no 'Perception of bias'
2. A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role
3. There is no down-side in keeping DH in his role 
4. There is a serious downside in removing him from his role

There is no 'perception of bias'

There is no evidence that DH has exhibited any bias at all. In fact no one is arguing that he has or even that he is likely to. All argument is that there is a 'perception of bias'.
ALP and many in the media argue that 'perception of bias' is a sufficient criterion for his removal.
However the loudest calls come from those who do not apply this rule universally. The case of Gillian Triggs comes immediately to mind. In that case the argument was not even about a perception of bias but what was argued to have been demonstrated bias. Those who argued that Triggs should remain in her job but today argue that Heydon be removed are doing so for reasons other than potential 'perception of bias'.

ALP MPs are simply arguing out of self interest trying to stop the TURC as they see it as politically damaging given their close Union allegiance. Their colours were shown even before Dyson Heydon was appointed to his role, labeling the TURC as political witch-hunt, and they have not let up ever since. Their calls are certainly tainted.
As for the journos, they should explain their different stance themselves. It certainly looks like they are simply exposing their own political leanings.

Calls from those who are themselves biased must be dismissed.

A political leaning does not disqualify DH from fulfilling his role

A vast majority of thinking Australians have a political leaning. They vote in elections for one of the parties and they carry their leanings into their work and their private lives. So too do lawyers, police, teachers, judges and even royal commissioners. Why would we expect any judge not to have a political leaning?. 

Every day Judges, especially High Court judges are expected to rule on matters which may have some political impact. Yet we trust our judges, especially our High Court judges to make their rulings impartially, dependent only on the evidence presented and in accord with the laws of the land.

So why should anyone expect DH not to have a political leaning? Such leanings cannot rule him out as royal commissioner. Indeed if it did then no person could serve as a royal commissioner as no one is free of such leanings.

 Moreover, past High Court judges and Royal Commissioners have remained in their roles even after they presented speeches at party events. This is not even the case with DH, as he withdrew from the event.

There is no downside in keeping DH in place

There is no downside in keeping DH in his role because the TURC is the first step in a process which will have thorough parliamentary and legal scrutiny.

The TURC is gathering evidence on Union Corruption. The evidence will form the basis of a report, which will result in many Union officials facing criminal charges. Some have already been charged and some thirty have been named, who are likely to face charges. The evidence against individuals will be revisited in a court of law, where it will be weighed and considered. 

The final report of the TURC will no doubt make a series of recommendations regarding the introduction of new laws around Union governance.  The recommendations will also be weighed and considered by the government and will be debated by parliament.

So DH can continue to fulfill his role as TURC commissioner, irrespective of perceived or even actual leanings, without invalidating any of its findings.

There is a serious downside in removing him from is role

At the same time there is considerable and serious downside if DH does not continue to lead the TURC. 

You don't have to go past the hysterical calls for his resignation from the ALP to gauge the success of the commission to date. The TURC has brought to light corruption at the highest levels of many Unions (AWU, CFMEU, HSU etc.) and has named some thirty individuals who will in all likelihood face charges. No doubt much more is to come. 

It has been acknowledged by most commentators that DH has done an exemplary job to date.  While it has been argued that a new commissioner could be appointed, inevitably there would be a loss of momentum and who knows if the new commissioner would have the same level of success that DH has already demonstrated.

A further downside of removing DH from his role, would be to reward the 'shock and awe tactics' of the Media/ALP alliance. This contemptible political tactic is a new unwelcome entry into our social order. It works by confecting outrage over some issue, in this case the cancellation of a planned talk, and amplifying it through a compliant media into a political storm. Rewarding such tactics only encourages their use and debases our political and social discourse, and therefore should be strongly resisted. 

Finally, the removal of a high respected ex High Court judge without a 'just' cause would tarnish the exemplary record of a respected Australian. This is simply unethical.



Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

  

The 'Industrial Peace' Racket

"Houston we have a problem"

For those too young to remember "Houston we have a problem"* were the first, somewhat understated, words of astronauts in space alerting 'head-office' when some malfunction was identified. Those of us of the right maturity have these indelibly forged into our psyche as heralding a potentially serious problem.

Indeed I believe we have a problem.

Watching and listening to the media circus over the last week, one is left with varying views of Bill Shorten's appearance at the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC).

He was caught with "multiple smoking guns",  and "should resign", or that the whole TURC is a Liberal, or more accurately, "Tony Abbot witch hunt" and labour leaders are being "victimised". Indeed many a shrill defender of Shorten's honour has gone out of his way to get some sort of hot quote about the wonderful Unions and the hateful Tony Abbott.

I guess this is the norm for today's media frenzies, but what can we poor mugs take away from this. 

Firstly, whether the intentions of the LNP, or Tony Abbott, if you prefer, in establishing the TURC was political, is irrelevant, as its success will ultimately be judged only when it has run its course. Those criticising so volubly today seem to have other motivations themselves.

Further, the late declaration of a political donation, as noted by many is not uncommon. The focus on this aspect of his testimony by many journos and Labour defenders is simply to deflect from Shorten's failures. 

But it was not a political donation at all. More likely it was some sort of 'fringe benefit' as a by-product of an EBA deal. This of course presents the real problem. 

"The AWU has been seen as a moderate Union which has worked in harmony with business for the betterment of both workers and employers". So its supporters would say. But, if the AWU, as a matter of course, accepted payments from companies as part of an EBA negotiation then we have a problem.

Extortion is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

We are all familiar with extortion or protection rackets, often associated with the Mafia, whereby henchmen would demand property owners pay to ensure their premises were protected from thugs. If payment was not made their property was vandalised or burnt down and perhaps the owners would be bashed for good measure, by the very same thugs demanding money. It only took a few brave souls to decline these 'protection services' and receive their punishment to ensure others would fall in line and make their regular payments.

Do you notice any similarity with the apparent modus operandum of the AWU in their negotiation of EBA's with employers?

As per Shorten's testimony, the AWU negotiates, a perhaps unstated but implied, 'industrial peace' in return for benefits, not only for the workers but for a financial return to the Union itself!

This payment to the Union is in effect a benefit to the Union bosses who use these funds either for advancing their Union as it competes for members against other Unions, or for, let's call it 'private purposes'. Such as those derived, for example by the likes of Williamson, Thompson, Jackson and let me include Shorten.

If the employer fails to comply, there is an implied 'menace' of a strike or a boycott or in the case of some of the more thuggish unions, sabotage and well.. thuggery.

In the same way as the property owners faced with extortion learnt to pay, employers faced with the threat of labour strife have learnt to pay. It is easier.

A Union should never accept employer payments

There is a legitimate role for Unions in working on behalf of their members to improve working conditions. But when a Union accepts any payment directly from an employer in any form it is not just a 'conflict of interest', it is a crime. It is akin to 'demanding money with menaces', it is eliciting a 'bribe', it is 'extortion'.

Where is the media?

I am surprised that almost all media has avoided calling the Union's role in accepting direct payment from employers a crime.

Houston this is the problem: Not only do we have rampant extortion in operation within our industrial relations system, but our media seem to find it acceptable!

* I have been advised I misquoted - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Houston,_we_have_a_problem. 


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved