You’ve lost me there.
I’m still shocked that the organisation that grew out of the terrible killing of the BLF is allegedly a bit dodgy.
2 Likes
Yeah, and poor innocent developers never stoop to any sort of corrupt practices when it comes to the unions enforcing safety standards…
Ummmm that incident led to zero charges being pressed as no charges were laid by the victims. On top of that, Safework couldnt conclude it’s investigation as the CFMEU and the staff members refused to cooperate…
The builders had a different story in which the two employees arrived on site, tried to force entry with no paperwork in place, became aggressive when they were removed and a fight occured…
Well in that case every boycott of a company or product is also extortion.
Are you complaining about the literal definition of extortion?
Start agreeing with my interpretation of extortion or you’ll get a visit from Fat Tony
4 Likes
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats
By a simple definition like this tax is extortion. Most reasonable people dont consider tax extortion.
No i just don’t give a fuck if it does fit your definition of extortion, you’ve just made it a completely meaningless term. Are you’re suggesting that boycotts be made illegal, or workers should be forced to do work for businesses that they have a moral objection to?
Im literally arguing that what the CFMEU was doing was extortion… It’s also worth mentioning that boycotts etc are legal. Extorting money out of someone to give them work isn’t. That’s the distinction…
There’s a qualitative difference between workers coming together to organise and bargain together and a union boss taking bribes (presumably to prevent the members taking action that would otherwise improve their conditions).
The union boss taking bribes is putting himself before his members. It’s in the same neighbourhood as being a scab.
1 Like
They aren’t extorting money, property or valuable items out of the AFL, they’re just refusing to do work for them. That’s literally not extortion.
1 Like
So firstly, both setka and the AFL seem terrible. But whatever the definition, the CFMEU was threatening to trump up safety issues to shut down work sites just because they didn’t like an employee of the AFL. I laugh whenever the AFL gets screwed over, but that’s a shit take. If they don’t want the work, great, leave. Let someone else do it. That’s the free market.
Unions are good for pushing back against power of employers and ensuring safe workplaces and fair wages.
People who corruptly exploit this position for their own gain at the expense of those they’re meant to represent, as well as taxpayers who are funding many of these worksites shouldn’t be lauded. Especially when they are intimidating anyone just trying to do their job and make a living. Just as corrupt property developers and politicians are scum. Surely it’s not that hard to say that all corrupt people are shit instead of whataboutism?
Edit: clarity
2 Likes
Let’s just agree you are all wrong
1 Like
Have you got a link for that one? I haven’t seen it. All I saw was that they wouldnt work on any AFL projects.
Lefty source too 
That doesn’t say that.
According to multiple media reports, Setka has threatened union “work to rule” campaigns or shutdowns on multiple sites linked to the AFL, including a proposed new stadium in Hobart and a training base for the Adelaide Crows.
Work to rule campaigns= refusing to be helpful by not agreeing to go above and beyond to assist the developer, no? Fair enough.
Shutdowns? On what basis? Just cos they don’t like the employer?
Although CFMEU doesn’t mind breaking industrial laws and being found to do so, the easier, quicker, at least optically more legal way is "members have identified the worksite is unsafe, so it is being shut down until the issues can be rectified. "
How else does a union “shutdown” a site without a valid reason?
2 Likes
You are both arguing the same shit just from your POV.
Both sides a pieces of shit, deal with it.
2 Likes