ABC TV "4 CORNERS" program about Telstra Australia dictatorship to staffs & customers?

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rULei.17191$wH4.6925@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Yes the latest ABS stats show less than 10 million employed, and over 20
> > million population.
> > That's an "unemployment" rate of more than 50%!!!
>
> UNemployment is the rate of people NOT employed

Such a simple definition is only used by those deliberately trying to
mislead. Politicians don't like to be caught out on actual detail.

> Employed is 1 hour a week. Like it or lump it, its been the same criteria
> for decades.

As I keep saying, that is total bullshit and has no relevance to the stats
whatsoever. There are people wanting work with ZERO hours, who are not
included in the unemployment figures.

> > And even the governments own "welfare" rate is much higher, as they
> > happily
> > point out every time they want to reduce it.
>
> Which indicates they report on both, and have no difficulties
understanding
> the difference

Yes, they know how to quote whatever suits their argument, and ignore what
doesn't. It's the gullible voters who keep missing the distinction.

MrT.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hVLei.17192$wH4.6622@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Rod is correct -with ~5% unemployment, ANYONE who wants a job will get
one.

We are all in agreement there I think. If you don't mind cleaning dunnies,
or retraining as a coal mine canary, then you can certainly get a job on
minimum wage.

MrT.

>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or
>> more.
>
> Where does this bogus figure come from? The real figure is zero.

It's not a bogus figure, it has been that way for around 30 years, and well
publicised

Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.

>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".

>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

> The definition as used by the government and
> the media has no connection with reality.

Pity that even when you use the OECD standardised definition which matches
reality fine, that only makes 0.1% difference to the unemployment rate.

> Someone who can only get five hours a week of work
> is considered "employed" by the statistics, but that
> person would not be able to live on what they make.

Wrong. They qualify for the dole with that work allowed without losing the dole.

And there are fuck all that can only get 5 hours of work
a week when the unemployment rate is only 4.x% unless
they are very picky about what work they will do anyway.

You dont get to be classified as unemployed just because
you cant find someone who has a job for a lion tamer.

>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.

> Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly take literally.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Rod is correct -with ~5% unemployment, ANYONE who wants a job will get one.

> We are all in agreement there I think. If you don't mind
> cleaning dunnies, or retraining as a coal mine canary,
> then you can certainly get a job on minimum wage.

You can do a hell of a lot better than those jobs too.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Anyone currently 'working' for telstra is always free to leave if they dont like the detail.

>> Yep

>>> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty
>>> of other jobs available for anyone who wants one.

>> Agreed

> I wonder how many ex- Telstra employees are going
> to get those jobs in the mining industry though?

Any one thats got enough of a clue to get qualified for those jobs.

It aint rocket science.

> Or the building industry, or all those other job's that
> need trained workers yet refuse to train them?

There's plenty of training available with TAFE etc.

And they dont refuse to train them anyway.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:467bccb2$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > Where does this bogus figure come from? The real figure is zero.
>
> It's not a bogus figure, it has been that way for around 30 years, and
well
> publicised

The last time unemployment figure was this low, under Gough Whitlam no less,
the work test was not only one hour.
And I have already explained why the figure is bogus IN THIS CONTEXT,
because you can still be classified as employed with ZERO hours work.

BTW unemployment figure is lower in NZ under a Labor government. Shouldn't
that tell you something about Howard/Costello's boasting?

MrT.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:467b4978_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>>
>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>>
>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.
>
> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or more.
> A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy
> food.
> .
>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>>
>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>
> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software
> engineers" )

You seem to think that an "unemployed software engineer" needs to find work
as a software engineer.

If I was sacked tomorrow, I'd be stacking shelves at Coles the next day,
until I found the right job.

Thats the problem with a lot of people nowadays, think they are too good to
start at the bottom. Wankers.
>
>

> As I keep saying, that is total bullshit and has no relevance to the stats
> whatsoever. There are people wanting work with ZERO hours, who are not
> included in the unemployment figures.

Crapshit

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:467bc571$0$20829$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hVLei.17192$wH4.6622@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Rod is correct -with ~5% unemployment, ANYONE who wants a job will get
> one.
>
> We are all in agreement there I think. If you don't mind cleaning dunnies,
> or retraining as a coal mine canary, then you can certainly get a job on
> minimum wage.

Agreed.

You can start at the bottom and move up.

Your problem is you are too proud to do anything other than work as a CEO
>
> MrT.
>
>

>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>
>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>
>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.
>
>> The definition as used by the government and
>> the media has no connection with reality.
>
> Pity that even when you use the OECD standardised definition which matches
> reality fine, that only makes 0.1% difference to the unemployment rate.
>
>> Someone who can only get five hours a week of work
>> is considered "employed" by the statistics, but that
>> person would not be able to live on what they make.
>
> Wrong. They qualify for the dole with that work allowed without losing the
> dole.

Yes, you are correct. BUT, If they get an hours work, they are listed as
being employed even though they get a top up from centrelink. It's all
number juggling to make their figures look good. Both liberal and labour
play the same game and always have. It's only the pig ignorant who cant see
through this scam, and believe the rot. Ask small business owners how they
think the economy is going. You wont get many positive replies.

>
> And there are fuck all that can only get 5 hours of work
> a week when the unemployment rate is only 4.x% unless
> they are very picky about what work they will do anyway.
>
> You dont get to be classified as unemployed just because
> you cant find someone who has a job for a lion tamer.
>
>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>
>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>
>> Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly
>> take literally.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>

>> Or the building industry, or all those other job's that
>> need trained workers yet refuse to train them?
>
> There's plenty of training available with TAFE etc.
>
> And they dont refuse to train them anyway.

No they dont refuse to train them, they just refuse to employ them if they
havent the qualifications or experience.

>
>

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.

>>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".

>>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.

>>> The definition as used by the government and
>>> the media has no connection with reality.

>> Pity that even when you use the OECD standardised definition which matches reality fine, that
>> only makes 0.1% difference to the unemployment rate.

>>> Someone who can only get five hours a week of work
>>> is considered "employed" by the statistics, but that
>>> person would not be able to live on what they make.

>> Wrong. They qualify for the dole with that work allowed without losing the dole.

> Yes, you are correct. BUT, If they get an hours work, they are listed
> as being employed even though they get a top up from centrelink.

Nope, not in the OECD standardised unemployment rate they arent.

> It's all number juggling to make their figures look good.

Not in the OECD standardised unemployment rate they arent.

And thats within 0.1% of the official govt rate, so that purported 'number juggling
to make their figures look good' in fact makes fuck all difference in practice.

> Both liberal and labour play the same game and always have.

Wrong again. That one hour figure hasnt always been the one used.

> It's only the pig ignorant who cant see through this scam, and believe the rot.

Its only the fools who cant see that the OECD standardised rate is within 0.1% of the govt figure.

> Ask small business owners how they think the economy is going. You wont get many positive replies.

Pig ignorant drivel. Plenty of them are whining about how hard it is to find someone to employ.

>> And there are fuck all that can only get 5 hours of work
>> a week when the unemployment rate is only 4.x% unless
>> they are very picky about what work they will do anyway.

>> You dont get to be classified as unemployed just because
>> you cant find someone who has a job for a lion tamer.

>>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life" might be the Howard way,
>>>>> but it's completely irrelevant to reality.

>>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.

>>> Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly take literally.

>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>> Or the building industry, or all those other job's that
>>> need trained workers yet refuse to train them?

>> There's plenty of training available with TAFE etc.

>> And they dont refuse to train them anyway.

> No they dont refuse to train them, they just refuse to employ them if they havent the
> qualifications or experience.

Wrong, as always. My neighbours kids havent had any problems at all
getting work in the building industry with no qualifications or experience.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:467c9f7e$0$3166$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:467bccb2$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> > Where does this bogus figure come from? The real figure is zero.
>>
>> It's not a bogus figure, it has been that way for around 30 years, and
> well
>> publicised
>
> The last time unemployment figure was this low, under Gough Whitlam no
> less,
> the work test was not only one hour.

Wrong

> BTW unemployment figure is lower in NZ under a Labor government. Shouldn't
> that tell you something about Howard/Costello's boasting?

NZ <> Aus

> play the same game and always have. It's only the pig ignorant who cant
> see through this scam, and believe the rot. Ask small business owners how
> they think the economy is going. You wont get many positive replies.
\
Small business owners are whingers, always have been. They can go to hell

>
>>
>> And there are fuck all that can only get 5 hours of work
>> a week when the unemployment rate is only 4.x% unless
>> they are very picky about what work they will do anyway.
>>
>> You dont get to be classified as unemployed just because
>> you cant find someone who has a job for a lion tamer.
>>
>>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>>
>>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>>
>>> Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly
>>> take literally.
>>
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>
>

OECD babble. Reigned by lunatics such as Bush and Howard.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dvvu3F372boaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 06:07:35 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty
>>>>> of other jobs available for anyone who wants one.
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's time you stopped quoting that bogus unemployment rate
>>>
>>> Tell the OECD, they quote the same rate, fuckwit child.
>>
>> Yawn. Guess who supplies the rate to the OECD
>
> The OECD has their OWN standardised data, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit
> clown.
>
>> It is a bogus figure, carefully manufactured for political gain.
>
> Pity about the standardised OECD rate, which is within 0.1%
> of the govt rate, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
>
>> That has been well documented. Read something.
>
> Cant even order you to read the OECD standardised rate
> description, you've obviously wanked yourself completely blind.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Not a fucking clue, as always. Pity the OECD standardised
unemployment rate does NOT involve just 1 hour of work a
week to be classified as employed, you pig ignorant fuckwit clown.

thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote:
> OECD babble. Reigned by lunatics such as Bush and Howard.
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5dvvu3F372boaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 06:07:35 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anthony Horan <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> And with a 4.x% unemployment rate, there are plenty
>>>>>> of other jobs available for anyone who wants one.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's time you stopped quoting that bogus unemployment rate
>>>>
>>>> Tell the OECD, they quote the same rate, fuckwit child.
>>>
>>> Yawn. Guess who supplies the rate to the OECD
>>
>> The OECD has their OWN standardised data, you stupid pig ignorant
>> fuckwit clown.
>>
>>> It is a bogus figure, carefully manufactured for political gain.
>>
>> Pity about the standardised OECD rate, which is within 0.1%
>> of the govt rate, you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit clown.
>>
>>> That has been well documented. Read something.
>>
>> Cant even order you to read the OECD standardised rate
>> description, you've obviously wanked yourself completely blind.

>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>>>
>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>>>
>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.
>>
>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or
>> more. A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let
>> alone buy food.
>> .
>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>>
>> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software
>> engineers" )
>
> You seem to think that an "unemployed software engineer" needs to find
> work as a software engineer.

Comprehension seems to be a lacking skill for a few ppl on this group.

> If I was sacked tomorrow, I'd be stacking shelves at Coles the next day,
> until I found the right job.
>
> Thats the problem with a lot of people nowadays, think they are too good
> to start at the bottom. Wankers.

Yes and no. If you had to start at the bottom again, well it has to be. But
do you think that ppl who have been on the upper part of the ladder for
years want to start at the bottom again. If they could get a job in the
same, or similar field, they have the opportunity to crawl back again. If
they cant get a job in their field and have to start in a totally different
field depending on their age, they may never climb the ladder past rung one.

>> play the same game and always have. It's only the pig ignorant who cant
>> see through this scam, and believe the rot. Ask small business owners how
>> they think the economy is going. You wont get many positive replies.
> \
> Small business owners are whingers, always have been. They can go to hell

You are obviously someones employee, what a piss poor attitude. Small
business owners are usually the hardest workers and biggest worriers, not
because they want to be, but because they have to be.

>>>
>>> And there are fuck all that can only get 5 hours of work
>>> a week when the unemployment rate is only 4.x% unless
>>> they are very picky about what work they will do anyway.
>>>
>>> You dont get to be classified as unemployed just because
>>> you cant find someone who has a job for a lion tamer.
>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your life"
>>>>>> might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to reality.
>>>
>>>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> Obviously statistical spin-doctoring isn't the only thing you foolishly
>>>> take literally.
>>>
>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> And the actual number is irrelevant anyway, the modern
>>>>>> reality is that an official unemployment rate of less than 5%
>>>>>> means that anyone who actually wants a job can get one.
>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, that depends on how you define "job".
>>>>
>>>> Nope, there is only one viable definition, paid work.
>>>
>>> True, but with the govs definition, employed means an hour a week or
>>> more. A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let
>>> alone buy food.
>>> .
>>>>> Secondly, saying to an unemployed software engineer "but you
>>>>> could get work cleaning shit off toilets for the rest of your
>>>>> life" might be the Howard way, but it's completely irrelevant to
>>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>>> There's plenty of work for unemployed software engineers, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> No there isn't. If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed
>>> software engineers" )
>>
>> You seem to think that an "unemployed software engineer" needs to
>> find work as a software engineer.
>
> Comprehension seems to be a lacking skill for a few ppl on this group.
>
>> If I was sacked tomorrow, I'd be stacking shelves at Coles the next
>> day, until I found the right job.
>>
>> Thats the problem with a lot of people nowadays, think they are too
>> good to start at the bottom. Wankers.
>
> Yes and no. If you had to start at the bottom again, well it has to
> be. But do you think that ppl who have been on the upper part of the
> ladder for years want to start at the bottom again. If they could get
> a job in the same, or similar field, they have the opportunity to
> crawl back again. If they cant get a job in their field and have to
> start in a totally different field depending on their age, they may
> never climb the ladder past rung one.

It doesnt work like that with an unemployment rate of 4.x%

In spades when the unemployment rate is 1.x% like it is in some places now.

All you have to do is qualify and go there.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:im7fi.17576$wH4.15331@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > As I keep saying, that is total bullshit and has no relevance to the
stats
> > whatsoever. There are people wanting work with ZERO hours, who are not
> > included in the unemployment figures.
>
> Crapshit

Why the change of topic to your intelligence?

MrT.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Sm7fi.17577$wH4.16678@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> You can start at the bottom and move up.

Agreed. You won't move far if you are at the wrong end of your working life
though.

> Your problem is you are too proud to do anything other than work as a CEO

I wish! :-)

MrT.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pilfi.17975$wH4.9139@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Small business owners are whingers, always have been.

Of course, since the government makes it so hard for them compared to big
business.

>They can go to hell

I'm sure they think the same about you.

MrT.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:467d0bcb_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >> Or the building industry, or all those other job's that
> >> need trained workers yet refuse to train them?
>
> > And they dont refuse to train them anyway.
>
> No they dont refuse to train them, they just refuse to employ them if they
> havent the qualifications or experience.

That should read qualifications AND experience.

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Small business owners are whingers, always have been.

> Of course, since the government makes it
> so hard for them compared to big business.

Pig ignorant lie. Most obviously with the unfair dismissal
law that makes it a lot easier for them than big business.

>> They can go to hell

> I'm sure they think the same about you.

And you in spades.

On Jun 24, 11:38 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Michael J" <mich...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Pilfi.17975$wH4.9139@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Small business owners are whingers, always have been.
>
> Of course, since the government makes it so hard for them compared to big
> business.
>
> >They can go to hell
>
> I'm sure they think the same about you.
>
> MrT.

How can you impersonate such a great man?

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:467f62cb$0$30511$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Pilfi.17975$wH4.9139@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Small business owners are whingers, always have been.
>
> Of course, since the government makes it so hard for them compared to big
> business.

Bullshit, they get all kind of breaks, such as exemption from Unfair
Dismissal laws. Fuckers.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Uxogi.358$iq2.145@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Small business owners are whingers, always have been.
> >
> > Of course, since the government makes it so hard for them compared to
big
> > business.
>
> Bullshit, they get all kind of breaks, such as exemption from Unfair
> Dismissal laws. Fuckers.

Yep I don't agree with that one, but it's obvious you have never tried to
run your own small business.

MrT.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46837c81$0$1392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Uxogi.358$iq2.145@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> Small business owners are whingers, always have been.
>> >
>> > Of course, since the government makes it so hard for them compared to
> big
>> > business.
>>
>> Bullshit, they get all kind of breaks, such as exemption from Unfair
>> Dismissal laws. Fuckers.
>
> Yep I don't agree with that one, but it's obvious you have never tried to
> run your own small business.

I've run a small business before.
Few moons ago.