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

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

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1952054.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1954636.htm

A well known British Commander of Imperial British forces , Lord of
the Chancellery said:

"People should be driven because they don't know what is the best for
them"

Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.

Georges

<gnh888@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182251138.747018.251390@n15g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> ABC TV "4 CORNERS" program about Telstra Australia attitude to staffs
> & customers?
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1952054.htm
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1954636.htm
>
> A well known British Commander of Imperial British forces , Lord of
> the Chancellery said:
>
> "People should be driven because they don't know what is the best for
> them"
>
> Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.
>
> Georges
>
Soo too is Optus, under the reign of Singaporean dictatorship



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

gnh888@gmail.com wrote:

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

Usual mindless union bludger lies.

> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1952054.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1954636.htm

> A well known British Commander of Imperial British forces , Lord of the Chancellery said:

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue, wogchild.

> "People should be driven because they don't know what is the best for them"

> Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.

You wouldnt know what a dictatorship was if one bit you on your lard arse, wogchild.

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

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

gnh888@gmail.com wrote:
> Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.

In comparison to most call centers in AU. Telstra's is a fucking socialism.

Stupid fucking 4corners program. ABC yet again producing more bile and
wrapping it up as 'investigative journalism'.

Fuckwits cap themselves every day, regardless of the job. Two people
popping themselves at Telstra? BIG FUCKING DEAL.

gnh888@gmail.com wrote:
> Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.

In comparison to most call centers in AU. Telstras is fucking socialism.

Stupid fucking 4corners program. ABC yet again producing more bile and
wrapping it up as 'investigative journalism'.

Fuckwits cap themselves every day, regardless of the job. Two people
popping themselves at Telstra? BIG FUCKING DEAL.

On Jun 19, 9:45 pm, "thegoons" <thego...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <gnh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182251138.747018.251390@n15g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > ABC TV "4 CORNERS" program about Telstra Australia attitude to staffs
> > & customers?
>
> >http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1952054.htm
>
> >http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s1954636.htm
>
> > A well known British Commander of Imperial British forces , Lord of
> > the Chancellery said:
>
> > "People should be driven because they don't know what is the best for
> > them"
>
> > Telstra Australia is a dictatorship.
>
> > Georges
>
> Soo too is Optus, under the reign of Singaporean dictatorship
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

absolutly correct

Georges

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so beloved
of the Howard government.

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.

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f5l1jwkb6caf$.1dk97j7l71hcs.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so
beloved
> of the Howard government.

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%!!!

And the oft quoted figure of 1 hour work a week to be considered employed is
total crap too. If you don't qualify for a government benefit you are not
considered unemployed by the government, even if you are looking for work
and have no hours at all.

And even the governments own "welfare" rate is much higher, as they happily
point out every time they want to reduce it.

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> 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 so beloved of the Howard government.

> Yes

Nope.

> the latest ABS stats show less than 10 million employed, and over 20
> million population. That's an "unemployment" rate of more than 50%!!!

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Those who choose not to work, those who cant legally work, those
who have chosen to retire, etc etc etc are NOT unemployed.

> And the oft quoted figure of 1 hour work a week to be considered
> employed is total crap too. If you don't qualify for a government
> benefit you are not considered unemployed by the government,
> even if you are looking for work and have no hours at all.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

There are two quite different stats collected and those on
benefits are entirely different to those who are looking for work.

> And even the governments own "welfare" rate is much higher,

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> as they happily point out every time they want to reduce it.

Plenty of those arent even unemployed, they CHOOSE to not work, cretin.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:44:40 +1000, Anthony Horan wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so
> beloved of the Howard government.

Now now, just because the way the count of "Unemployed" has changed (on a
regular basis) in the last 30 or so years shouldn't stop pollies comparing
"Apples with Oranges" to suit their agendas.

Doesn't one hour of work a week now count a person as "employed"?

--
Regards, David.

David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.

David Clayton <dcstarXYZ@myrealbox.com> wrote
> Anthony Horan 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 so beloved of the Howard government.

> Now now, just because the way the count of "Unemployed" has
> changed (on a regular basis) in the last 30 or so years shouldn't
> stop pollies comparing "Apples with Oranges" to suit their agendas.

> Doesn't one hour of work a week now count a person as "employed"?

Pity that the standardised OECD unemployment rate is within 0.1%

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.

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, moron.

It is a bogus figure, carefully manufactured for political gain. That has
been well documented. Read something.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:31:53 +1000, 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".

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:31:53 +1000, 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".
>
> 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.
Thats the Mrs Rudd way tony

>>> 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" )

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. .

Pity that the standardised OECD unemployment rate that involves a lot more
work than that is within 0.1% so in practice there are fuck all in that situation.

>>> 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.

Yes there is.

> If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software engineers" )

Wrong again, they're the ones picky about who they are prepared to work for.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> 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. .

Those get income support.

> Pity that the standardised OECD unemployment rate that involves a lot more work than that is
> within 0.1% so in practice there are fuck all in that situation.

>>>> 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.

> Yes there is.

>> If they had work, they wouldnt be "unemployed software engineers" )

> Wrong again, they're the ones picky about who they are prepared to work for.

"David Clayton" <dcstarXYZ@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
newsan.2007.06.21.08.33.47.4134@myrealbox.com...
> Now now, just because the way the count of "Unemployed" has changed (on a
> regular basis) in the last 30 or so years shouldn't stop pollies comparing
> "Apples with Oranges" to suit their agendas.

It never has before.

> Doesn't one hour of work a week now count a person as "employed"?

As I already pointed out, ZERO hours qualifies you as "employed", unless you
are *specifically* on full unemployment benefits.

MrT.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:467b4978_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> 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. The simple
fact is that there is *NO* specific definition of employed, only those
*unemployed and recieving full work support benefits*.

>A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy
food.

There are some workers on 40 hours a week who can barely manage that!

> >> 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" )

He is correct using the Howard test, but as you also pointed out, an
unemployed SE might choose not to clean toilets.
He may then soon find himself to be considered "employed" on a wage of
$ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote

>> 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.
> The simple fact is that there is *NO* specific definition of employed,
> only those *unemployed and recieving full work support benefits*.

That last, the bit about benefits, is just plain wrong. Thats just the number who
are receiving benefits and is an entirely different separately quoted statistic.

>> A worker with 5 hours work cannot earn enough to pay rent, let alone buy food.

> There are some workers on 40 hours a week who can barely manage that!

Bullshit.

>>>> 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" )

> He is correct using the Howard test, but as you also pointed
> out, an unemployed SE might choose not to clean toilets.

> He may then soon find himself to be considered "employed" on a wage of $ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

Nope.

> 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

>
>

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f5l1jwkb6caf$.1dk97j7l71hcs.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so
> beloved
> of the Howard government.

The same methodology used by the former LABOR Govt, fool.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:467a1095$0$8915$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1f5l1jwkb6caf$.1dk97j7l71hcs.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so
> beloved
>> of the Howard government.
>
> 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

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

> 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
>
> MrT.
>
>

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e4d8g38qmev0.19wzkdkiaisdl.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:31:53 +1000, 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".
>
> 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.

Your problem.

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

Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:467a1095$0$8915$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>> "Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1f5l1jwkb6caf$.1dk97j7l71hcs.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:19:57 +1000, 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 so
>>> beloved of the Howard government.
>>
>> 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

Nope, there are plenty who choose not to be employed
and plenty more who cant legally be employed too.

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

>> 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

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:57:35 +1000, 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.

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.

>> 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.

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WSLei.17189$wH4.9831@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > 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? Or the building industry, or all those other job's
that need trained workers yet refuse to train them?

MrT.