I’d like to play poker against Steve Fielding. If his actions over the alcopops tax are any guide, he’d bet all his chips with a lousy hand – after showing it to all the other players. The net result of his decision to block the legislation enabling the tax, after the other cross-benchers negotiated some quite sensible improvements to the deal? Cheaper Bacardi Breezers for teenagers to regurgitate, and a lost opportunity to replace $50 million of alcoholic sporting sponsorship with healthier alternatives. Not to mention a decent-size hole in the budget that will have to be filled elsewhere. It’s hard to imagine that this is the kind of outcome that his supporters wanted, inscrutable though they sometimes are. No wonder Bob Brown gave Fielding a carpeting in Parliament.
While Nick Xenophon is straight from the Brian Harradine school of independent Senators, at least the bloke seems to understand how to negotiate to achieve the best result he can get. Fielding, at the moment, is turning the passage of any particular legislation through the Senate into a coin-tossing exercise. The sooner the Senate numbers change to remove him from his current position of influence, the better off we will all be.
This is simple really. Now the opposition can lambast the ALP for poor econonmic management and get the process started for a Whitlam style dismisal of Rudd. See also the court case against the tax refund.
Fielding is an idiot. Fortunately, he seems to be cutting his own throat – it’s looking increasingly likely that he’ll give the govt at least one trigger for a DD, after which he’ll be long gone, like a turkey in the corn. (I knew those years of listening to obscure blues records would come in handy!)
Here, I fixed it for you, Robert:
I’m not sure I follow your argument Robert. Sen Fielding didn’t get what he wanted, voted No. Greens got some of what they wanted, voted Yes.
So what? Do you expect Sen Fielding to vote with the Govt every time, after winning some amendments? I think he’s probably increased his bargaining power by holding out on this. Xenophon wins some amendments too.
Isn’t it inherent in the usually-finely-balanced Senate that these electoral pipsqueaks can wield disproportionate influence occasionally, when ALP/Coaltion are split? Harradine wasn’t the first to do so. And sometimes Harradine wasn’t for turning, either.
Do you support proportional representation Robert?
tssk@ 1, methinks you have that the wrong way round.
A large hole in the governments budget can now be blamed on the opposition who can be easily portrayed as under the thumb of booze purveyors to underage and youthful drinkers.
i’m more amused by the opposition choosing to die in a ditch over work choices,the interests of big brewers and wink, wink,nudge, nudge secret political donations.they must have a death wish at the coming double dissolution.
David, I would like to be 100% confident that your scenario will come true, but don’t underestimate the capacity of Victorian ALP State Secretary Stephen Newnham and others like him to manage Labor’s Senate preferencing strategy in Victoria in such a way that Fielding sneaks back in on a risible primary vote.
Newnham is reputed to have stated, during a debate at the 1991 Annual Conference of the National Union of Students, that “some people are meant to be organgrinders and some people are meant to be monkeys and that’s the way it is!” Both Newnham and Fielding can be regarded as examples of monkeys who have been elevated by cruel chance to the status of organgrinders.
Hardly a family first decision, I would have thought. But then I don’t know anything about his family. Maybe a solid swill before during and after dinner is all the go in the fielding household. Perhaps at the next opportunity his supporters might pay a little more attention to what kind of first family he had in mind. Is he in the next senate vote, or the vote after that?
I doubt Fielding does much gambling at casinos
The reversion of the tax will be a great opportunity to see the effect that the tax rise had though. Will the consumption rise as much as it dropped when the tax introduced? How much of the drop in alcohol consumption was due to people having less money? And if they are keeping track directly of binge drinking there should also be some interesting data there.
The whole alcohol taxation system is a big mess – why aren’t they just applying a tax based on the volume of alcohol content rather than the very complex system they have now?
And whee are the millions of dollars from the tax going to end up. Let’s hope Rudd, Roxon and the others use their brain and commit it to programs that can have a demonstrable community good rather than hadning it back to the distillers as has been reported.
Of course the distillers have stated they don’t want the money back either. Here is an opportunity for the government to still win and show it cares about the community and the effects alcohol has on it.
The Packer family first senator is really showing his true colours.And he appears to be overlooking the fact that the Rudd Government was elected by a majority of voters at the last election, unlike himself who only occupies his current position courtesy of a very foolish decision by a Labor flunkie. I’m starting to think that this bloke is a bloody idiot, but that won’t matter much when he loses his position when we go back to the polls to vote after Rudd calls the DD.
I can’t work out the line that is commonly repeated that a double dissolution will see Fielding lose, even if David Irving put it more poetically than most.
FF got 2.5% in the Vic Senate last time. While I expect that they have peaked in most of the country, Fielding’s profile should probably raise that a bit next time. (For a party of that size the line about any publicity is still largely true). So lets say 3%.
The DLP will get 1% if they appear after the ALP on the Senate ballot paper, 2% if they appear before them (plenty of historical evidence for this). If they preference to FF, as they have done in all past elections that’s 5%. Add in a few other right-wing parties and he’s close to 6%. As long as the Libs have an excess of between 1.7% and 6% when they have elected their 5th candidate he’s home.
The problem for Fielding is if he annoys his base too much. Presumably most Family First supporters don’t follow his logic here. I’m not sure its going to impact on the vote directly, but if he struggles to get people to run as candidates, staff the polling booths or donate that 3% becomes very shaky.
In other words, FS, it may not even be necessary for Newnham to insert his flea-bitten prehensile tail into the preferencing mix for Fielding to get up.
Morrie #6: This revocation of the “alcopops” tax is not in the interests of big brewers. Big brewers just got legislated into a corner. Big distillers will be thrilled.
Personally, I am most distressed. This makes RTDs waaay cheaper. (never heard the term “alcopops” used IRL) Waaay cheaper RTDs means the big distillers will once again have muscle to heavy the retailers (ie, me).
This matter, at first glance, seems to have similarities to the tobacco tax overcharging of about 15 years ago. In that circumstance it was the retailers who got the refund from the govt.
A refund (in about 8 years time, gotta have the courtroom bunfight first) to the retailer (ie, me) of every cent of (retrospectively) overcharged alcopops tax will make me happy, but it won’t make up for the damage the distillers are about to do to our business.
“Do you support proportional representation Robert?”
Fielding’s election was anything but proportional.
He received 56,376 votes (1.88%) and became one of 6 senators elected (quota 14.4%). The Greens got 263,551 votes (8.80%) and weren’t elected.
Fielding got in only because the ALP preferenced him on their Group Voting Ticket ahead of the Greens.
d
I wonder if a senator who had a direct financial interest by way of hotel ownership would be required to announce this fact or stand aside from such a vote when he is likely to benefit, personally, by the failure of this bill?
Robynne B
I agree that the Rudd Govt was clearly elected. But that fact scarcely troubles the minds of the non-Labor Senators. And to be brutal, why should it? They play the game by the rules of the Senate.
When in the Senate, be a Senator.
SPQR: Senate Parties Quash Rudd. ‘Tis an old Roman custom.
BTW, I was in favour of the new tax on alcoholic mixed drinks. But regardless of that, Senators do what Senators do.
Robynne B: may I suggest it might more apt to call Sen Fielding the “ALP Family first senator” wouldn’t it? I’m confident ALP preferences had more to do with his mighty election, than any Packer family influence.
Hotel owners will not benefit by the failure of this bill.
Depending on the individual operation, the effect ranges from mild impediment to drastic kick in the guts.
Anybody dreaming of a DD is fooling themselves. It just won’t happen (who says the Labor party would be better off). I don’t understand why people want to pay more tax. They didn’t increase the tax on all alcohol – just one small part of the market. If you follow the logic of the argument then they should make the tax on petrol 100 times higher than what it is now and reduce the road toll significantly. They are stupid arguments.
You also need to get over the Senate make up. It is very rare (in recent years) for one party to have a majority in the Senate and that will most likely be the case in the future. The party in Government has to work with the Senate it gets whether you like it or not.
I should add that after a double D Fielding’s power would be much reduced. Labour would almost certainly win 5 in each state, and the Greens at least 7, so Labor and Greens would be a majority – Fielding’s only power would be if the Greens voted with the Coalition and there were enough odds and sods around the country that Labor could get things through if it got all of them together (or if there were divisions within the Greens or Coalition).
However, I think that in a Double D Fielding has a fair chance of getting back even without Labor preferences, so long as he doesn’t alienate his base. But he might have just done that.
I bet he wasn’t the only one who got a talking to.
Martin B
Senator Scullion was absent from the chamber. He apologised to the Senate, claiming an ‘informal stairwell discussion’.
He Took the Rap: ain’t he a Rap Scullion?
Yes, put simply: if Australian voters had sole say in the election of our upper house – Fielding (and Schoolies First) wouldnt be there. Not even close.
Alongside China, North Korea, and Cuba you can add “Australia” to the list of countries that allow political parties to direct voter choices.
We. are. a. joke.
I thought Fielding was holding out for an amendment to ban liquor companies from sponsoring sports events and clubs, reduce alcohol advertising on TV etc etc. The greens made positive noises about this too, so you can see why Fielding might have thought he was on to something. He was trying to maximise the wowserism and miscalculated.
Indeed.
Above the Line Voting: good (or at least tolerable).
Ticket Voting: Outrageous.
Optional Preferential Above The Line voting now!
“However, I think that in a Double D Fielding has a fair chance of getting back even without Labor preferences, so long as he doesn’t alienate his base. But he might have just done that.”
I ain’t got the time or inclination to really think hard about this, but FF’s Victorian vote surged from 1.8% to 2.5% between the 04 and 07 election. On the face of it, Fielding would be lucky to make it back in at a DD. Without Labor, he needs FF vote > Lib surplus AND FF vote + Lib surplus > Green surplus + ALP surplus. That’s a pretty small window methinks.
d
Fielding held out for a deal he was never going to get, when the deal on the table was a decent win for him. Now he deservedly looks like a complete goose.
Hi SATP. I am congenitally incompetent in matters to do with retail and off topic in asking, but, could you explain how this is likely to impact on your business? I had not even considered there might be a direct impact on pubs.
Thanks Steve
Fielding [i]wants[/i] a Double D because reaching 14% is too much of a hill for him to climb twice.
Of course I think the school chaplaincy program should be the first program to get cut to make up the funding shortfall. Get on to it Lindsay!
So what’s the Coalition’s justification for voting against this? They think alcopops should be cheaper?
Darryl, you’re leaving out the DLP. Their preferences were very important to Fielding getting up the first time, and would be crucial in future. If they draw a spot after the ALP on the ballot they’ll get 1% (as they did in 07) and that may not be enough. But if they are before the ALP (50/50 chance) they’ll get 2%, as in 04 and several previous outings. Add 2% to Fielding’s vote and it doesn’t look that hard.
Daryl’s right on this one.
Assuming the 2007 was a DD, the firgures at (the actual) count 214 would look:
ALP: 5 elected + 133380 surplus
L/NP: 5 elected + 38330 surplus
GRN: 1 elected + 178610 surplus
FFP: 138798
with a quota of 244798. Clearly the Greens would easily get a second member elected when the ALP surplus was distributed. You would need over 67000 votes (2.1% of the total vote) to shift from ALP/GRN to L/NP/FFP to get a FFP Senator over the second Green.
(Of course in reality the L/NP surplus would have been distributed much earlier in the count but this shouldn’t make any difference to the results.)
FS, am I right in recalling that it was just that kind of cascading of preferences from a small base which got the DLP into the Vctorian Upper House in 2006?
The ALP hasn’t explained why it couldn’t compromise with him.
They did compromise. They allocated $50 million to a number of anti-drinking measures including replacing alcohol advertising for sporting clubs. Fielding decided he’d rather have cheaper alcopops than $50 million for anti-drinking measures.
Mind you, so did the Coalition…
Can’t help feeling that Fielding’s sin (in this forum) is to have not voted with the ALP/Greens.
Fielding is many things, including it would seem he is a man who sticks to his guns, means what he says, and cannot be bought.
No wonder Bob Brown is disgusted.
There are a number of interesting parts to this.
Firstly, I think Fielding got shown up by Xenophon in the last Senate vote of interest (the infamous ‘caught between two rocks and a hard place’ incident). This time, he was not going to lose the limelight for anything. I agree it has made him look as stupid as I believe he is.
On alcopops, perhaps Steve at the Pub could correct me, but I believe the vast majority of alcopops are drunk outside of licensed venues (at homes, parks etc). Higher taxes on them might make people more inclined to drink in pubs.
As for why alcohol isn’t taxed equally, currently spirits cop the highest excise, then beer, and wine is very low. I believe alcopops were being taxed at a beer rate, and the new higher rate was the bottled spirits rate. Apparently wine is the sacred cow of the alcohol industry, and the real reason they don’t recieve a unified standard drinks tax is to protect the wine industry.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole endless senate wrangling makes the Government look ineffective? This isn’t the first time there’s been a hostile senate, and previous governments have found their way through. Seriously, I don’t expect the opposition to vote with the Government on everything. The role of the opposition is to oppose, as they say. There’s no currency for them in making things easy for the Government.
For mine, the Government is struggling to get so much through the Senate that you have to question their political savvy eventually, don’t you? Climate change, workchoices, alcopops… the list is getting longer.
And please don’t counter with ‘the opposition should stand for something consistently’. The ALP backed Howard on refugees, and that was not a position of principle.
Pub Steve, I would actually tend to agree with you that Fielding is uncompromising and is admirably prepared to stick to a position.
To continue Rob’s metaphor, those are great qualities as long as you’re holding pocket aces.
Yah, sadly, ‘sticking to guns’ which are pointing the wrong way makes you an uncompromising clowntard.
Cheap piss 4 kidz! Thanks Family First. You really showed ‘big alcohol’ what for there.
Comment #40: “Yah, sadly, ’sticking to guns’ which are pointing the wrong way makes you an uncompromising clowntard.”
Translation: Steve Fielding is prepared to stand up to ALP/Greens.
Comment #40: “Cheap piss 4 kidz! Thanks Family First. You really showed ‘big alcohol’ what for there.”
Observation: Home brewing/home distillation is even cheaper. Whassamatta kids? Too lazy to brew ur own? Lolz, lazi f arktards!
Well, now you mention it Steve, i sort of DO think there’s an issue when a Senator with absolutely no mandate of his own from the people, elected exclusively on ALP preferences, votes against them – yes.
But that wasnt my point: my point is Fielding has own-goaled. “The govt is not tough enough on the alcohol industry!” – “and that’s why I’m removing all measures affecting … the alcohol industry!”
. This was even after the other corss benchers had got up considerably more than the ALP was proposing. Fielding scotched that too.
Lets face facts: the man is a clowntard.
LeftyE @ 42 – will you believe the same of the Greens if they vote down the ETS because they don’t believe it goes far enough?
Kymbos @ 37: Almost all alcohol is consumed outside licenced venues (home, park, etc). This includes alcopops.
Only a tiny fraction of liquor is consumed on licenced premises.
So SATP, you think that Steve “breaking the back of the alcohol industry with my bare hands” Fielding was only doing it to “stand up to the ALP/Greens”?
If so then the point is basically proved that he hasn’t voted on this issue in relation to the bill in front of him, but in relation to something else. Limelight hogging? Setting himself up for another day? Just because he could? What do you think it might be?
“Hotel owners will not benefit by the failure of this bill.”
SATP, oh please, would you have us all believe that drive in bottleshops, attached to pubs, do not exist?
Dr S @ 28: Most pubs will be carrying a stock of alcopops. This was purchased at the “high-tax” price, but some (most) of it will have to be retailed for less,as if it was purchased at the “low-tax” price.
Pubs will take a bath on their current stockholding of alcopops. This loss will hurt some pubs, especially those in larger country towns and regional centres.
In several years time, after an epic courtroom saga, between everyone who wants the now illegally collected tax, (distillers, the feds, wowser groups and retailer advocates) surviving pubs may get a payment to match their March/April 2009 out-of-pocket cost, or they may not.
Obviously, distillers are the big winners from this, but presumably the Government will reintroduce the bill after Fielding gets his ‘man of principle’ moment and get it passed eventually. In the meantime, Labor’s not looking too politically savvy.
Roger @ 45: I attribute no such motive to Senator Fielding. He wasn’t standing up to the ALP/Greens per se. It just turned out that way. He didn’t vote in lockstep with them, a sin in the eyes of many who comment here.
He couldn’t be bought. This seems to be something beyond the ken of many who comment here. Sniping at him for sticking to his guns says more about the principles of those who deride him for it, than it does about him.
That’s what I tell myself when I get cleaned out, going all in with a low pair on a flush draw, Steve.
At least I have my principles.
No, what we can’t understand is what his principles are.
It would be one thing if he genuinely believed that taxation concessions for RTD spirits were a good idea. In that case his refusal to compromise would be admirable (if strange).
But presumably he doesn’t think that, and he’s already indicated that he’s quite happy for his vote to be ‘bought’ at a certain price.
So it’s pretty clear that it’s not a case of pure principle. So what is he doing? I think the comment here is at least as much puzzlement as it is condemnation.
“He couldn’t be bought. This seems to be something beyond the ken of many who comment here. Sniping at him for sticking to his guns says more about the principles of those who deride him for it, than it does about him.’
Inclined as I am to take your points on board here SATP, this is just plain wrong. You’ve no qualifications whatsoever for judging what underpins commenters messages here.
It’s not complicated. For one, I believe Fielding has seen a golden opportunity, and backed the wrong horse entirely. Liam’s played plenty of cards analogies. I would expect to read many similar ones both here, and in the MSM in days head.
Fielding is a f*ckwit. Harradine without the cunning.
However I think talk of a double dissolution is misplaced. An election campaign would suddenly force people to think about politics when at the moment they’re not remotely interested; Rudd’s not on a honeymoon but the electorate is still coasting in a snooze under the momentum of 2007. Wake everyone up and the outcome would be very unpredictable and I’m sure Rudd knows it.
SATP what do you mean Fielding couldn’t be bought? Of course he could, he even named his price. He was just too dumb to comprehend that getting something is better than nothing.
As for the balance of power in the Senate: yes it’s true that governments have generally had to rely on the support of minor parties in the past but a minor PARTY is vastly different to an independent. Parties have aspirations to increase their support base and become ever more consequential players in parliament, so they tend to behave moderately rationally with an eye to the long game. Independents on the other hand rely on getting their names in the news and appealing to ratbags who want to shove it up the establishment. Thus we find ourselves hostage to a pair of loonie tunes whose main interest is in keeping their names front and centre of the nightly news, while halfwits in their home states gurgle “Hur hur that Fielding sure gets up the noses of Rudd n Gillard I think I’ll vote for him next time.”
Dunno about LeftyE, but I certainly will.
But then, I’ve always been in the half a loaf is better than no loaf at all camp.
I’ve been following the ETS debates, and if The Greens did not vote down the ETS I’d be really peeved. I’d want reasons, and they’d need to be better than the ones I’ve seen for voting it down. Broadly, given the choice between locking in a terrible position and not having a scheme at all, I’m all for nothing at all.
The Greens members I’ve talked to seem to be swinging to that position too.
On balance, for all the problems with it (and they are legion) Id hope the Greens would pass the ETS, yes. Hell, Id almost feel moderately enthused if they got citizens reductions counted, by amendment, first.
Fielding’s also blown a hole in the budget, and a time of recession. And achieved a big fat NOTHING for the responsible alcohol use sector.
Martin’s right – what precisely is he up to? Does he himself have any idea? Its not evident. One thing’s for sure – he just doesnt understand how to pack a punch as a cross-bencher, sharing in a BOP. Xenophon does.
He didnt have a plan – and he stuck to it.
He’s not a well man.
The reason we can’t understand why Fielding adopted this position is because he doesn’t either. He is just winging it. He was probably peeved by Xenonphon’s gains for the Murray Darling.
He clearly doesn’t understand how negotiating works, 5 years into his term, so it doesn’t appear he is very bright.
A family unfriendly outcome from someone elected by Labor’s preference deal. Some chickens coming home to roost.
Here here. But I don’t see the Labor and Liberal party machines supporting this. It would remove their power for making deals for grubby political advantage.
It would also remove their power to really stuff things up too. I give you Fielding, and the DLP in Vic upper house. They’re no good at it anyway.
Still, we’re not alone. China also struggles against the unchecked power of entrenched party hacks thwarting popular decision making.
Be ye known by the company you keep.
Peterc, of course he’s not very bright. He’s a fundamentalist christian, after all.
Does Fielding remind any of you of Albert Field?
Yes Paul, I suspect he is Albert’s love child.
Geez, Paul and Ken, you blokes have really good memories. I’d forgotten who Albert Field was. (Fortunately, Google remembered for me.)
I understand he stood for Labor preselection in Victoria a few years back too.
Maybe Kim Carr & co thought he would be friendly and biddable rather than a god-bothering fundamentalist goose between two rocks and a hard place.
Now for the next round, Work Choices repeal. . .
These preference deals are sure sh*tting on the democratic choices Labor voters in Victoria made – their senate votes elected Fielding – and now his erratic behaviour and voting is really stuffing up Labor’s agenda, ably abetted or course by Turnbull.
Global financial catastrophe, runaway climate change, declining natural resources, and a broken biosphere, yet what are our pollies spending their valuable time debating for months on end? Alcopops.
Martin B – its true that is what an exact rerun of 2007 with Double D quotas would look like, but a lot of things could change. As I said, where the DLP appears on the ballot makes a big difference to their vote. Last time they had a bad spot. Change this fact alone and suddenly it would be close (although Fielding would still lose). Change a few other things and he has a shot, but not if he alienates his allies.
Paul: Yep, same thing, although with several really tight choke points where Kavanagh only just got ahead of who he needed to.
Intellectual Bogan. I am also a “half a loaf is better than none” person. Indeed, i will usually take a quarter of a loaf over brinkmanship. However, as currently designed the ETS is a single slice, and a pretty moldy one at that. If it doesn’t get improved the Greens should vote it down.
Peterc wrote “These preference deals are sure sh*tting on the democratic choices Labor voters in Victoria made – their senate votes elected Fielding ”
Ah, but how many Labor voters who voted ‘above the line’ expected such an outcome? The only way to ensure one’s voting preferences match one’s own preferred outcome, is to VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
Otherwise, you’re leaving it to the unwise.
Darryl Rosin, long ago said, in response to:
“Do you support proportional representation Robert?”,
that
“Fielding’s election was anything but proportional.”
Yes, Darryl. What I meant was that under PR in the Senate, the quota for election is quite small, so an electoral pipsqueak can (if preferences boost him/her) get elected. Do you suggest we disallow preference-counting in the Senate? Would that lower the primary vote for FF, Greens, etc? I think it might. But perhaps you still support it, for other reasons?
Such as “let’s have a dinkum proportional result”…
Fielding going with Julia’s policy of 15-workers-makes-a-bigger-than-small-business business (possibly amended around definitions of full-time employment?) Admit it, the bible belting bastard delivered (and when I fill out my ninety-place senate ballot paper at the next election he’s only guaranteed a spot ahead of the Coalition and the LDP, and they’re only guaranteed spots ahead of the lunar Right candidates).
Gillard: “Today…we have buried Workchoices.”
Ahmen.
But this just again shows how unpredictable Sen. Fielding can be. He opposed Workchoices when it was first brought in, saying it was bad for families. But he was prepared to vote down Labor’s bill over something so minor, keeping Workchoices in law, and thereby acting against the interests of those families he claimed Workchoices was bad for.
It looks confusing to me, and I’d never vote FF. His constituents must be holding their collective breath whenever he walks into the chamber to vote.
Me neither. His position on the workchoices/fair work bill is not consistent with his declared position when workchoices was introduced.
Nor do I understand the logic of the threshold. If it is bad at 15 employees, why is it “good” at 20?
I think the threshold of employee numbers was about bringing the policy into line with how a small business is defined by the ABS, probably sensible but I too don’t understand what the difference between 15 and 20 means in real terms.
Then the definition of small business sucks. It would be more like a definition of “micro-business”.
There are plenty of small town/suburban hairdressers, newsagents, pharmacies, accountancy practices, fast food, delivery/transport couriers etc who have more than 20 staff. To suggest such operations are “big business” would be a laugh.
SATP, I thought it was 20 etfs, so you could have 50 actual staff but as long as they’re working less than 20/50 of a 40 hour week on average you’re still a small business. But if you’ve got 10 people working 80 hours a week you’re a bastard. I mean, a big business.
“I think the threshold of employee numbers was about bringing the policy into line with how a small business is defined by the ABS, probably sensible but I too don’t understand what the difference between 15 and 20 means in real terms.”
In real terms it means that we have a first and second class employment system. If you want reasonable working conditions you are much more likely find them by staying away from any small business.
That has always been the plan.
“If you want reasonable working conditions you are much more likely find them by staying away from any small business.”
Certainly not been my admittedly limited experience in the IT industry. I’ve done contract work and seen friends etc. work for big businesses and heard all about lousy bosses, lousy pay, lousy attitudes towards work etc. etc. I’m currently working for a 15-man company (US-based, I work from home) and have never had better pay/conditions, and have no complaints about the other similar-sized companies I worked for. The only time I was at all unhappy with my employment conditions was when a largish (500+) company bought out the much small company I had been working for, though to be honest I wasn’t personally affected – just saw how others got treated.
“If you want reasonable working conditions you are much more likely find them by staying away from any small business.”
Translation: I know I don’t have the work ethic to advance on my own, (ie, private bosses don’t tolerate bludgers) so I shall position myself in a large organisation, lose myself in the mass and depend upon internal politics and legally sanctioned bloody-minded blackmail to extort sinecure for myself.
“If you want reasonable working conditions you are much more likely find them by staying away from any small business.”
Could you flesh out the empirical evidence for this statement ? Talks to like minded types down the pub? Years of work with the low paid under state awards while you were with the Labour Department? Just curious…
public servant
“Translation: I know I don’t have the work ethic to advance on my own, (ie, private bosses don’t tolerate bludgers) so I shall position myself in a large organisation, lose myself in the mass and depend upon internal politics and legally sanctioned bloody-minded blackmail to extort sinecure for myself.”
Oh and I forgot to say that a lot of the bosses in the hospitality industry are jerks and have tickets on themselves.
“Oh and I forgot to say that a lot of the bosses in the hospitality industry are jerks and have tickets on themselves.”
Let us not then speculate on the hospitality shopfloor workforce, as;
Cream rises to the top, sludge remains on the bottom!
@Steve at the Pub:
In your average pond, what rises to the top is scum.
Tigtog, in brewing/distilling, the stuff which comes to the top is the stuff you want.
Stick to pond water if you wish, I’ll be sipping Glenmorangie.
So SATP, you’re a lager man, not an ale man.
Looking earlier in the process, I wouldn’t want to drink a beer or a whisky where the spent grain floating at the top of the mash tun had been retained rather than the wort.
You’re drinking it too early in the distillation process Tigtog.
And now it turns out Fielding is a climate change denialist too. I wonder who he actually thinks he is representing? American wingnuts apparently. . .