Halls Creek Horrors

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Halls Creek has been in the paper quite regularly over the last week or so.

In Tuesday's West the page 5 headline was, "Elder backs call to act on Halls Creek horrors". Is there really an issue? It seems to be accepted that there is an issue. What should be done? Here's what the Premier said:

"If the indigeneous community is putting forward ideas to deal with the issues, we need to listen; the wider community needs to listen."

No, you idiot -- you need to do something.

Don't Speak Ill of the Dead?

Look, I could have this all wrong. But it seems to me that there is something really screwy about the finances of the Perth Convention Centre. Perhaps not screwy. Perhaps just an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes...

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The government kicked in millions of dollars to help build a convention centre. Part of the agreement with the builder was that the centre -- with a number of associated parts -- would be managed by the one management group. Having the one manager would allow the entire convention complex to be managed to its best advantage, for the benefit of Perth.

Well, the ink was hardly dry on the agreement before the builder reneged. Here's a bit of short-term profit, they must have thought, We can flog off the bits and pieces and get away with a very quick profit. So the builder built -- with substantial government funding -- and escaped with a substantial profit.

Now there are at least three managers: for the convention centre, for the associated hotel, for the car parking. The hotel managers would benefit from conventions -- but there are plenty of other sources of hotel guests. The car park managers know that parking in the city is at a premium -- if anything, a convention will take away parking spaces from the regulars.

Only the convention centre managers really need to have conventions. So what do they do to protect themselves? They sub-lease!

Yes, The Wylie Group have bought the right to manage the convention centre. They "manage" the centre by selling that management right to another business, Spotless. Wylie don't care whether or not the convention centre attracts conventions, their profits come from Spotless, who must pay whether or not there is any business in the convention centre.

We're left with one group -- Spotless -- who want conventions to be held at the convention centre. And lots of groups who don't really care, one way or the other.

And when business is bad...

When business is bad -- when there are not enough conventions being held at the Perth Convention Centre -- who cares?

The builder doesn't care, they have already taken their profits. The hotel manager doesn't care, they can attract guests away from other hotels in Perth. The car park managers don't care, they know that they can sell central city parking any day of the week, with or without conventions. The "head lease" owners -- Wylie -- don't care, their profits are secured by their contracts with Spotless.

When there are no conventions at the convention centre, only Spotless stand to make a loss.

This is where it gets really weird

Spotless are about to make a loss. Possibly several million dollars a year, for many years. They have willingly -- I assume! -- signed an agreement with The Wylie Group, it is that agreement which is causing the financial loss. So who do Spotless call on to cover their losses? Why, the government, of course!

Spotless have signed an agreement with Wylie. Spotless will lose money, Wylie will make a profit. Why should the government pay?! This is a commercial arrangement. Perhaps Spotless were ripped off -- but not by the government. Perhaps Spotless will make a bit less overall profit in the coming years -- why should the government prop up the profits of a commercial enterprise?

Why should the government interfere in a commercial arrangement between two businesses? Wylie and Spotless came to an arrangement, why not let them manage it for themselves? Why have Spotless gone directly to the government, demanding government money?

Even more interesting: Why does The West Australian not comment on this obvious anomaly? The West can be quite quick to spot the taint of WA Inc raising its head, of government efforts to provide money -- tax-payers money -- to commercial enterprises. Why is there no comment on this one?

Could it be because the founder of The Wylie Group has recently died?

Perhaps he was a great man, The West certainly seemed to think so. Perhaps he had great commercial acumen, the deal with Spotless certainly indicates a ruthlessly successful approach to making a profit. Does this allow The Wylie Group to quietly escape the spotlight while Spotless are crying poor to the government? Is The West politely refraining from pointing out the clear self interest in the deal that is managed by the commercial remains of the recently dead?

Why does it matter? Remember, the state government kicked in a heap of money for the building. That's our tax-payers money. The builder took a profit and ran. Two out of three managers -- of the hotel and the car park -- are presumably making profits and keeping quiet. The third manager has protected the profits from its "head lease" by sub-leasing to Spotless.

Only Spotless could be making a loss. So what? Don't they know what they're doing? If they have an issue with their contract with The Wylie Group -- let them take it up with Wylie. Please don't even consider using our money bailing Spotless out of their own bad deal. Let them sort it out with Wylie, business to business.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

A Quotable Quote

I'm sure that The West Australian included this quote just for its memorable nature:

Environment Minister Mark McGowan said, "What the Kings Park proposal venue does is provide a venue on that attractive city-facing section for a cafe which is within reach of ordinary people in a cost-sense."

I think that what he means is, "The proposal is, to provide affordable meals in a cafe with a good view over the city." Don't you wish that politicians could speak plain English? Of course, they go to great efforts to avoid plain English, so it's no use wishing.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Lest we Forget

I was walking through Kings Park the other day, past some of the war memorials. I read the standard phrase, "lest we forget".

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Lest we forget. Good words, a worthwhile intent. What's that other old saying? Similar words, different intent... Forgive and forget. "Lest we forget" refers to the people who gave their lives to protect something that we support. "Forgive and forget" is about our enemies, those people who have wronged us. Let's not confuse the two expressions. We should not forget that people have died -- or been willing to die -- in order to protect the ideals of our country, of our way of life. There is no need to forget the people who sinned against us. Perhaps they killed some of the people whom we will not forget. But can we try to forgive them? Forgive and forget? No. Remember but try to forgive? Show the world that we are "better" than our ex-enemies? Why not give it a try.

Honour our dead

This is an after-thought. Yes, I was amongst the Kings Park war memorials again... Honour our dead: a good sentiment. Honour those who died fighting for something that we all believe in. Honour those who died to protect us from others who would have changed -- degraded -- our way of life. What happens when the fighting is over? "Our" people killed "their" people. "Their" people killed "our" people. Now the issue has been settled: what we believe in has been protected; the enemy has been repulsed. So why do the survivors want to keep on fighting? Why do some people maintain their hatred, long after the war has finished? Did we not really win the war? Was the enemy not really convinced of the error of their ways? Or do we really have to maintain our hatred till the end of time. There is plenty of evil in the world, at individual, national and international levels. If we want to fight -- let's fight against evil... assuming that we can agree on what is evil. Honour our dead. But please stop hating and fighting the shadows of their enemies.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Now we've upset Indian call centres

That's an interesting article in The West of 18 March (page 3)... It seems that employees in Indian call centres -- calling and answering calls from people around the world -- have had enough of our abuse.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The employees are quitting in droves, according to the report. Yes! It's working, at last! Are you sick and tired of being phoned by sellers? You can tell the signs of a call centre: the phone rings, you answer it, there is silence for ten or more seconds, then the sales spiel begins. Why that silence? It's because it is not a human who has dialled your number. There is a computer which spends all day phoning everyone in the phone book. If no-one answers, the computer phones the next number. If someone does answer, the computer finds a free call centre employee, transfers the call, puts your name up on the employees screen. That's the reason for the pause, the silence. Then, "Hello, am I speaking to XXXX? No, I'm not selling anything, I'm offering a great opportunity..." And so the lies begin. Have you ever been annoyed by a manager who is too important to dial a phone? The secretary says, "Hello, so-an-so would like to speak to you, hold on please..." Sorry, if that so-and-so is too busy, too self-important or too stupid to dial my number, I don't want to speak to them. If it's a computer that phones me -- I am even less interested in talking. Perhaps we should feel sorry for these call centre operators. According to the article, "Young women working in centres were told not to hang up when they were subjected to obscene talk." Today (Monday 20 March) The West reported on research about people who have to put up with customer abuse. If the employee is allowed to answer back, possibly to be rude to the customer, they suffer some stress. If they are not allowed to be rude -- if they are instructed to remain polite with any customer, no matter how abusive -- then the employee is really, really stressed... So, it's great to know that customer abuse is getting through to call centre employees. They are getting the correct message: We do not want to be called by people selling things that we did not request! But let's be kind. Don't shout abuse, don't swear (unless you really want to). Just quietly put down the phone. Don't hang up, just put down the phone. A speaker phone is ideal for this, you can let it listen to the radio for a while. And see how long it takes for the obnoxious salesperson to realise, that they are wasting their time, talking to no-one.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Education and Training

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Australia's biggest businesses are worried about university education: it does not provide enough training in creativity, initiative, oral communication and problem solving. Without these, graduates are not ready to start work... (The West, 15 March, page 47) An interesting perspective. Universites blame lack of funding -- government and industry should invest more in training. Are we talking about the same thing here? Way back when I was a tertiary level student (for the first time) there were two sources of training for computer programmers. One was the University of WA, providing courses in "computer science". The other was the WA Institute of Technology (soon to rename itself as Curtin University) providing courses in "information processing". It was said at the time that there was a basic difference between graduates from UWA and those from WAIT: UWA graduates would not be ready to work. They would graduate with no practical skills. But they would have such a sound basis of understanding that they would very soon learn the ropes and become valuable employees. WAIT graduates would be immediately ready for work. They would know programming and be ready to write programs. But they lacked the depth of understanding that would allow them to grow. So you hired a graduate from UWA if you wanted an employee who would be valuable in the long term. You hired a graduate from WAIT if you wanted a quick fix. The WAIT graduate would provide immediate value. The UWA graduate would provide more long term value. UWA students were getting an education; they would use that education as a basis for learning, improving, getting better at their jobs. WAIT students were being trained; they would use their training to do their jobs. If the jobs changed, WAIT students would require further training. We still have that division: training provides work-ready graduates, education provides graduates with an ability to grow and improve. Industry seems to want graduates to have been trained... why is that? Employees are cogs in the machine of industry. If you change the machine, you need to change the cogs. Is it easier to rebuild the existing cogs -- to retrain existing employees -- or to buy new cogs? In the short term it is easier to buy -- to get rid of existing employees and to replace them with cogs... sorry, employees, who are already trained into the new work. And with pressure on industry to perform -- to be profitable here and now -- the short term is all that matters.

Here's a thought

Should we "educate" or "train"? We need both... somewhere there must be work-related training, somewhere there must be education for the longer-term needs of employers. Each university -- each university course -- needs to be clear: are we training or educating? There may be a mix but one or the other should be the main purpose of the course. Do we intend to train students so that they will be immediately able to work productively? Or will we provide a broad education so that they will be valuable, long term employees. State the objectives up front, define the course and its units to suit. Know what you intend to do -- then do it according to your intentions.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Bribe for Service

According to a restaurant industry representative, "tipping should recognise good service and not be viewed as topping up low wages" (The West, 13 March, page 7). Tipping?! Why would I even consider tipping!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

I go into a shop, I buy a packet of sugar. Someone at the cash register takes my money. Should I tip them? Why? They are paid to stand there and take my money -- without people at the checkout the shop would not be getting its money. (When automated checkout does away with the need for people there is even less reason to tip. Even though the service may be just as good.) I'm staying in a hotel. Room service staff make the bed; the doorman opens the door for me. Should I tip them? If room service staff did not make the bed -- I may move to a hotel with better room service. If the doorman does not open the door -- I will open it for myself. Or I may move to a hotel with automatically opening doors. (At least the automatic doors do not make me feel uncomfortable when I stop half way through to check that my room key is in my pocket.) I'm eating in a restaurant. A waiter takes my order, brings my food, clears the table. Should I tip? If the waiter did not take my order -- the restaurant would not sell any food. (They would certainly sell less of the recommended mash du jour, yesterday's leftovers reheated.) If the waiter did not bring my food -- the restaurant would be a public sitting room rather than a restaurant. If the waiter did not clear the table -- the health inspector would pay a visit. A shop sells -- part of selling is the exchange of money. A hotel maintains the rooms and provides doors that may somehow be opened. A restaurant takes orders and serves meals. If they did not do those things -- they would be out of business. If you provide a tip then you are saying, Gosh, this is better than I expected! I did not expect the shop to take my money, the hotel to clean my room, the waiter to bring my food... What sort of idiot would think like that? No, a tip is not payment for good service. A tip is a bribe, a means to ensure that you will get better service than the next customer. Which means that if you do not tip --- you can expect to get poor service. Would you really go to a shop, a hotel, a restaurant -- and pay the advertised prices, including enough to pay for services -- and expect to get poor service? In particular, would you really go to a shop, a hotel, a restaurant -- and pay the advertised prices, including enough to pay for services -- and expect to get worse service than the customer at the next table? Please -- don't tip! It's demeaning to staff. It's embarrassing to customers. And it's a bribe to get the service which you should be getting anyway.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Stupid Country Students

Perth Modern School is about to implement selective enrolments: only the smartest students will be allowed at Perth Modern. Good idea, I support it all the way.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's like the WA Institute of Sport, except for thinkers. The West (10 March, page 17) provides a sample of the aptitude test. So far so good, no problems there. It's interesting to see more than just a bare announcement. There's a quote from an academic: "It's important that the test selects kids on ability, not just their social background." That's fair, that's good. Finally, the essential statement from the office of the Education Minister: "A spokesman ... said that the tests would be weighted to make sure rural children were not disadvantaged." Oh dear! "Weighted"?! Weighting of the tests implies bias. What happened to kids being selected on their ability? Are rural kids more stupid that city kids, that they need a bias -- weighting in their favour -- in the aptitude tests? No... Rural students may have a different background to city students. Aptitude tests must be "culturally neutral" in order to test for raw ability rather than for experience in a particular environment. You try to ask questions which require ability rather than specific knowledge of (for example) middle-class professional family city life. Please, go back to the ministerial spokesman. Did he mean, culturally neutral? Or did he really mean to say, weighted.

This is a joke, I think

The school inspector was visiting the small country school. "How smart are these country kids?" she thought. "I'll start with a very simple test." The inspector put up a picture of a sheep. "Now children," she said, in her best speaking-to-little-children voice, "What is this a picture of?" There was silence. "Oh no!" thinks the school inspector, "None of these stupid country children can even recognise a sheep!" "Come on now dearies, don't be shy. Can any of you tell me what this is?" Finally little Johhny puts up his hand. "Yes dear?" "I think..." Little Johhny hesitates. "Well, I'd really have to see its ears.. But I think it may be a Romney-Dorset cross, perhaps bred back with a merino..." The rest of the class nodded agreement. The school inspector returned to the city.

---

And that, I believe is where examiners learnt the need to ask test questions that are culturally neutral -- questions that do not imply, nor expect, nor create, responses that depend on the background of the student.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Why are Government Ministers Incompetent?

Have you ever wondered, Why did the Premier select that particular turkey for a Ministerial role? Or even, Why did the political party select that particular turkey to be its leader? Have you ever wondered, Who was available at the time?! The West devoted most of today's editorial to a run-down on the leader of the opposition's "lack of political nous" (10 March, page 20). If he's so bad -- why was he selected as leader? Well... who else was available? I'm not going to answer that last question except in very general terms:

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The only alternatives to be leader of the opposition were... other politicians. Worse than that, the alternatives were politicians who had been elected to a party which is in the minority. How many people is that? What are their qualifications? To put it bluntly (with not too much reference to facts): the leader of the opposition in parliament is selected from a small field of candidates. That small field was short-listed in a process which had no reference to leadership qualities. If you can find a competent leader amongst that lot -- you are very lucky.

Where do Ministers come from?

Political ministers are selected from elected members of parliament. They are selected from the majority party. This short list of potential Ministers has passed a series of selection tests, the last of which is a state election. Check your state election pamphlets, look at the platforms of the various people putting themselves forward for election. Did any of them say, I have a degree in medicine and extensive experience of running a major health service? Did any of them say, I have a degree in law and extensive experience in ensuring justice? (Actually, a degree in law is almost a guarantee that there is no interest whatsoever in justice. Law is about law, justice is not a factor in law.) Some of the election candidates may claim experience in a given ministerial field. So what? Will they get that ministerial portfolio? Only if they win the election and then only if the power-brokers say so. How long will they last as ministers? Only until they manage to snag a more powerful portfolio, or until they make a mistake that upsets the power-brokers. So who does get the ministerial positions? These positions of power go to the politician -- always to a politician -- who has the biggest smile, the best television personality, the most behind-the-scenes power. So please don't ask, Why did the Premier select that particular turkey to be a Minister? Just be sorry for the small field of choice. And wish for a better means of short-listing the ministerial candidates.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Political Mud-slinging

How easy it is for a politician to sling mud! A simple choice of phrasing and all the blame is shifted -- nothing obvious, nothing culpable, nothing that cannot be glossed over. Just an implicit shifting of guilt away from a fellow politician. "He was Minister for Small Business and he couldn't run a small business. Now he's Minister for Police and he's broken the law." That's the quote at the start of a report in The West Australian, Friday 10 March, page 10.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's a multi-page attack on the current state police minister. The West is printing a report based on non-payment of legally required superannuation. One of the stories begins with that rather neat quote from an ex-employee. The West has taken up the cudgel against the minister; let them continue. They also mention, in passing, the supportive response by the minister's boss, the Premier of Western Australia. This may seem only a minor issue, the response by the Premier. But it raises some important issues...

Who does the Premier support?

The Premier is the head of our government. The government represents the people of our state. A government minister has -- according to The West -- acted against the interests of several people of the state. Does the Premier leap in, look for solutions, ensure that members of the public are not being cheated? Of course not! The Premier defends his own. And "his own" are the people who are part of the Premier's power base. Electors? Who cares!

The subtleties of mud

Look at the words that the Premier uses to defend his minister: "Mr Carpenter said that he retained faith in his Police Minister despite the evidence of various workers..." (The West, 10 March, page 11). The key word is "faith". The Premier associates "faith" with his minister. A good, positive association. Now look at the Premier's reference to the employees, as quoted in the same newspaper article: "I'm not saying that young woman is lying." In the one sentence: "young woman" and "lying". Referring to the "young woman" is just a minor put-down... everyone knows that a young woman must be, well, young... someone who does not really understand what's going on, what's important in this tough old world. Most importantly: "I'm not saying that young woman is lying." Anyone remember Antony's line in Julius Caesar? "For Brutus is an honourable man." This is irony, it is intended to mean the opposite of what it actually says. Is the Premier attempting irony? Or is he simply ensuring that his listeners will forever associate the word "lying" with "that young woman"? In either case, it is clear mud-slinging by the Premier.

More thought, less mud

If the Premier actually wanted to be fair, he should be more careful with his words. How about this: "I have faith in my minister. I believe that he is telling the truth as honestly as he can recall it. I believe that the ex-employees are also telling the truth as honestly as they can recall it. There are diffences of opinion but -- more importantly -- there appears to be a situation in which employees have been underpaid. I hope that all parties will work together to correct that unfortunate situation." What do you think of that? I've tried to accept the situation while still adding a positive spin: the situation will be corrected. I've tried to not allocate blame: if it has already happened then a quick and positive response may gloss over the issue. Immediate allocation of blame will simply draw more fire, upset all involved players and drag out the issue. Sure, support your own minister. But please, try not to do it at the expense of others.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Caring for Soon-to-be-ex-employees

On Saturday March 4th, The West Australian reported that, "More than 650 jobs would be axed under Alinta's attempts to slash $100 million in costs through its proposed merger with a reluctant Australian Gas Light." (The West, page 61.) Oh dear, what a pity, 650 employees sacked. Still, if it makes a profit -- who cares about the employees?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Alinta forecast a benefit of $2.55 per share -- what a great result from kicking out just 15% of AGL+Alinta employees! Not to worry. Those employees will just get jobs somewhere else, maybe. Or they'll go on the dole. Or maybe have their lives shattered because they have no other employment options after years with one employer. Anyway, Alinta will probably hire an out-placing specialist, a company to ease the transition from employment to unemployment. Not to worry. Actually, I made up that bit about the out-placing specialist. It will probably happen: pass responsibility to someone else, get these people out of our offices as quickly as possible... But this was not suggested in the newspaper report. The 650 employees are just a number associated with a cost saving. There may be plans to deal with them, it was not important enough to rate a mention.

Protecting the employee

By Wednesday, though, the news was better: at least one employee will be treated well after a merger. One employee will, "walk away with a $12 million payout without doing a day's work if Alinta's plan comes off." (The West, 8 Mar 2006, page 47.) Isn't that nice -- a happy result for an AGL employee. Gives you a nice, warm glow inside, doesn't it. I just hope that the warm glow lasts you through winter, if you're one of the other 649 who could soon be out of work.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Unions? Who needs 'em!

Have you read about the rail workers holding Perth to ransom? Undermining the city, as one letter writer suggested today. Overpaid, cushy jobs, destroying our sacred economy... Have you compared the front-page news stories about overpaid union members with the business section reports on Alinta's takeover of AGL? Check The West, page 61, 4 March 2006...

"650 jobs go in Alinta's merger push on AGL"

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

In the front pages of the paper are regular attacks on union members. Hidden in the business section is a casual mention that 650 people will be sacked. What's the difference? One is union members using muscle, the other is simply fallout from a business decision. Don't get me wrong: I dislike the bullying tactics of unions and union leaders. They are an essential part of our society but they often overplay their role... they often abuse their power. So why are they essential? To protect the little cogs at the bottom, the powerless wage slaves... the "workers". What can one person do when employed by a large company? One person can shut up or ship out, as simple as that. What can a large union do, for its members employed by a large company? It can negotiate -- using whatever negotiating power it has. What negotiating power does a union have? It has the labour provided by union members, labour that may be provided or not provided. That is the sole basis of union power: the ability to cause all of its members to no longer provide labour. I strongly support the right of unions to withdraw labour... to go on strike. On the other hand I see no reason why striking workers should be paid by the employer. Nor do I see any justification for fining union members who go on strike -- as long as they are not drawing wages during the strike. Fining a worker for withdrawing labour removes the right of that person to choose whether or not to work. Remove that right and you have slavery.

Supply and demand

How can our rail workers get away with such demands? How have they managed to get such great working conditions while working on this one project? What are they really getting? Rail workers are employed on a project. A project has a limited life. What does that mean? It means, when the project is complete, the workers are out of work. End of project, end of employment, end of income. Project workers must earn enough on one project to live on until the next project. Will they get employment on the next project? Maybe... it depends on the employer. Will there be a next project? Maybe... that depends on the employer. Will they be paid at the same rates on the next project? Maybe... that depends on the employer -- and on the union. So union members live from project to project -- with no control over those projects. Why were these troublesome unionists employed at all? Because there was very little choice -- a big project needs all the workers it can get; there are a limited number of workers available in Perth. Can you really believe that a major company accepted a contract in Perth, did not understand the tight labour market, did not understand the law of supply and demand, expected to pay minimum wages and get a docile workforce?

Oh dear, what can a poor company do?

There are rumours -- again, reported in The West -- that the company is looking for a tunnelling team in Sydney... sack the Perth workers, replace them with a team from Sydney. Right, sure, a team employed in Sydney will be cheaper... A team from a city with a higher cost of living, higher housing costs. A team which must be moved across Australia, a team that must be housed in Perth. Sure, that will be cheap, won't it! Oh, and none of the Sydney team will be union members, will they... It's really just a threat: work cheap or we'll replace you. As an aside, look at the ethics of this ploy: Did it really happen? Were there really advertisements in papers, calls to employment agents, interviews with prospective workers? Did the "potential employer" say to all these people, this is just a ploy, don't really expect to get a job... Or were all those people led by the nose... told there were great jobs soon to be available in Perth... were they lied to?

Trust me -- I'm a large and well-established company...

A company must make a profit, that is its goal. Does it care for its employees? Only as far as necessary to ensure that a profit is made. Would a company give its employees a fair wage simply because that is the right thing to do? Ha ha ha. Back to Alinta: A merger with AGL looks like a good idea. 650 employees will be sacked? What a great way to save money -- let's do it! Would a rail-building contractor care for its employees? Well, yes -- enough to ensure that the work is done. Employees are a resource, an essential input to the project. As with any other project resource, cost must be kept to a minimum. That is the role of the company. Workers are a resource, no more important than concrete, steel, equipment, machinery... all these are project costs, and project costs must be kept as low as possible.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Do employees deserve to get a fair wage? A wage that matches the booming economy of this state? No, not as far as the employer is concerned... and that is perfectly correct. The employer exists to make a profit. It will do that by minimising costs -- including labour -- and maximising its own prices. That's why unions are essential. Do you believe that human beings should live well in a booming economy? Who do you think will ensure a reasonable wage to support a good standard of living? Employers don't care -- nor should they. Who will fight for wages beyond the bare minimum? Who will see wages as a share of the economy -- not just a cost to be minimised? Unions. Unions fight to maximise wages. How they do it is often cause for concern. If they did not do it -- a lot of people would be a lot worse off.