> David Proctor wrote in message <6gji45$ntf$1@wbn.sydnet.com>...
> >
> >tezza wrote in message <6giod5$2jv$1@nswpull.telstra.net>...
> >>
> >>David Proctor wrote in message <6ghau1$ae7$1@wbn.sydnet.com>...
> >>
> >>>Seriously, these wharfies were having themselves on - 5 weeks annual
> >>leave
> >>>with 27.5% loading?
> >>
> >>What's wrong with that? Shift workers get 5 weeks. 17.5% would hardly
> >>make up for lost income whilst on holidays. I wish the PTU had some of
> >>the balls the MUA has.
> >
> >
> >I am a shift worker - and I only get 4 weeks annual leave! And shift
> >loadings are there to compensate you for anti-social working hours - so
> why
> >do you need to be compensated for them when you are on holidays? You
> don't
> >have anti-social hours when on holidays?
>
> The Drivers award provides for 5 weeks holiday for shift workers and 20%
> loading for weekend workers - obviously in a pathetic attempt to
> compensate for the loss of penalties. Leave loadings were intended to
> compensate Workers for loss of income whilst on leave.
Why won't people just be happy that they have job?
>
>
> >> >And the money they were on! For the job they did? It was pathetic!
>
> >>Don't believe all you read.
>
> >I don't - I read a pay slip of a friend who is a wharfie (he also
> believed
> >they were overpaid and underworked).
>
> Tell us then - how many hours did he work and how much was he paid. It's
> not an invasion of his privacy as we don't know who he is. A Driver can
> also get $70,000 pa (old rates) if he works enough overtime, weekends
> etc.
Yes it does. He has only given consent for Dave to read his pay check, not
for him to post it on the net, even without names. It still comes under the
privacy act.
>
>
> >>>Why should the union have a veto over who is employed? Such an issue
> is
> >>one for management, not the union, yet the MUA had the right to say
> "Yes,
> >>you can employ that person" or "No, you cannot employ him". Also, why
> >>should the employer have to foot the bill for every new employee to
> attend a
> >>half-day union orientation course?
>
> >>PTU delegates start with a 3 day course, paid for by the employer.
> Then
> >>there are more advanced courses. It's to teach them about industrial
> >>issues and to learn negotiating etc.
>
> >This orientation was not for new delegates - it was for EVERY new
> employee
> >with Patrick - if I was going to work there as a payroll clerk,
> telephonist,
> >etc., I would have to go on an MUA orientation course, paid for by the
> >employer - that is WRONG!
>
> Depends, what's involved in the course?
A crock of shit.
>
>
> >>> The MUA are nothing more than gangsters, and needed to be brought
> into
> >>line!
>
> >>reith and corrigan are the gangsters. They should be hauled before the
> >>courts for their illegal actions.
>
> >So we are onto legalities here, are we? So will the PTU allow the
> Patrick's
> >train to run? Or will they impose an ILLEGAL secondary boycott?
>
> They have never done so before and they won't start now. Everything the
> MUA has done since this started has been legal - it's reith, corrigan
> and the security guards who have broken numerous laws.
Well, it my be legal to try and cripple a company by going on strike but
it's not always right.
-- Bye for now, Eben.