Liberal control of the Senate (2 Viewers)

[Collin]

I read your post as implying that somehow people on awards are not aspirational in a good way. In particular you preface your statement with 'no offence'....below.

Well, that wasn't what I implied.

If you had read my post I said vice versa. It is wrong to make judgements on what aspiration is better than the other. Also I use 'plenty' which is not all.

Once more, the issue is about which aspirations are relevant to Liberal policies. Stop turning the debate into a fiasco relating to which aspirations are 'better', you should stop implying such from my words. Again, it's more about which aspirations are relevant to the issues at hand. Secondly, my emphasis was never on how hard award workers worked. I was talking about ambitions (in the context regarding Liberal policies). I acknowledge that many people on award wages work very hard, so? That wasn't my point.

 

[Collin]

JKDDragon, I would rephrase that final paragraph... I know that you said many rather than all who work at such jobs have no real ambition (despite the fact that they may well be rather ambitious outside of their job), but that's still not a fair comment.

Unfair in the manner that it may be offensive?

 

[Generator]

Offensive to many, yes, but that doesn't really matter. It's more the fact that it is hardly based on anything tangible that I consider to be unfair. There's also the implicit suggestion that ambition and aspiration may only be measured within the workplace that I consider to be unfair, too.

 

[Collin]

Offensive to many, yes, but that doesn't really matter. It's more the fact that it is hardly based on anything tangible that I consider to be unfair. There's also the implicit suggestion that ambition and aspiration may only be measured within the workplace that I consider to be unfair, too.

I wouldn't say it's hardly based on anything tangible. By observation alone (where the locality of my comment was originally based on the Northern Beaches), one could deduce that many people such as dropkicks of school end up in award positions (because they lack the qualifications to do more) and more importantly, they lack the ambition to do more. Being a local to the Northern Beaches district, I've had the opportunity to mingle quite a bit with a vast number of people around, and I know what their aspirations are. Again, we're not gonna get into the debate of which aspirations are 'better', my original point was only important on grounds of relevancy in relation to Liberal policies. It's useless to argue which aspirations are 'better', since it's all subjective and of course depends on who you're asking. Dunno why erawamai keeps steering the debate towards this context.

As for you thinking I'm suggesting aspiration may be measured within the workplace, I think the word 'measured' is a bit harsh. In relation to Liberal policies, being successful financially obviously is an integral component to my belief, and hence it's emphasis within the debate.

 

[erawamai]

Secondly, my emphasis was never on how hard award workers worked. I was talking about ambitions (in the context regarding Liberal policies). I acknowledge that many people on award wages work very hard, so? That wasn't my point.

The inference that you feel Coles workers do not work hard can be taken from your later paragraph when you retorted against my point. You use work to differentiate tower workers. You are explicit in pointing out that tower workers work damn hard and that you admire them.

I'm sure alot of them [tower workers] worked very hard...whether it be through studying hard at school/university, moving up the corporate ladder aggressively etc. I admire them.

So in order to differentiate corporate workers from award workers you highlight how damn hard they may have worked to get where they are. If you are going to differentiate corporate workers on the basis of work ethic then a work ethic for award workers is implied. If no work ethic level is implied for award workers there would be no point in suggesting that corporate workers work very hard as there would be nothing to distinguish or compare corporate workers work ethic with in order to distinguish them from award workers at Coles.

ie...theory X is more valid because of A and B

Theory Y is more valid because of A, B and C.

If you are going to use C to make Y more valid, on a comparative level, then whatever C is it must be implied to X otherwise there is no point in mentioning it to prove a point as there is nothing to compare it to.

-My Keyboard is better than yours because it has media keys
-My Keyboard is better than yours because it has media keys and the typing experience is better.

If you are going to use typing experience to differentiate keyboard two from keyboard one then it is implied, when the other values are equal, that keyboard one doesn't have as good typing experience as keyboard two, even if it was not explicitly mentioned.

So why would you mention that corporate workers work damn hard unless you were trying to contrast corporate workers favourably to that of Coles workers. The only inference I can come up with is that you think corporate workers work harder than Coles workers on an award.

Since you used work to distinguish corporate workers I think it's fair to infer that you post gives the impression that coles workers, working under an award do not work hard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the issue of ambition...

...You accuse Coles workers of lacking ambition. The inference being that they don't have the proper ambition or at least ambitions that correspond with what you think is subjectively appropriate.

ie to paraphrase 'no offence' but I believe that people who work under awards at coles probably don't have ambition...Below....

No offence against people who work at award-wages positions at subsidiaries of companies such as Coles Myer Ltd. and Woolworths Ltd. of course, just that I personally believe alot of people don't really have the ambition to go much higher than that (i.e no interest of pursuing further education etc.).

In the below post you seem rather glowingly in support of the amibition to become a corporate monkey. Unlike in the example of award workers above who you suggest, on the whole, probably lack ambition (or the ambitions that you consider worthy). I believe this is why you apologise for causing any possible offence, you know its offensive.

As for 'wanky idiots' inside those CBD towers, I'm sure alot of them worked very hard to get to their 6-7 figure salary jobs, whether it be through studying hard at school/university, moving up the corporate ladder aggressively etc. I admire them.

My point was that people have different aspirations and it is wrong to say that the aspirations of an award worker at Coles are somehow less valid than the aspirations of a tower worker in the CBD.

 

[malkin86]

Apparently there have been studies done that say that senior executive types can have many traits in common with psychopaths. (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1360571.htm)

 

[Collin]

The inference that you feel Coles workers do not work hard can be taken from your later paragraph when you retorted against my point. You use work to differentiate tower workers. You are explicit in pointing out that tower workers work damn hard and that you admire them.

No, it can't. I did NOT use 'work' to differentiate tower workers. It's mighty absurd when you continuously conclude the wrong points out of my post. Recall:

my emphasis was never on how hard award workers worked. I was talking about ambitions (in the context regarding Liberal policies). I acknowledge that many people on award wages work very hard, so? That wasn't my point.

So in order to differentiate corporate workers from award workers you highlight how damn hard they may have worked to get where they are. If you are going to differentiate corporate workers on the basis of work ethic then a work ethic for award workers is implied.

Wrong, once again since:
1) Emphasis was never on work ethic (I should start to copy-clipboard popular lines for future convenience when talking to you).
2) Point was made because YOU were refuting against them working hard, where the subject of award winners in that particular sentence was absent. Hence that didn't warrant you to conclude I was attempting to differentiate work ethic between the two groups. Your analogy only works under certain circumstances, not here.

ie...theory X is more valid because of A and B... blah blah blah..

Since you used work to distinguish corporate workers I think it's fair to infer that you post gives the impression that coles workers, working under an award do not work hard.

Wrong again, for reasons already labelled above.
I.e I used 'worked' because YOU used it to assert against the work ethic of 'wanky idiots in towers'. It was my attempt to nullify your comment only, nothing to do with me trying to differentiate work ethic between the two groups. Repeating myself once again, my posts were never based on work ethic:

my emphasis was never on how hard award workers worked. I was talking about ambitions (in the context regarding Liberal policies). I acknowledge that many people on award wages work very hard, so? That wasn't my point.

...You accuse Coles workers of lacking ambition.

No, I accuse some award workers of particularly Northern Beaches area of lacking ambition.

In the below post you seem rather glowingly in support of the amibition to become a corporate monkey. Unlike in the example of award workers above who you suggest, on the whole, probably lack ambition (or the ambitions that you consider worthy). I believe this is why you apologise for causing any possible offence, you know its offensive.

I suggested on a whole that award workers lack ambition? Um.. no, mate. Some do, some may be very ambitious, since obviously chances are many people who have become 'wanky idiots in towers' would of had to start low too.

Yes, I said no offence because I knew it may be offensive.. duh. Why else would I say 'no offence'? I know my comments may offend some people who read it, that assertion isn't news to me.

My point was that people have different aspirations and it is wrong to say that the aspirations of an award worker at Coles are somehow less valid than the aspirations of a tower worker in the CBD.

For the last freakin' time, I NEVER said whose aspirations were 'wrong' or 'better'. The main emphasis is on aspirations relevant to Liberal policies. If the subject at hand was about how beneficial it would be to say, have the aspiration of getting drunk every weekend or any other aspirations, then obviously I would not be endorsing corporate hopefuls but instead 'gloat' about the particular aspirations relevant and beneficial to THAT particular issue.

 

[Collin]

Apparently there have been studies done that say that senior executive types can have many traits in common with psychopaths. (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1360571.htm)

Yes, I heard something about that.. like how they're more of a risk-taker which ends up beneficial when dealing business.

 

[erawamai]

No, it can't. I did NOT use 'work' to differentiate tower workers. It's mighty absurd when you continuously conclude the wrong points out of my post.

Then why did you use work? Unless you are attempting to not differentiate between them, which I doubt since you were attempting to counter a point which you read as me saying that tower or corporate workers are wanky and don't work hard. (Which was not my point. I said 'plenty' which is not all)

But then if you were not diffentiating between corporate workers and award workers I don't know what you were doing. Saying they are the same? If you were attempting to draw differences in order to make a point then it is implied.

So in order to differentiate corporate workers from award workers you highlight how damn hard they may have worked to get where they are. If you are going to differentiate corporate workers on the basis of work ethic then a work ethic for award workers is implied.

Wrong, once again since:
1) Emphasis was never on work ethic

Then why did you use work ethic or point out that corporate workers work hard in order to counter my point? Whether the emphasis was on work ethic or not you did mention it. I would even say it was the emphasis. Actually the whole of that part of the post, I felt, was dedicated to work ethic. below.

I don't really care if you said it or not, but its strongly implict in what you said. I explained why it was implied earlier.

As for 'wanky idiots' inside those CBD towers, I'm sure alot of them worked very hard to get to their 6-7 figure salary jobs, whether it be through studying hard at school/university, moving up the corporate ladder aggressively etc. I admire them.

Essentially you admire them for working hard to move up the corporate ladder.

2) Point was made because YOU were refuting against them working hard, where the subject of award winners in that particular sentence was absent.

Again I said plenty not all. Not all workers in towers work hard and vice versa was used. (ie it applies to award workers blue collar whatever as well).

There are plenty of wanky idiots sitting up there in major sydney towers who would not work as hard as some award workers. In particular some blue collar workers and vice versa.

Plenty does not mean all. Also note the use of vise versa. The point was that neither group is so clearly harder working than the other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...You accuse Coles workers of lacking ambition.

No, I accuse some award workers of particularly Northern Beaches area of lacking ambition.

No that is not true. You never stated that it was just isolated to someaward workers on the Northern Beaches. In the original statement you said ALOT of workers at coles and such places don't have ambition.

Your original comment below where you use 'alot' rather than 'some'. You also don't limit it to the northern breaches and you don't mention it being isolated.

No offence against people who work at award-wages positions at subsidiaries of companies such as Coles Myer Ltd. and Woolworths Ltd. of course, just that I personally believe alot of people don't really have the ambition to go much higher than that (i.e no interest of pursuing further education etc.)

In the below post you seem rather glowingly in support of the amibition to become a corporate monkey. Unlike in the example of award workers above who you suggest, on the whole, probably lack ambition (or the ambitions that you consider worthy).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggested on a whole that award workers lack ambition? Um.. no, mate. Some do, some may be very ambitious, since obviously chances are many people who have become 'wanky idiots in towers' would of had to start low too.

I didn't accuse you of that. I said you suggested that 'workers, on the whole, probably lack ambition". I said probably which doesn't mean all.

I think 'probably lacks ambition' is close to your own estimation that 'alot lack ambition.'

For the last freakin' time, I NEVER said whose aspirations were 'wrong' or 'better'. The main emphasis is on aspirations relevant to Liberal policies.

I KNOW you didnt say it but its strongly implied.

 

[Sarah]

No offence against people who work at award-wages positions at subsidiaries of companies such as Coles Myer Ltd. and Woolworths Ltd. of course, just that I personally believe alot of people don't really have the ambition to go much higher than that (i.e no interest of pursuing further education etc.).

Out of curiosity do u work for one of the Coles Myer companies or a Woolworth's company?

I briefly worked for a coles myer company and there were ppl of all ages working there.

There were a few ppl I met and were taking a traineeship there whilst studying with the support of Coles Myer. Mind you, this was in the area of retail but nonetheless, they were trying to make it more than just a casual job i.e they were trying to get an education and make a career out of retail, gain skills etc.

Also, you'd be surprised at the various reasons ppl have for working for Coles Myer or Woolies. Life doesn't always go to plan.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Out of curiosity do u work for one of the Coles Myer companies or a Woolworth's company?

I briefly worked for a coles myer company and there were ppl of all ages working there.

There were a few ppl I met and were taking a traineeship there whilst studying with the support of Coles Myer. Mind you, this was in the area of retail but nonetheless, they were trying to make it more than just a casual job i.e they were trying to get an education and make a career out of retail, gain skills etc.

Also, you'd be surpised at the various reasons ppl have for working for Coles Myer or Woolies. Life doesn't always go to plan.

Why do these people not go out and get a trade of some sort, make some decent money working hard doing some long hours? The work is definately there at the moment.

 

[Sarah]

Out of curiosity do u work for one of the Coles Myer companies or a Woolworth's company?

I briefly worked for a coles myer company and there were ppl of all ages working there.

There were a few ppl I met and were taking a traineeship there whilst studying with the support of Coles Myer. Mind you, this was in the area of retail but nonetheless, they were trying to make it more than just a casual job i.e they were trying to get an education and make a career out of retail, gain skills etc.

Also, you'd be surprised at the various reasons ppl have for working for Coles Myer or Woolies. Life doesn't always go to plan.

Why do these people not go out and get a trade of some sort, make some decent money working hard doing some long hours? The work is definately there at the moment.

Well like I said, some are taking traineeships in retail which involve studying and working at the same time. Does it matter that the work they're undertaking is in retail and not in a trade? Who's to say that you can make money in retail or that retail doesn't involve long working hours? Working appx 6am-6pm (as some managers were) are longer hours than I work.

As I was saying ppl of all ages work in Coles Myer companies. I worked for target briefly. Ppl i met there were trainee managers making a career in retail. There were ppl I'd met who had finished their HSC, ppl who were still in high school, ppl past retirement age or close to it and working at Target for a few hours each week. There was also one or two who had quit their previous job and were looking for a career change.

You might not be aware but there can be career progression in a company like Coles Myer and Woolworths.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

who's to say that you can make money in retail or that retail doesn't involve long working hours?

I was just pointing out that as for most people, their reason for working in retail is money, there are better ways to attain money simply by working longer hours doing a different job (or perhaps the same hours), it simply requires some dedication.

 

[Collin]

Then why did you use work? Unless you are attempting to not differentiate between them, which I doubt since you were attempting to counter a point which you read as me saying that tower or corporate workers are wanky and don't work hard. (Which was not my point. I said 'plenty' which is not all)

Work, as in 'to work' i.e the verb context. I wasn't implying work ethic. Whether you doubt what I mean't doesn't matter to me, I've already clarified that I wasn't attempting to differentiate between them.

But then if you were not diffentiating between corporate workers and award workers I don't know what you were doing. Saying they are the same? If you were attempting to draw differences in order to make a point then it is implied.

Same? Work ethic in general, perhaps. Who knows? I was more so discussing ambitions (with emphasis on Northern Beaches area, as clarified properly below).

Then why did you use work ethic or point out that corporate workers work hard in order to counter my point? Whether the emphasis was on work ethic or not you did mention it. I would even say it was the emphasis. Actually the whole of that part of the post, I felt, was dedicated to work ethic. below.

I don't really care if you said it or not, but its strongly implict in what you said. I explained why it was implied earlier.

Because you were suggesting that alot of corporate workers didn't work hard and if anything the fact that you would emphasise the lack of work ethic with corporate workers, also labelling them 'wanky idiots' seemed to have implied off to myself that perhaps you were yourself attempting to differentiate the work ethics (irony eh?). Anyway, main point is the fact that I refuted this doesn't necessarily have to imply that I was attempting to differentiate the work ethic between the two groups. I was actually surprised that you steered the debate towards this direction, because I wouldn't be so foolish as to suggest the work ethic of people of award positions compared to corporate workers were of differing degrees.. that would be argumentative death for me. Overall, I just disagree with you that that was what I implied.

Essentially you admire them for working hard to move up the corporate ladder.

Yes, but I don't see how that justifies you to assert I was trying to differentiate work ethic. Again, that comment was made on the sole purpose of rebuking your implied assertion that they didn't work hard, based on the circumstances (i.e you were the original one who harshly implied they didn't). Like I said above, I would personally find your comment (since it was the 1st) to imply more heavily about differing work ethics than my own, because you were the one who started it. Don't worry, I acknowledge that you said 'vice versa', however the way you structured that sentence atleast implied to myself a heavier bias towards the work ethic of corporate workers and hence why I made a comment against that.. just to straighten' things out incase that was the case. Hence once more, in no way was it done to imply that I was differentiating between work ethics of the two groups.

No that is not true. You never stated that it was just isolated to someaward workers on the Northern Beaches. In the original statement you said ALOT of workers at coles and such places don't have ambition.

Your original comment below where you use 'alot' rather than 'some'. You also don't limit it to the northern breaches and you don't mention it being isolated.

After reading through my posts, I'll concede that I gave off the wrong message. Let me clarify myself: My original comment was based upon people within the Northern Beaches. Since all the arguments/quotations based on the issue of award worker's work ethics branched off that quote of mine where I asserted it was of Northern Beaches alone, for brevity I didn't add a '.. blah blah award worker (of the Northern Beaches only) everytime I referred back to that issue.. because I didn't think I would need to at the time. Obviously I didn't make myself clear enough.

I didn't accuse you of that. I said you suggested that 'workers, on the whole, probably lack ambition". I said probably which doesn't mean all.

I think 'probably lacks ambition' is close to your own estimation that 'alot lack ambition.'

Assuming you've read my clarification above, this part now of course becomes redundant (since it's now hopefully understood that 'alot' refers to Northern Beaches alone, not award workers in general). Moving on..

I KNOW you didnt say it but its strongly implied.

I strongly disagree.

Out of curiosity do u work for one of the Coles Myer companies or a Woolworth's company?

I briefly worked for a coles myer company and there were ppl of all ages working there.

There were a few ppl I met and were taking a traineeship there whilst studying with the support of Coles Myer. Mind you, this was in the area of retail but nonetheless, they were trying to make it more than just a casual job i.e they were trying to get an education and make a career out of retail, gain skills etc.

Also, you'd be surprised at the various reasons ppl have for working for Coles Myer or Woolies. Life doesn't always go to plan.

I've worked for both Coles Myer Ltd. and Woolworths Ltd. subsidiaries.

Anyway, no doubt. I've never refuted the fact that many people within companies like this in general can be rather ambitious.. infact I emphasised this a few posts ago.

As for life doesn't go to plan, I totally agree. I'm obviously doing university study right now whilst working part time at Officeworks. Hey, who knows I may not find a job after my degree and might instead go into retail management for a little while until I do, so yes, I certainly agree with the notion that life may not go to plan.

 

[Generator]

Howard's brutal treatment of the Senate

 

[Generator]

A few days too old, but eh.

The fallout from the vote continued yesterday, with Senator Joyce threatening to sit as an independent and thereby destroy the Government's one-seat majority in the Senate. After attacks from his Coalition colleagues, he said he would consider sitting on the crossbenches

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17549092%5E2702,00.html

Keep in mind that Joyce was elected as a Senator for the Queensland Nationals, not the Coalition, so a technical sense he has more room to maneuver than a Nationals Senator elected through a Coalition Ticket.

 

[leetom]

What a cringeworthy character Senator Fielding is. By allowing an issue totally removed from that of VSU to affect his vote, his ultimate decision on VSU was grossly undemocratic. What is even more sickening is that Fielding genuinely questioned VSU earlier in the year and it is to his total discredit that all that he could surrender his initial opposition purely to a few promises on RU-486. What's worse is that there is no discussion, from either the Liberals or Fielding, as to what went on. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect of a senator a detailed statement as to the decisions and votes that are made by them, but all Fielding provided articulating hi ssupport of VSU was that making students join a union was 'crazy'. That was it. 'Crazy'. BOS offers better arguments than that.

At least we can all see Family First for what it really, not a party that genuinely supports families and their best interests, but nothing more than a lousy anti-abortion front.

 

[philly17]

pff shut up wooot go liberalssssssssss

 

[withoutaface]

A few days too old, but eh.



Keep in mind that Joyce was elected as a Senator for the Queensland Nationals, not the Coalition, so a technical sense he has more room to maneuver than a Nationals Senator elected through a Coalition Ticket.

Joyce is acting as an independent anyway, so I don't see what difference it'll make.

Leetom: How are you so sure that RU486 is even involved? Have you got access to some news that I don't?

 

[erawamai]

Joyce is acting as an independent anyway, so I don't see what difference it'll make.
Leetom: How are you so sure that RU486 is even involved? Have you got access to some news that I don't?

It's just an educated guess. Fielding has been anti government. I mean it is unlikely that a deal struck with 'senator sellout' invovled the government getting all it wanted (one vote) and the Senator not getting anything. I'm sure he didn't strike the deal out of the goodness of his own heart.