Thanks to a premature discussion, the Rudds are now gonna put a little money in the bank politically.
Therese Rein has opted to sell the Australian arm of her business and in the process bought Labor some sweet political capital. Their handling of the situation has effectively blunted any real attack the opposition Coalition may have planned on this issue, it’s now all about ethics, transparency and openness.
This was less about IR and more about conflict of interest, something that would have been addressed anyway if and when Rudd became PM. Now the decision has been brought forward to great effect.
Despite some efforts to paint this as a major hypocrisy the Rudds have won the day in terms of political impact.
If anything, this only confirms that Rudd is more than ready to run the country, and in the process we may get a bonus for Australia in the Lodge, a thoroughly modern couple combining brains and brains.
Discuss, in the Rudd/Rein post Larvatus Prodeo had to have.
If this is all about conflict of interest, then why doesn’t Rudd give up his post? There seems to have been no discussion about the relative merits of Rudd making the change, rather than his wife. In the end, this is yet another case of a successful woman putting her career on hold for her husband. It seems to be completely consistent with the notion that she is a mere appendage to her husband’s political persona. This is what a ‘modern couple’ looks like, Phil?
Also, saying Rudd was won the day on political impact is a bit over the top. The punters will not remember how it was handled; all they’ll remember is that Rudd’s wife did something bad, it related to IR and the press reckon Rudd is a hypocrite. The whole affair is still a net negative for Labor. Still, it’s fair to say that it hasn’t hurt as much as the Coalition would have been hoping. And of course, the Coalition can’t really bang on and on about it because it’s a pretty good illustration of “workers getting screwed”. The events are more consistent with Labor’s underlying message than that of the Liberals.
Cheers
BBB
In the end, this is yet another case of a successful woman putting her career on hold for her husband.
She’s selling off the Australian arm of her business. I’m sure that the international branches will still keep her quite busy.
Yes, she is giving something up for her husband’s career. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if when Rudd eventually retires from politics she gets to determine a lot of the aspects of their life then in exchange. Marriage is about compromise.
The punters will not remember how it was handled; all they’ll remember is that Rudd’s wife did something bad, it related to IR and the press reckon Rudd is a hypocrite.
My feeling is it could wash out the other way. The “punters” won’t remember the details but they’ll remember R&R handled it upfront and honestly and TR went out of her way to allay concerns.
Isn’t the real conflict of interest with traditional ALP values?
I’m a conservative, so I’m not opposed to people earning large sums of money through business activities.
But even I flinched at the idea of someone making so much money by paying other people $30,000 a year. It doesn’t come close to being a living wage.
Has the left reached a point where its sympathies and interests lie with wealthy feminist women rather than the working class?
Point taken BBB, and yes Graham, you could argue about that conflict, but I suspect that the ALP is a party in transition, or as conservatives are so eager to say, now reflecting current Australian values. Interesting stuff from a number of angles, but I do think this is what makes Rudd so compelling as a potential PM, it’ll be interesting to see where this all ends up.
Has the left reached a point where its sympathies and interests lie with wealthy feminist women rather than the working class?
There is nothing about paying her workers too little that makes Therese Rein more feminist. Nothing. Show me a writer who says that screwing your workforce makes you a better feminist.
For the record, I’m disappointed and not disposed to letting TR off the hook, or Krudd either. I think he’s piss weak on uranium, on forests, and he’ll probably pussyfoot on IR as well with a tweak here and a tweak there, but at the moment he seems to be doing the small target thing. His christian orientation means there will be no progress in reproductive rights at the federal level- the pretend “counselling services” will stay. I know I’m in a minority here, but I’ll vote Labor at the next election ONLY to get rid of the lying rodent - I’m not full of buoyant hope for a government under Rudd and co.
Well you have at least one other who shares your concerns Helen.
Which is why I’ll be voting Greens 1, ALP 2 and then the rest with a tie for last of the ‘extremists’ and the Coalition.
All below the line where relevant.
There may be a few more like us than you think.
Gee Make glad you think 30,000 is not a living wage,ever wonder how the Pensioners and Disabled get by on 12000 a year,and most of them don,t have super.
I know I don,t cause Howard opposed it to people like me in the Construction Ind and we only got it when Labour got in,when my knees went I had to retire try living on that and pay the bills in West Aust.
Sadly if you vote this way your vote won’t count, Hannah. The law was changed in 1998 to make the equal-last option an informal vote.
i get the impression a lot of people are making sacrifices to get rid of howard,rein is just a bit higher profile one and shows how serious people are about changing the federal government
Rein had to sell on political and conflict of interest grounds; her position was unsustainable.
But it’s probably a slick business decision, too. Being a labour hire outfit which has thrived under the Coalition and is unlikely to profit to the same extent under Labor, she’d be an idiot not to sell while the going’s good.
Unless, as Helen intimates, Rudd turns out to be every bit as conservative as Howard. I mean, watching him explain to the unions why he won’t, afterall, be getting rid of AWAs will be interesting.
What Helen said, pretty much - for me the coming election is about getting rid of a bad, incompetent government. And then things get interesting.
Tired of this soap opera. Lots of talk about ‘feelings’ and ‘ambition’. Lots of talk about partners-in-politics, as if this were a gender issue (How many partners of senior politicians run multi-million dollar companies? How is this relevant outside a small cocoon?)
Almost no discussion of the ‘feelings’ or ‘ambitions’ of the workers involved, or how the story emblemises the vulnerability of the low-paid in a de-regulating environment. Vanstone this morning thought she was being cute in saying ‘Therese Rein seems like a very nice person, who just wanted flexibility in her workplace’: ‘flexibility’? Cost-cutting: 45c/hour for losing core award conditions?
Labor should have quickly condemned the company’s actions, but were scared of offending Ms Rein and hence their leader. Now to manage the media frenzy, Mr Controller has engineered an early and possibly unnecessary parachute.
Why is Rein’s decision to sell her business cast by many as the “sacrifice” of a good wife on the altar of her husband’s ambition? Seems to me this is a sadly old-fashioned explanation.
Maybe Rein has a greater interest in politics that she is given credit for by the silly old farts in the media. And its not so hard after all, to decide to put down the load of running a business and sell up for a lazy few million.
Maybe Rein has decided that after a few decades of hard slog she really wants to be Australia’s First Lady, much more than she wants to continue to run her business until she drops.
This is a pretty interesting choice after all, for any woman, and one that Hilary Clinton did not shy from, and see where she is now.
And from the First Lady pulpit Rein might develop the role into something much more socially progressive and useful than the current incumbent has managed with her tasteless forays into interior decorating.
We really should stop reading Rein’s decision entirely through the prism of her husband’s ambitions and take a good look at how the decision to sell her business and concentrate on the run to the Lodge empowers her.
I’m also with Helen, Gummo et al: I really want to get rid of Howard. Rudd is not my dream alternative PM however, and I’m not sure who would be.
The Usual Tory Suspects sift through the ashes of the erstwhile Coalition hegemony of federal politics in search of something, anything, to warm them in the forthcoming gotterdamerung of Coalition politics.
Does Rudd measure up as an icon of social democracy? No.
Have Australians got over their infatuation with cradle-to-grave state intervention and dirigisme? Mostly.
Have Australians seen through the lies. mendacity, dog-whistling and special pleading of the Tories? Most assuredly.
The Rodent is correct. His politics face annihilation.
As a left liberal, I see nothing but sunshine.
Memo to left liberal members of coalition parties: sniff the air, times are changing. Boot out the Howardistas. Admit your moral cowardice. Seek forgiveness and get back in the political game purged of the incubus of Howard.
The government’s attack on this issue seems be a case of one step forward three steps back
The message the government is trying to get across is
Rudd is a hypocrite.
I am not sure they really made much ground on this. Reading even just the front page of the Daily Telegraph leaves you with an impression that this is a beat up. Possibly another case of the electorate and punditocracry in different worlds.
To acheive this message of hypocrisy they have ended up running three counter productive messages for the government:
1) Rudd is capable of running the economy
What better economic credentials can there be than to build a $170m company from scratch? Sure it was his wife but that is going to rub off on him. This attack brings in a story to the Rudd narrative that Labor would want on the table anyway.
2) Rudd is not too close to the unions
Rudd is both too close to the unions and screwing over workers? Which one is it? True they are not mutually exclusive but that is not a straightforward case to make. Most people will perceive it as one or the other.
3) Companies are being unfair to workers.
Every story of unfair outcomes in the workplace is bad for the government. Why go out of their way to put one on the table themself?
Arleeshar is correct, if Hannah votes as she says above it will be counted as an informal vote. To hell with the fact that the voter’s intention is clear and that Australia’s electoral system was historically based upon this very important democratic principle the vote will not be counted!!!
Much to the consternation of those here who are always baiting the so-called Maoists all at lastsuperpower, it was their ilk who challenged these laws. Talk about putting their bourgeois democratic credentials where their mouth is.
In a small way this episode feels like a little deja vu leftover from the Rudd met Burke episode many weeks ago. It was blown out of all proportion and only back-fired on the Coalition. This new episode gives the semblance of Therese Rein as a bad CEO because she had to rectify contractual problems over wages and entitlements. Much of the news flagellators have skipped over the detail that Rein inherited this wage squeeze from the previous company owner and that she did at least show some social conscience in rectifying the matter long before the newshounds and the PR gang inside the Lodge leapt on the moral watchtowers.
It perhaps has pulled on the leash a little to restrain ALP criticisms of the Government’s IR policy. Perhaps the flap has some small incremental influence on perceptions in the electorate. When polling day arrives I wonder whether many voters are going to recall “Rudd met Burke”, Heffernan’s boorish and obnoxious remarks about Julia Gillard, and Therese Rein’s decision.
The topicality of this will subside soon as the “carbon trading” report is tabled, and the ad-fest propaganda is unleashed on the body politic to “prove” how eco-friendly the Howard Government is. Again as this new topic takes centre stage the same concundrum remains for the Coalition: is anyone (apart from genetically modified bi-pedal political rodents) left dancing to the tune from the Pied Piper of Bennelong???
Consternated - not me. Constant Maoist-baiter - nah, I only do it socially, when the self-styled true left drop around to tell us all what sell-outs we are.
Oh yes, they did challenge the laws, with much the same result as that achieved by Aussie Joe Bugner when he went up against Muhammad Ali.
Thats funny Gummo. The two laws that we challenged no longer exist. Now if the laws continued to exist you might have a point but when I am now quite free to advocate that people vote informal you sound a we bit dopey.
Just to clear the issue for you (and let you return to the moderation manipulation) the ALP passed a law in SA (S126). That ‘law’ said people couldn’t advocate that others vote informal. I proceeded to do just that and continued to do so in an uninterrupted manner until the purported law was repealed.
Note the Election Commission would not use the said law against me but rather sought an injunction and I ignored the injunction (from J Perry and he just died a few days ago). I would not give Perry a hearing on election day and carried on regardless. The election commission then sought a conviction for contempt. I fronted up before J Bollen who had to hold it over permitting either side to call it on after the High Court had decided the issue because the case was already before the HC.
I was not disappointed that the HC came down 6 nil against me (only 6Js at the time). Reading their judgment’s is a laugh. We had already demonstrated that the people would not pay any attention to such a law that tried to stop me saying ‘this is how I shall vote and I advocate that you do the same’.
Needless to say the law that had been passed unanimously was repealed unanimously despite the HC having said they had the power to make such a law.
Now people in SA have the right to say what I say they had the right to say all along and did. In short it was a total victory exposing all concerned over their anti democratic activities. Now that you know something of it perhaps as a reward you will stop the moderation tactic.
All very interesting patrick, but the laws referred to above weren’t the laws in South Australia - they were the Federal electoral laws which would make hannah’s vote - if she fills out her ballot paper in the manner she describes informal.
On the “moderation tactic” - yes it was me that put you there one insomniac morning. The only thing it’s intended to achieve is to prevent you from boring everybody witless with long raves on various accusations of ideological deviationism and generally holier-than-thou “I have the right to throw out casual insults at all and sundry and don’t you dare challenge that” attitude.
And no, I won’t be rewarding you today by releasing you from moderation. I can’t be bothered signing in to site admin to do it right now.
Patrickm’s exciting legal adventures are in any case largely irrelevant to this thread.
(arleeshar on 28 May 2007 at 9:54 am)
Sadly if you vote this way your vote won’t count, Hannah. The law was changed in 1998 to make the equal-last option an informal vote.
Now, psephology sends me to sleep - can’t even pronounce it - but that sounds wrong to me. Do you mean that if I put the Libruls last or second last (I fill out the long form), my vote will be considered informal? even if otherwise valid?
Why? Are the major parties sacrosanct or if you do that you can’t possibly be serious?
BTW my take on the Rudds is that selling these assets was an easy decision as the economics are that she sells in a saturated market and transfers her capital to the growing market. OS is where her growth is already targeted. It is the sort of standard capitalism practiced by the likes of Packer when selling ch9 to Bond.
The idea that this multi millionaire from the party of millionaires and yuppies is giving up anything is silly. The issue is the double standards from these ALP phonies.
I’ve been surprised that no one’s mentioned Cherie Blair in all this. She’s appeared as a barrister in cases against Tony Blair’s government - and won. And the sky didn’t fall in.
There is something more than slightly weird in this country regarding the obsession with women in politics, and the liberal application of double standards whenever the issue arises.
Witness the quite viscious attacks on Julia Gillard and now Thressa Rein’s business affairs. I assume that the business affairs of Julie Bishop and Helen Coonan’s husbands will now be subject to equal scrutiny. Or is it only intelligent women that are a problem?
I think arleeshar has misinterpreted what I ambiguously typed.
I have no intention of repeating numbers, its just that when I get down near the bottom of the list I may have to spend a bit of time considering which of the extremists to put last. Sadly there are others out there, One Nation and FF spring to mind, who in many ways are worse than the Coalition, so maybe the Coalition might not end up stone motherless last but only 2nd or even 3rd last.
Although after reading the aid post above the Coalition probably has a mortgage on last spot.
Anyway thanks for making sure I voted formally.
Another ‘what Helen said’, with particular emphasis on the disappointment and the reluctance to let either of them slip off the hook. Big companies allow people in charge to conveniently make highly profitable mistakes and oversights about the conditions and pay of distant people far below in the organisation. Maybe she genuinely didn’t know but she’s built a business which allows her not to know about that kind of thing. I was also terribly disappointed by Combet’s willingness to condone the way Rein handled things.
What about the French where they were wondering whether Celia could be bothered moving into the Élysée Palace with Nic. Couldn’t be bothered voting, apparently.
If you scroll down the article you’ll read about Ségolène Royal who, it seems, decided to run for pres instead of her husband François Hollande after he
She had the blond re-assigned and brought François to heel. Now it seems she is shunting him aside and taking over the leadership of the Socialist Party. Her initial leverage was to threaten to take the kids away. Now it seems he may have plenty of time to spend with them.
Add me to the list of ‘what Helen said’ as well.
After 11 years of obfuscation I think Rudd’s approach is refreshing, particularly his willingness to admit mistakes. Once he moves to the Lodge I fear he will lose that transparency and I don’t really believe his policies will be a great improvement on the current mob’s. But at the moment, anything to get rid of the rodent.
I’m not prepared to condemn Rein because I don’t know enough of the fine detail to assess whether it was a genuine oversight.
As to the level of pay, she claims they are all payed more than the award. Frankly to make $8.8 million profit (from memory) on $175m turnover sounds like a low-margin business.
The commentary on Rein seems to have been favourable. Some, like Brian Toohey (Insiders) Heather Rideout (Breakfast) and Geoffrey Barker in the Fin Review today, say she should have kept the business. The notion seems to be that it was positive for Rudd and selling sets a bad precedent.
I think she had to sell, and I agree with Tim T. The important factor is not that she was depending on government contracts, but that the business depends on government contracting out Centrelink functions. I wonder what Labor’s stance on this is.
So I don’t think it forms a precedent.
Please note that Rein’s company had its workers on civil contracts, not AWAs, which Rudd expressed himself comfortable with. This will do him no harm with small business. I leave aside whether it’s good policy.
BTW why was the likes of Malcolm Fraser allowed to keep his farm, but it was offensive for Keating to own a piggery?
Because it is natural to be a farmer who goes into politics but very unnatural for a professional politician to profess an interest in farming anything but votes. The only conclusion in the case of the latter is that he is trying to make money, which is unacceptable in a politician who farms votes, while of course the farmer who goes into politics is simply showing how natural it is for a farmer with money to be a politician who needs votes.
I think the most important thing about the Rein affair is to expose Labor’s opposition to Howard’s IR as more rhetoric than reality. Rudd is likely to use the episode to tone down the campaign. Quite sensible.
Mark Richardson,
what no one dares to mention is the bonuses workers (on $30,000) can get from placing people in jobs,especially long term unemployed. It could be many thousands of bucks a week for some Job Network staff.The $30,000 is analogous to the base salary paid to sales people or real estate agent employees and supposedly provides an incentive to place people in work.It does not have to be a full time job but could last as little as 3 months.
The whole privatised Job Network is full of all sorts of odious bounty hunter-like habits and I think the YES company which Ms Rein bought was into among other things supplying “volunteer” labour to various “non-profit” organisations.I say “volunteer” with quotes because various Centrelink recipients can elect to do “volunteer” work as a trade-off against their “Activity Agreement”.
This blog needs an anonymous contribution from one of the Job Network organisations because the more one finds out about the system the worse it looks .
Ms Rein of course must say that there would be a conflict of interest if she retained the company because it implies she has inside knowledge about the fate of the privatised JobNetwork system after the election. I am sure there many people in the presumptive government who would like to scrap the whole thing but who at the moment do not want to frighten the horses.
Ah yes hannah, it’s always fun when you get down to the choice between the Guns for Rottweilers lot and the Democratic Stalinists isn’t it?
Dany le roux you are on the ball to suggest…..
“The whole privatised Job Network is full of all sorts of odious bounty hunter-like habits”
Adele Horin did some nice work on this subject back in November 06, that I provide a link to.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/jobless-just-pawns-in-a-nasty-numbers-game/2006/11/24/1164341392076.html
It would be great to hear from any workers in the system presently. I believe any punters who are dragged into this arrangement , as ‘clients’, should at least be informed how much money is being changed, behind their backs, when some ‘result’ is achieved. When you take advantage of subsidised medical help you get to see how much the actual cost was, for the service, on the form. Not so, with Job Network, as far as I know.
Job Network really looks like a large privatisation disaster that needs to be dismantled . It is kind of sad that this might not be the case, with a change of government, because of the mother Therese factor.
Sort of a wedge into maintaining a wasteful ,unfair and exploitative system that hits the most vulnerable. Workchoices needs to go and so does Job Network.
Joe2,
Many thanks .I do not think there will be too many more contributions somehow.
Dany and Co,
I have been through a few Job Network’s in my time as an unemployed person and they are more heinous and disgraceful than Howard’s WorkChoices. They all play off against each other and have a habit of making your life as hard as possible. Supposedly you can move to another one at any time (but only once) but the process is so long winded from both your current and future Job Network that it doesn’t take long to realise you’re just a pawn in one big game. JN’s will hound you for being “too slow” to find work and be on your case but they’ll also pull you up if you’re making “too much progress” like if you already have a resume, they don’t like that at all and make you do the whole thing again.
One needs to keep in mind that under Howard’s laughable employment figures if you are in Job Search Training ( one month F/T) or Work For The Dole (slave labour that see’s one earn just over $5 per hour, F/T for six months with not exactly much time to look for real work) you are considered “employed”. If that is the case surely I must be able to make a claim against the government for paying me less than half of minimum wage? Sadly, they know you don’t have the money or connections to fight that in court.
Also each Job Network is assigned x amount of money to supposedly be spent on each unemployed person for things to help smooth the process into their proposed position like work uniform, boots etc. through to help with public transport tickets and the juicy part, payments to you the unemployed person for sticking with that job for x amount of time. A decent payment after three months than six it is increased and by 12 months possibly over $1,000 payment. I have never and know of only one person who has ever received any “financial incentive” from a Job Network despite the fact around $10,000 is allocated to be spent on each and every unemployed person excluding the more than generous payments they recieve from the government for finding you employment. I’ve got a feeling I know what happens to all that money.
I can probably now speak on my time with the Salvation Army’s Employment Plus JN considering they ripped off the government (in a system that almost gives one the licence to print money) for around $5 million with obviously fudged books. It was a terrible experience from the moment I (stupidly) moved from my previous useless JN to them. The day after signing up I came in (of my free will mind you) to check their computers for any jobs. I was then set upon by a young woman who a) wanted to know what I was doing in here and b) my full name. I explained that I signed up yesterday and that I thought I’d pop in to see what was on offer. She then (in front of everyone) proceeded to try and convince me I was meant to be in one of the “lock down” rooms attending JST (Job Search Training). With my mouth agape I explained to her that I am not meant to be starting JST until the following week and I just decided to come in here, freely. She clearly couldn’t accept being put back in her place by an unemployed person and ordered me to stand at the front counter while she began making phone calls. As she was doing this she insisted I was meant to be in JST and I again asked her to speak to the person directly that I saw yesterday. Finally after such a humiliating experience once she contacted the man in question she then said “yes you’re right” and stormed off before I could open my mouth again without even the consideration of an apology. That is a very, very minor snapshot of what people have to deal with everyday in these terrible Job Network’s.
Futt,
perhaps the reason you cannot transfer more than once is because they do not want to make a second payment of $10,000.I did not know about that one but I did know that there is a payment of about $9 goes to the assigned Provider whenever a punter puts his PIN into the Network computer to look for a job.
The Minister for the non delivery of Government Services blamed the unemployed for the Job Network non performance as long ago as 2003.
Taking responsibility for his performance has never been one of Brough’s strong points.
So the latest newspoll has more proof that the more dirt the Government throws the further down in the polls they go. Looks like the voters have decided that the hypocrisy and double standards are greater on the Government side of the political fence.
For us Time delayed folks on the Western side of the Country, what were the actual figures ??
and re Employment Plus, consiudering they play the god card quite a bit in their image, they do exhibit double standards in their support for the down trodden in our community, plus they impose their moral values as well in regards to Alcohol etc.
Actually they should’ve ensurfed that only non-profit, non religioius bodies should’ve got any contracts for employment services.
The refrain “hypocrisy� trotted out all of a sudden (does someone create these unique selling propositions in some dungeon HQ?) by Harry Clarke, Piers the FBS, Paul Kelly, the Bolter, Jokin’ Joe, Tele’s leader blogette Sandra Lee, and a scrum of paid and unpaid shills, is falling on deaf ears.
Not only that, but the episode has put Therese out in front for everyone to check out. Better than a colour feature in the Weekly, any day. It’d be a brave Tory who’d take her on in the spotlight. Come on Joe, Deputy Dawg, Ratty, anyone?
Yes, the issue has somewhat turned to shit for the Howardistas. And they can thank Ruperdom for overegging the pudding. I daresay that if Kevin wins, there will be a few redundancies down Holt St way.
The punters are greedy and venal but not THAT stupid. It’s not as if Ratso and the Gang haven’t uttered the odd, er, inconsistency, themselves. Hello? Never ever? Non core?
Yes, indeed. We have thoroughly examined the underside of the walnut shells. Where is the pea?
And now we look in the wallet. Where is the divvy from the best performing economy in the world, dude?!
60-40 2PP, Labor up 5 points on the last poll.
Abbott had a lot to do with the fact that wasn’t ensured.
Just saw the item on News Ltd , I wonder how Shamaham and Co will spin THIS one
All I Can say is WOO HOO !!!!
Centrebet
1. LABOR 1.65
2. COALITION 2.15
Shemoham is sticking to the Howard Script.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21811822-601,00.html
Biggest spread yet, Ken. Must have widened 6 cents after tea. No need to get too fussed over the “Therese incident”; good to see you’ve settled after your Dept. of the Bleedin’ Earnest, “Light On the Hill” routine. Tin-Tin took one on the chin, covered up till the bell, pow-wowed with his “Sweetheart”, and is back defending a solid points lead.
The Rodent is less popular with the punters, than Sirro was with The Poms, according to the latest Oracle Newspoll.
Wonder how many loyal government foot-soldiers will fall after bounding over the top of the trenchs and sprinting into the fusillade of ballots later this year? Crushing will be the burden on Little Johnny Anzac when he blows the election whistle that commands his troops to their political Gallipoli. Naturally, Field Marshall Rodent will do it “For The Good of The Party”. The same Party who are happy to have him lead them for as long as they want him too.
Should massive carnage ensue, it will be The Party’s fault for not relieving him of his command when they had the chance. Stuff the fallen! John Winston Howard’s got a Legacy to protect. That’s why he’ll stay on as leader for as long as his beloved Party…… etc.
Strutted like Churchill,
Crumbled like Chamberlain. ( handy epitaph suggestion)
Gee Enemy, I hope you are not going to accuse me of “hypocrisy”. It’s the word on everyone’s lips.
Bro Calabrese points to Denny Boy in Volkische Beobachter, which I’d already read this morning - and funny, that, but its own Newspoll is not part of the headlines - don’t mention the war, or what?
This is a very funny (as in peculiar, not haha) piece by Shanahan. It reminds me of Goebbels running up Hitler in the chancellery steps on April 12, 1945 as the city burned all around. “Mein Fuehrer, mein Fuehrer, Roosevelt is dead. It’s a sign from Providence. We’ve won, we’ve won”. All the while 2.5 million Soviet troops were massing outside Berlin, a battery of katyoosha rockets or a field gun every 10 metres in a ring surrounding the city.
Peter Martin points out another Howard Porky.
“Gee Enemy, I hope you are not going to accuse me of “hypocrisyâ€?. It’s the word on everyone’s lips.”
Sure is, Ken. Harry, was onto it a full news cycle ahead of anyone else. Perhaps he is gifted with The Shining that keeps on receiving.
Dany,
Thanks for your response. I believe Job Network’s get a damn sight more than $10K from the government for putting you in a position. I don’t know if I misunderstood what you were implying but the $10K is just play money that they are meant to spend on you, the job seeker (which they usually pocket) outside of their normal “services”. I think a JN get’s somewhere in the range of $60K from the government for ramming you into any job or course it can find.
A potential big blow up today with the supposed “leak” of a former employee of one of Ms Rein’s job networks. He has basically said as an employee they were told to inform the government they found job seeker’s a job when in truth the unemployed person actually found it themselves. Thus allowing the job network to collect a healthy kick back from the government. As Rumsfeld would say this is a “known known”, every single job network has done this and in spades too. Whenever you start at a JN they hammer it in to you that if you find a job (like through the paper at home etc.) or start a course that you should tell them about it ASAP. If not they won’t know to tell the government they found it for you and miss out on even more money. It’s a crooked scheme from the top down but what would you expect from Howard and it look’s like this guy is a Liberal stooge as it’s an open secret this goes on.
I would have thought that expecting there would never be a mistake in a company that employs 2000 people is a little on the ridiculous side. The fact is, they discovered the mistake in APRIL - well before the media started making a fuss about it - and started contacting workers and reimbursing them also in APRIL.
Why wouldn’t Combet condone that?? Seems to me, you discover your workers haven’t been paid correctly - an unfortunate mistake to be sure, but obviously a genuine mistake - and you take steps voluntarily to rectify the mistake, what’s not to condone?
As for “she’s built a business which allows her not to know about that kind of thing” - well, yes, a successful $170 million business that employs 2000 people would pretty much preclude the owner knowing about every teensy tiny detail of every single thing that happens. That’s pretty much in the nature of that level of success.
Surely we’re not saying it’s “unLabor” or to be condemned that someone is successful? Sheesh, tall poppy syndrome much? Or are we all returning to the days of good old fashioned socialism and central governments, and thinking all that money should be redistributed?
Futt,
I have only been able to find it once but there is a figure on the ABS site for one year(I think it was 2001) which says that the for-profit providers cost the taxpayer in excess of $300,000 per (provider) employee not counting rent.
Help! The spam filter ate my post again!
This item was NOT published in the Govt Gazette. Another own goal to Ratty and Rupert’s rabble of Muckrackers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1936781.htm
I am astounded by this news ,Frank. After all the nonsense of the weekend!
With a gift like that you’d think Harry would plonk down the house in South Yarra on the gallops at Doomben and Mooney Valley midweek, in a few discreet plunges, and give away this dismal science rubbish, wouldn’t you. And watch the birds in peace. I know I would. I’m so envious…
Rebekka,
It must be plain by now to all that being a Job Network provider is a business which is less than ethical if you can accept just some of the criticism mentioned here on this set of comments and their links.It was the inverse of the “I was just following orders” excuse ie she should knew what was going on because she knew the structure of the Network and how it worked, she was just giving the orders.
She did the only thing she could after the providers were sprung by a post in Leftwrites a few months ago which revealed all the lurks.
The debate moved on from “she ripped off her workers” to “she was engaged in an unethical business”.
BTW the debate rages in France where her company is competing with the govt network and where there is a lot of distrust of her methods which seem to be based on the Australian govt model.Some in the left there call it the “kangaroo experiment”.
And The Govt Gazette finally reports that Therese Rein has been cleared.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21816497-5005361,00.html
Who is to say that a Rudd Government will not tip the Job Network upside down and make it an organization that actually works well. Weirder things have happened and I really can’t think of a more incompetent and uncaring bunch than the Howard Government to reform or run anything of importance. With the way it has been run for the past decade or so it is hard to see how it can not be made to operate better than it has so far.
Dany, They are some pretty interesting numbers! Cheers.
Steve, Like Iraq I honestly don’t believe the Job Network system was ever set up with the intention of running “properly”. It’s all about shifting figures (like all the unemployed no longer being considered as unemployed) and moving large sums of money around in small circles. The Howard government decided they wanted to do away with the CES etc. and privatise the whole thing ino this shonky Job Network system. I believe it has a lot more to do with the Liberals rewarding their “constituents” with juicy grants from the cash cow, the tax payer.
Steve,
I think you are right.In Germany her company goes along with what seems to be govt. policy which encourages jobseekers to train or retrain.
If Ms Rein had any sense she would have said that she would hope that were her husband to become PM she would lobby to change the system so that Labor’s education policy could find expression in her businesses.
Piers Whatsaface unfortunately is correct in saying that Ms Rein’s German company facilitates s457 visas to Australia thus soaking up jobs here which could be filled by retrained Australians.
dany le roux,
That would very much depend on how you define “unethical”. I understand some of the critisisms - having dealt with a job network provider myself in the past some of them are definitely valid. But I don’t think that means any particular job network provider is unethical - the system they operate within is screwed, sure, but Rein set up her business with the intention of helping people who’d been injured or disabled get back to work - inspired by her father - and I think that’s very far from being unethical. I can think of some *extremely* valid critisisms you could make about hospitals - that doesn’t mean running a hospital is unethical.
Yes, I realise that, but it doesn’t mean I can’t go back to address a concern that was raised earlier and not previously answered.
Its definitely unethical if you are a bit left thinking and the system operates to give Job Network workers bonuses for who knows what.At the moment we are importing workers by the tens or hundreds of thousands but very little is done here in the way of training or retraining our own unemployed to take these jobs.
And yes, Ms Rein set up her business before the privatised Job Network started and was no doubt justifiably inspired by the efforts of her father but this does not necessarily make the Job Network ethical.It just means she stayed in the business as it was becoming shifty and went along with it.
No one is willing to come out and give a complete report on how Job Network providers operate and what does come out in these comments and elsewhere does not look like the sort of stuff which would attract “left of centre” LP participants.You may have noticed that a few people are angry about their experiences with the Job Network but I think if you were a right winger I doubt you would care.
dany le roux, once again, you’re confusing the system being unethical with participants in the system being unethical.
No, it meant that she stayed in the SYSTEM as the SYSTEM was becoming “shifty” - to what extent she “went along with it” and to what extent she tried to make the best of a bad set of circumstances in order to keep helping the people her business was set up to help is something no-one on this forum knows. At best, you’re speculating. At worst, you’re being defamatory.
I don’t know whether you’re accusing me, Therese Rein, or some other shadowy party here of being a right-winger, but in the case of myself or Ms Rein I think the suggestion is laughable. If it’s just the right-wing in general whom you’re accusing of not caring, then I think you’re aptly demonstrating one of the reasons why the right has been increasingly dominating the political debate in the West over the last few decades - assuming your opponents are evil works well for gaining debating points, not so well when it comes to actually understanding them and countering their policies.
Rebekka,
The system is stuffed and one of my points was that if you are chasing bounty as your first priority and not the occupational welfare of your clients then your Job Network provider has from a leftish point of view been forced to be unethical.
Have a look at Marcus L’Estrange’s contribution in todays Crikey.There are two million unemployed people chasing 150,000 jobs according to him.If this is the case those in charge of Workdirections or Ingeus should have baulked at the juicy opportunity to import 457 visa holders knowing that the local unemployed have little hope of getting work unless it is subsidised part time work which lasts for only three months.This is the employment situation in Australia at the moment.A responsible Job Network provider should make the situation known and not let the quite false 4.5% unemployment figure lull people into a false sense of economic security.I do not recall any Job Network providers speaking out about this except perhaps those mentioned in Adele Horin’s article.A responsible and therefore ethical Director at Workdirections should have spoken out publicly a long time ago.
I think you are trying to stifle debate by mentioning the word “defamatory”.This topic is a big political talking point at the moment and we are talking about very public figures and I am using material which is for the most part publicly available.
What’s the bet the findings to this will be made just prior, or during the Election.
Frank,
I don’t think OWS would want to go too deeply into it because;
(1)These guys are public servants looking for job security after the election and
(2) as I have pointed out the(low) salaries are retainers needing bounties to top them up to make good wages, something nobody wants to talk about.
The OWS and the Govt. do not want to reveal the goings on of the Job Network because it stinks and going for TR’s throat could backfire because of this.
I think this illustrates why JN is stuffed, the Govt is only interested in those JN Providers who move clients through like Laxitives.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1938286.htm
This is a facile argument. 457 visas are for skilled workers. There’s nothing to say you can’t have skills shortages in one or more areas while still having two million unemployed people. And yes, I think we should be training and re-training Australians, but that’s something that’s entirely outside the purview of Ms Rein’s business.
And I dismiss as laughable the s