As if I needed another reason to not buy C.U.B. products.

inkbird
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
gas guyz
Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
"The brewery has undergone a decline in volumes in the past five years as more beer is produced at cheaper sites within CUB's network."

Haha. Cheaper sites or countries?
 
moonhead said:
http://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace-relations/thousands-rally-in-melbourne-for-sacked-beer-workers-20160908-grbi7z.html

6 months notice of the contract coming to an end, redundancy payouts, and new jobs offered in the range of $70-120k.
Click to expand...
"before overtime"
"saying the generous conditions negotiated over the decades "have resulted in what we see as an unsustainable situation"."

Just because a contract is awarded during times when rates are high, such as mining boom times or skilled labour shortages, you cant expect that higher than average income level to continue when those times come to an end..
 
What happened to businesses putting bucks away during those boom times to cover the lean days, so as to enable them to maintain as much of their experienced work force as possible for when it booms again.....nah, screw that...we'll just sack 'em and hire more monkleys when we need to.
 
More money for the CEO stuff the workforce
 
You'd think it's a conflict of interest when share prices are usually part of a salary package, and surefire way of lifting the price is to sack a few thousand disposables.
 
madpierre06 said:
What happened to businesses putting bucks away during those boom times to cover the lean days, so as to enable them to maintain as much of their experienced work force as possible for when it booms again.....nah, screw that...we'll just sack 'em and hire more monkleys when we need to.
Click to expand...
what happened to contractors putting bucks away during those book times to cover the lean days?
 
Can I suggest that anyone who has not read Thomas Pickety's "Capital in the 21st Century" disqualify themselves from posting generalisations on the subject of labour economics in this (or any other) thread?

You are welcome to keep displaying your ignorance if you really want, but what's the point?

You are not going to convince the other side of the argument that yours is the one true way.

If you are not doing it in the expectation that it will have an effect, you must be doing it because it makes you feel better. We have a name for pleasuring yourself in public.
 
Lyrebird_Cycles said:
Can I suggest that anyone who has not read Thomas Pickety's "Capital in the 21st Century" disqualify themselves from posting generalisations on the subject of labour economics in this (or any other) thread?

You are welcome to keep displaying your ignorance if you really want, but what's the point?

You are not going to convince the other side of the argument that yours is the one true way.

If you are not doing it in the expectation that it will have an effect, you must be doing it because it makes you feel better. We have a name for pleasuring yourself in public.
Click to expand...
man, if we posts in threads are going to required prior reading then its gonna get aweful quite around here...
and how can one book be the complete basis for all comments on labour economics?
 
madpierre06 said:
You'd think it's a conflict of interest when share prices are usually part of a salary package, and surefire way of lifting the price is to sack a few thousand disposables.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any conflict of interest, a CEO is there to do a job, take Alan Joyce a few years ago Qantas shares were down around 70 cents things were looking grim yes he sacked a few thousand workers but in doing so saved the jobs of thousands of others, he could have quit, but took a pay cut and persevered and last year made a $975 million dollar gain from the previous years record $2.8 billion loss. Anyone who invested in Qantas in 2014 would have doubled their money, he deserves his $9.8 million bonus, plus Qantas will re-employ workers.

As for whats happening at CUB no one really knows what is going on CUB management are saying nothing the contractor is saying nothing, the only ones with something to say are the former employees and the union, if they really wanted to stuff CUB up why don't they just move on and let CUB and the contractor find other tradesmen to work for the pittance which they claim no one will work for, that'l **** em
 
SBOB said:
what happened to contractors putting bucks away during those book times to cover the lean days?
Click to expand...
No need. Apparently contractors now get offered redundancies 6 months before their contract expires.


Don't have to read dem big fancy books to know that sounds awful strange. Ayuh.
 
Liam_snorkel said:
SBOB, have you listened to the podcast yet mate?
Click to expand...
the ABC one?
I skimmed the transcript


but as ive mentioned earlier in this thread, many of my comments are coming from a mostly devils advocate position.
Partly because I find union v non-union arguments somewhat in the same vain as apple v android ;)
 
Camo6 said:
No need. Apparently contractors now get offered redundancies 6 months before their contract expires.


Don't have to read dem big fancy books to know that sounds awful strange. Ayuh.
Click to expand...
isnt that just called 'paying out their contract'?
 
SBOB said:
and how can one book be the complete basis for all comments on labour economics?
Click to expand...
Can you see the logical fallacy you've committed there?

If you invert the truth conditions you must also reverse the arrow of implication.
 
Lyrebird_Cycles said:
Can you see the logical fallacy you've committed there?

If you invert the truth conditions you must also reverse the arrow of implication.
Click to expand...
not really, AND, OR, XOR it as much as you like..
disqualifying anyone from commenting in 'general terms' unless they have read one book seems like a pretty restrictive final condition in whatever logical reasoning you want to AND it with
 
SBOB said:
isnt that just called 'paying out their contract'?
Click to expand...
Who knows. We're being fed shit from both sides and no one knows the full story. But bit of a stretch for the spokesperson to mention redundancies when the dismissed employees were offered their old positions back under a new employer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top