verging_on_random

15 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. But Ken, you can’t argue with the disproportionate voting power held by the unions over Labor. Or is that somehow irrelevant or good?

   One doesn’t need to know the minutiae of Labor politics to realise that this power can be exerted to force senior members of the party to do certain things.

   While I agree with your distaste for empty-headed Howard backers, I would like to see your position on internal reform of the Labor party as well.

   How the situation might be changed (or even if it’s possible to do so) can be confronted after you acknowledge whether you believe a problem exists or not.

   Comment by Invig — August 9, 2007 #

2. Invig you raise so many issues I don’t know where to start. I’ll just deal with two.

   (1) This idea that ‘the unions’ constitute some sort of monolithic organisation that can impose its will upon the ALP ignores the facts. Trying to get unions to agree on anything beyond a few basic IR issues is like herding cats. For example, try to get the CFMEU and the SDA to agree about foreign policy. Every ALP conference ever held has seen different union coalitions voting against each other on all sorts of issues.

   (2) Somebody has to make decisions in a political party, unless you’re a hopeless romantic like the Democrats who want to refer every bloody thing to the membership (and of course they don’t actually do that anyway). I rather like having the power structure of the ALP more or less out in the open where I can see how it operates. Better than Howard’s mob, where nobody knows who is influencing whom in the secretive corporate shadows.

   Anyway how the parties arrange their structures is their business. Why should I tell Labor how to run its affairs? It’s not like I vote for them.

   Comment by Administrator — August 9, 2007 #

3. I’d be bloody surprised if the ‘unions’ didn’t have some say in the ALP, considering its origins, that’s right, it was established as a parliamentary wing of the union movement. And proudly so. Now I understand that times change, and people don’t want to, well, think about it nowadays, but unions still exist, the ALP still exists, and WorkChoices gave them all plenty to chew on. So yeah.

   Alas I started a blog before the last election and I went insane in the process of gaining zero (0) readers (not that it was a ‘proper’ blog as such), so I’ll be keeping it lowkey this time.

   Comment by Kieran — August 9, 2007 #

4. Ken,

   (1) seems to conflict with (2) since you’re saying that unions are like ‘herding cats’ but that the democrats are worse at making decisions. Is there not an alternative to both these?

   Like the membership voting in the leaders, but the members must actually be active members, rather than ‘blocs’ of ‘workers’ who have not the interest to attend in person.

   I mean, we have compulsory voting at elections, why extend its problems to a political party? Why not only allow those with passion and knowledge to vote for party representatives (who can then lead for a time without direct interruption from the grassroots).

   So you don’t vote for Labor Ken? But you have intimate knowledge of the world of unions do you not? Meaning you perhaps are in a position to see another way?

   And you have already agreed that how the parties structure impacts their decisions, which means it impacts our lives, which makes it my fucking business (sorry but that got me a little angry).

   Kieran,

   I have no problem with the unions ‘having a say’ in ‘their party’ (in fact I think they are being screwed by giving up the right to collectively bargin) but, as I mention above, it can be achieved in a much more healthy fashion.

   Giving union bosses disproportionate power with little responsibility is not healthy as it simply provides the temptation to abuse that power (which is not likely to lead to a good policy debate - an inherently selfless process).

   Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

5. Aren’t ‘union bosses’ elected? That, surely, must give more legitimacy to their input/participation in policy formation than the contributions from, what Ken so aptly describes as, “the secretive corporate shadows”.

   Comment by Jan — August 10, 2007 #

6. There’s no need to speculate about the way the unions would influence a Labor government - we have heaps of empirical evidence to draw on. From my observations, during the last Labor government the decisions were made by the members of the parliamentary Labor Party, primarily the cabinet. The members of the Parliamentary Labor Party are elected by voters, not unions.

   The myth that unions control the decisions of a Labor government in office is just that - a myth. Christ, the unions can’t even get decent wages and conditions for government workers in Labor states. Offhand I can’t recall any incident in the last 20 years where trade unions have dictated decisions to a Labor government. The series of Prices and Incomes Accords under the Hawke/Keating Governments saw the ACTU make innumerable concessions to the government (much to the despair of the left wing unions). The government repeatedly invited business to be part of the Accord process but the employer associations pig-headedly refused out of their usual determination to treat unions and the ALP as ideological enemies with whom they would not dream of associating lest it hurt the electoral prospects of their beloved Liberal/National coalition. Needless to say many individual employers including the ones I represented were only too happy to participate in tripartite negotiations and were quite happy that the Labor government was taking their interests into account.

   It’s interesting that when in office, the ALP is far more even-handed in its dealings with different interest groups than Howard’s mob has been. Sure unions have a big influence on decision-making and so they should. They represent a hell of a lot of people. But Labor generally gives everyone a fair hearing. It’s been a specialty of Howard’s mob to start defunding organisations that have the gall to disagree with the government, and to disband institutions that were set up to give voice to interests that might otherwise have none (e.g. getting rid of ATSIC and appointing instead an ‘advisory council’ of hand-picked nodding heads. He’s done the same with young people and Muslims.)

   If any party should be condemned for its relationship with the unions it’s the Liberal Party, which constantly denigrates and refuses to consult organisations that represent millions of the ordinary Australians that arseholes like Howard profess to care about so much.

   Comment by Administrator — August 10, 2007 #

7. I agree that the Liberals should be condemned, but the policy failings of Labor that you talked about recently can, I believe, be traced back to fear of union pressure.

   The trouble is, this revolves around ‘hot button’ issues that the union movement overall holds dear rather than sensible and innovative debate and discussion. Witness refusal to canvas guest workers or uranium storage.

   So while Howard can be adventurous with the economy and IR, Labor - who should be (or at least we wish they were) the champions of social progress - remain tied to old, disproven policy ideas that the unions find palatable.

   After all, why would they want to upset their power base by introducing, confronting new ideas to their members?

   NOTE: I don’t expect Rudd to change this before the election, but certainly I would like the blogosphere to get behind change directly after it. No one else is going to, especially if its a landslide. Given the difficulty of passing legislation, the year before Senate elections would prove a most valuable breathing space to introduce these changes. If not…well bring on the a Libertarian party is all I can say.

   Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

8. BTW Ken, if the voting process is so fair and equitable, why are you not active in Labor any more?

   Nothing to do with bullshit internal politics? Latham had nothing to complain about? Everything peachy?

   So where does fault lie for the strange policy gutlessness of Labor in the face of Liberal weakness, which is not dissimilar to that shown by Beazley in the face of the opposite? Liberals can’t be to blame for both surely?

   Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

9. Invig asking why I’m not active in Labor ‘any more’ implies that I ever was.

   I wasn’t.

   Comment by Administrator — August 10, 2007 #

10. So how do you explain the post a while back detailing the minutiae of a typical ‘chinese restaurant’ lunch with fellow union officials? (NOTE) Seemed a first-person account by me?

    Perhaps this paraghraph from your website is the explanation…

    “From 1978 to 1992 I lived in Sydney and worked as an industrial relations/human resource management executive in the building and construction industry. I was the National Industrial Relations Director of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors for several years, following a stint as Director of the National Industrial Construction Council. But a man can only do the same kind of work for so long before getting stale, and in the early 1990s I got out of employment relations into more general lobbying and then consulting work.”

    Still I swear it used to say you were a union official…

    BTW it is from memory cause I can’t find the original post (which I commented upon also).

    Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

11. You do seem suspiciously close to the movement Ken…

    The Commission never seriously looked at the root causes of industrial disputes in the industry. Ken Lovell, former Director of Industrial Relations for the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors said,

    “My view is the biggest problem in the industry is that we expect people to get out of bed at 5.30 am, do a shit job for 11 hours in an unsafe environment for 6 days a week, and whinge when they won’t do it on Sundays, and then act surprised when they try to spend as much time in the shed playing cards as they can.”

    And contractors are very similar to employees are they not?

    Are you sure there is nothing you’d like to declare? No unspoken alliegance? Hidden alliances? I mean, after all, the union movement has precious few intellectuals of your calibre, Ken. There’s certainly a strong incentive to recruit you…and they’re not short of a quid…

    Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

12. Oh grow up invig. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors consisted of about 120 members … companies like Leighton Contractors, Abigroup, Transfield, Baulderstone Hornibrook, Bovis Lend Lease (or Civil & Civic as it was in those days), Multiplex and a bunch of contractors who’ve all subsequently been acquired by Leightons (e.g. John Holland and Thiess).

    They’d be fascinated to learn that they were very similar to employees … no actually they’d just call you an idiot.

    As for your previous comment … well I can’t explain stuff that only exists in your imagination, sorry. Perhaps it’s god’s way of telling you to lay off the grog or whatever other substance is affecting your mind.

    Comment by Administrator — August 10, 2007 #

13. There was a post as I described it, and you know there was. I even complimented and thanked you on Surfdom when using it as a reference. Nevertheless, it is your choice how you play this. Perhaps denial will work, but you still have not provided plausible evidence refuting my assertions.

    I’ll leave it here, but I remain unconvinced as to your independence. We will see how things evolve closer to the election, but your tendency to evasiveness is either personal or externally motivated. I used to think the former but now i’m not so sure.

    By contrast, I have been upfront at all times, and I think you all know that. Evil mastermind I am not. Forever willing to sacrifice all in pursuit of the truth? Thats closer to the reality behind my success. I have little or no ego, and care not how others treat me, its as simple as that. This gives me independence to act beyond that of anyone else. The ability to bring force to bear quicker and more accurately than your foe is the essence of warfare, and this is what I do.

    And yes, I am on something, but that something has proven invaluable over the past years. By fragmenting neuronal connections, new mental structures can be formed in their place. It allows the mind to leap vast chasms of logic and achieve insights thereby. The price is a short term loss of sleep, health, memory and cognitive function - and sadly often social cache - but if used correctly this is far outweighed by the advantages. Say what you want about drugs, sometimes they allow us to tread a path that otherwise would have remained barred to us.

    In any case, i’m hurting no one but myself, and if anything are providing a circuit breaker for the rest of you. Things exciting and fast-moving these days? Well, the drugs deserve some of that credit.

    Comment by Invig — August 10, 2007 #

14. Invig since you’re apparently just looking for an excuse to write about yourself, I suggest you start your own blog. That way people who are interested in your unique insights can go straight to them without having to wade through my mendacious crap first.

    You could call it ‘Ken Lovell’s not who he claims to be!”. Far be it from me to place myself in their exalted company, but you might get some style pointers from other blogs such as ‘Haneef Mahomed was a deadly killer sent by al-Qaeda!’, ‘Princess Di was murdered by MI5!’, ‘No plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11!’ and ‘George W Bush is an android and the real president of the USA is Dick Cheney!’. Actually scratch the last one, it’s probably based on fact.

    In the mean time, please do me a favour and refrain from posting any more inane juvenile gibberish.

    Comment by Administrator — August 11, 2007 #

15. re: the post -
    is funny, is good.
    In your proto-list of those who are paid to be the ones we love to hate, you forgot Andy and Timmy B’s, and ‘Randy D, the last being a different kettle of fish, (but a kettle of fish nonetheless) in being allegedly female, and can actually write amusing copy, something for which I forgive a multitude of idealogue-of-convenience ( and isn’t that the only sort of right wing idealogue?) posturings. Matty P. almost makes it into that category, but hasn’t quite got the guts to fess up to being an i-o-c, nor the talent as a tale-maker of the first water. He has his moments though, and could flower in a new regime, when he would have to jettison his JHo-luvvie tendencies, or sink.
    On ‘tother side, I retain an admittedly nostalgic fascination for the craft of AlanR, the last of the old school JimmyOlsens. There’s at least one copy of the SMH sold just for his column. Shudder, i just had this vision of him having to blog it with the whippersnappers. Phllip has always been a bit doddery. Mungo will be somewhere. Ah the Nation Review… at least we have crikey.

    We could, and perhaps should, somehwere else, go on with a Taxonomy of Oz Scribblerdom, fourth estate or fifth column? l8r..

    re: the comments, and lovells law
    you need to do a rev.1.x to account for the invies of the blogipeligo…, a taxonomy for trolls, trollspotting?. They’re just so wearisome, ruining perfectly plausible threads. It’s an odd perversion, but i guess we all should be grateful they can indulge their sociopathic tendencies online, otherwise no centipede would be safe from having their legs pulled off, flies being too hard to catch.

    re: your other rogues gallery, the afcc. So these are the guys that have been really cleaning up. I’d love to know how much taxpayer$$$ has gone their way over the so-called private enterprise years. Talk about the Nats as Agricultural Socialists….
    I wonder who had the last Department of Works that actually had any substantial in-house building capacity?

    Cheers, and thanks, I enjoyed your post. C’mon admit it, invie is your own rhetorical creation. Just beware, you know what happened to Pygmalion.

    Comment by danny — August 16, 2007 #

Leave a comment