Hi OP, when quoting the article in your post, it’s helpful to use the quote formatting to show us you’re giving quotes and not just supplying additional commentary.
Writing: > You need to only look at the modern crossbench
becomes:
You need to only look at the modern crossbench
lol - what abuse? He said these things in an earnings presentation, probably to board and investors.
Attempting to (softly) control other peoples’ basic freedom, and their social life while at work, restricting them and alienating them from anything outside the office. The problem isn’t their choice of words, nor that they admitted it to investors.
Maybe the way I’m saying this sounds melodramatic, that I’m jumping to the extreme case and assuming the worst. But those worst cases happen regularly, and these are the warning signs - when the owners want increasing control over workers to extract more profit, to “get the best out of them”. Those employee pain points are social life: the company wants a childcare centre, a restaurant and a gym because “I don’t want them leaving the building.”, “I don’t want them walking down the road for a cup of coffee. We kind of figured out a few years ago how much that costs.” They could have lied and said they did it to improve worker wellbeing and get the best out of them, to reduce the travel-time needed, or any other seemingly innocent reason.
This attitude makes the universal truth clear, a board and investors see their workers as a resource for extracting maximum profit. It has to be that way, that’s how they compete and survive. And it alienates workers.
And I don’t see any evidence anywhere that his people are enduring shit jobs.
I didn’t say they were. I don’t know their conditions. I’m refuting the common attitude that workers are just free to leave when they’re being abused.
outrage reporting
You have a point. They said the quiet part aloud because their audience didn’t need the propaganda bullshit they would have told other people. And so, they admitted an outrageous truth which, well, is pretty normal among businesses. The journalist is taking a quote and shining the headlights on them. But, they are not inventing a fake problem. There’s no ethical justification for saying they don’t want people leaving the building to enjoy a walk and a coffee on their break. Employer exploitation of workers is a real issue in society at large, it deserves attention, and this outrage is an opportunity to give it the attention it deserves.
As the one calling the shots, he’s entitled to run the business that way.
Legally, sure. But I don’t care whether someone is legally allowed to be abusive, it’s still abuse, and their abusive attitude towards workers earns outrage.
And sure, employees can probably leave legally, but if we allow this abuse to be normalized then there won’t be another place to go in the industry. There is economic asymmetry at play, it’s not viable to just leave a job whenever it treats someone badly. There are only so many jobs available and the market is increasingly moving towards monopolization in many industries.
People don’t just work in shit jobs because they haven’t considered leaving. They have legal freedom, but they are not empowered to leave without ending up somewhere just as bad or risking unemployment. So even if no-one is forced, they’re inherently pressured, and that pressure is enough for them to accept abuse in order to keep themselves and their families off the dole. We need to create a society with an economy where people aren’t subject to the whims of their employers.
Seriously, watching that interview is a little painful with all the interrupting to try and railroad the conversation, and attaching weird attacks and assertions to make loaded questions, or rather, framing a claim as a question. I haven’t seen it so bad outside of Faux News in the US.
Glad to hear Max got a quick mention of the Green Bans of the BLF in.
Seriously, shame on the opportunistic people who bothered giving her a platform.
This article is very clear and to-the-point. Thanks for sharing.
In order to ensure the administrator doesn’t run wild, the administrator has to be satisfied that the administrator is acting in the interests of members.
Great system.
It’s a sharp reminder of the industrialisation of art as entertainment, more than as expression.
When we’re talking about ads and media, I highly recommend reading the relevant chapter in Manufacturing Consent (PDF version can easily be found for free online).
But really, intuition will get you the raw basics: using the ad revenue model gives the advertiser control over a media outlet. If media truly ‘need gambling ads’, then this implies they cannot afford to lose them. So, they therefore cannot offend the gambling industry or especially the companies advertising with them. And therefore, they are pressured into media bias, into failing to be critical of an obviously harmful, corrupt industry dealing in addiction manufacture AND laundering at the same time!
Are the AFP employees (coppers) aware they are the wrong people to be handling this? They had an opportunity to help this kid, and instead just accelerated a terrorist operation until they could punish the victim.
Yep, I was going to point out that a decent amount of tech roles had an expectation of WFH long before 2020.
Seriously, I’ve had a union organiser lament that WFH was making it hard to work with a certain part of the company. You can’t just set up a lunch or coffee meeting if everyone is in on different days (it’s not a co-operative role).
The video does touch on this wrt. the South Australian proposal, they give a few explanations and critiques of how well it does this.
I’m glad the video covered some good points, I recommend viewing or at least skimming, instead of knee-jerking at the title.
One of the big issues with political donations, being a form of capital influencing politics, is that people with more available capital can have more influence. On an idealist level, this contradicts some expectations we might have of a democracy with fair representation, like the ideal of one-person-one-vote. But looking at present conditions rather than ideals, we have to consider wealth inequality: I’m no expert but I think it says a lot that in 2023, the Australia Institute claimed “Ninety-three per cent of the gains from economic growth have gone to the top 10 per cent of income earners. The rest of us — the bottom 90 per cent — have only got 7 per cent of that economic growth.” (also note, “the top 10 per cent of income earners get a lot of their income from profit”, whereas the bottom 90 per cent mainly get it from wages. The importance being they have very different political values and priorities to most workers.) So, we can see that even though the worker class vastly outnumber the owner class who make money from profit, their capital and therefore ability to influence politics, even as individuals rather than interested corporations, far outbalances the masses even if we were somehow all aligned.
When some parties have enough funding for constant print, internet and television ads while others are basically unknown by most until election day, it’s a shame. Look at Clive Palmer as an example of disproportionate funds, although the same applies to the big parties even if we’re so used to it. I’ve seen some countries give free airtime (maybe 5 or 15 minutes?) for every party or candidate to explain their platform, I think that’s a great idea at the least to reduce unfair advantage.
Another reason for removing lobbying is that I’d rather my union (for example) not waste their money on it. In a recent survey they did, one of the questions was what priorities do we think the most of their money should be spent on, and one of the options is lobbying the Labor Party. It’s just a coping mechanism for putting their preferred party ahead in a broken system.
I think it’s nice to see that that the proposed South Australia laws also acknowledge the status quo and in some cases give some advantage to newer parties which don’t have all the seats and existing exposure of the main parties.
Eh, while that hypocrisy is real, your post didn’t really describe the situation. When it comes to ‘terrorism’, in the past few years and much of that article, ASIO have consistently been talking about neo-Nazism (particularly the NSN). Neo-Nazis are not anti-capitalist nor a minority group defending themselves (they are a clear aggressor). And of course they’re bad for liberal democracy/capitalism and too foolish/idealistic to work alongside capital like 1920s fascists, instead desperately resorting to lone-wolf terror acts (to try and incite a nonsense ‘race war’), so yes, they’re being readily branded as terrorists, and correctly - they are explicitly aiming to promote terror.
As for the other cases being discussed like the Wakeley stabbing, I don’t see how that’s in the self-defense of a minority group. As far as I’ve seen, they’re not attacking fascists or CEOs, or trying to enact systematic change. There’s right ways to do political violence or self-defense, and these cases don’t seem to be them them.
“This is the new thing, people will go to violence with little or no warning, and they [have] little or no planning in some of these that I’ve talked about,” he said.
Both US athletes intended to bring black gloves to the event, but Carlos forgot his, leaving them in the Olympic Village. It was Peter Norman who suggested Carlos wear Smith’s left-handed glove. For this reason, Carlos raised his left hand as opposed to his right, differing from the traditional Black Power salute.
Classic “no worried, she’ll be right” attitude, Pete.
(has been answered in https://aussie.zone/post/12260517/10873558 , posted a minute after yours)
Anecdotally, the one in a park near where I lived was much large than that. Some examples of larger ones can be found just by searching images of australia war monument in park (not including the huge ones in some cities, like the Anzac Memorial in Sydney or the Canberra Australian War Memorial)
As some other mentioned, the monuments were often built soon after the war by people who had recently lost their relatives. When there were massacres of Aboriginal peoples, they obviously didn’t have the authority and resources to build similar memorials in towns, and to be blunt, the towns probably had few people who cared enough to build anything on their behalf, even now there are few public memorials (and often small ones) of massacres and Aboriginal loss. And that difference you pointed out reveals a lot about we see the historical effects of who has power and who writes history.
Reminder: no out-of-area (‘absent’) votes in this election.
Unfortunately* it feels like most of my local candidates have almost identical policies, so my second and third preferences might as well be a coin flip. At least I know who’s going last.