Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Blanket! How are ya?
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Cents per km deduction for work car usage to be merged from the 3 rates for different engine sizes to a flat rate of $0.66 for all cars
Still drafting legislation to tax profit shifting multinationals
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
I am still so shitty that they've targeted backpackers. Really riled up about it. 18 year olds trying to have a gap year getting taxed at a greater rate than full time 9-5ers gives me the shits.
Yeah, also won't this have the potential to reduce tourism and thus lose money overall?
+3
marty_0001I am a fileand you put documents in meRegistered Userregular
It's pretty silly; it just disincentivises people from coming here for a working holiday. You want more incentive for people to spend their money in Australia.
What the fuck dk they think the backpackers are taking away with them. Even if they didn't spend it all on beer and weed in Aus (and we know they do), the savings they could build are pretty minimal by federal standards.
I can only assume it's a political stunt of some kind, since the revenue generated wouldn't be worth squat. Is there a Liberal voter base who hates backpackers? Maybe old people...
I read it as backpackers are not franchised members of our society, so who gives a fuck if we squeeze them for money? Chances are they won't even realise anyway!
It's fucking cowardice, is what it is. A percentile increase on taxable income within the financial sector would easily make up for trying to screw over backpackers.
Fuckin... The sooner we bury this fucking hard right faction of the LNP, the better
It's pretty silly; it just disincentivises people from coming here for a working holiday. You want more incentive for people to spend their money in Australia.
I dunno, out of all the things in the budget I don't think this is the one issue to get the most riled up with. I mean I don't think someone coming to Australia is going to sit down and figure out what tax break they are in before they go on the flight.
It's pretty silly; it just disincentivises people from coming here for a working holiday. You want more incentive for people to spend their money in Australia.
I dunno, out of all the things in the budget I don't think this is the one issue to get the most riled up with. I mean I don't think someone coming to Australia is going to sit down and figure out what tax break they are in before they go on the flight.
I think it's more like word will spread that Australia is extremely expensive and the government is going to take most of your money/you don't get paid much; why not just go to New Zealand instead?
It's pretty silly; it just disincentivises people from coming here for a working holiday. You want more incentive for people to spend their money in Australia.
I dunno, out of all the things in the budget I don't think this is the one issue to get the most riled up with. I mean I don't think someone coming to Australia is going to sit down and figure out what tax break they are in before they go on the flight.
I think it's more like word will spread that Australia is extremely expensive and the government is going to take most of your money/you don't get paid much; why not just go to New Zealand instead?
If we're honest, there's probably a bunch of other reasons to go to NZ instead besides this, but a proper backpacker would be doing both. Besides, only Australia can provide an authentic Wolf Creek experience!
+4
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
How is Viv doing? And Blanket, the guy who tried to kill ,e vicariously that one time.
Hello! I have honestly been better; I had a really good day yesterday and by contrast today has been terribad. So, really, just taking things a day at a time.
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
If we're honest, there's probably a bunch of other reasons to go to NZ instead besides this, but a proper backpacker would be doing both. Besides, only Australia can provide an authentic Wolf Creek experience!
I always get confused when I see Wolf Creek, because I think of Wolf Blass and Jacob's Creek and assume its a winery.
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
As someone who also works in science research, you might be right, but that could just mean the money needs to be better directed, not cut outright.
Also unless it's getting pissed away on admin (which is likely), I don't believe any research funding counts as wasteful. Federal funds exist to be spent.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
0
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
They DID get their funding reduced in the 2014 federal budget.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
"mostly"? What about the thousands of people who work for the CSIRO that don't get paid that much, and do complete a full working week?
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
Oh, well, yeah. That sort of thing is more of a financial management issue. I get antsy when governments with an anti-science agenda use structural failures as an excuse to cut overall research funding, even if there is some bullshit that needs sorting.
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
They DID get their funding reduced in the 2014 federal budget.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
"mostly"? What about the thousands of people who work for the CSIRO that don't get paid that much, and do complete a full working week?
I'm not saying they need their funding cut. I'm saying the government needs to first get rid of the unproductive people so that the money CSIRO does get isn't wasted. At the moment CSIRO shouldn't be getting more money because that money does not get used effectively.
DSTO is the same, they say if you make it 5 years at CSIRO or DSTO you'll be there for life and you would be surprised just how quickly productivity drops after 5 years.
I personally work for Monash Uni and I need to publish a minimum 4 papers a year or I face losing funding.
Cobalt60 on
0
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
I mean, I'd say around half of the engineers I've worked with are from overseas. That's from a decently sized engineering firm.
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
They DID get their funding reduced in the 2014 federal budget.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
"mostly"? What about the thousands of people who work for the CSIRO that don't get paid that much, and do complete a full working week?
I'm not saying they need their funding cut. I'm saying the government needs to first get rid of the unproductive people so that the money CSIRO does get isn't wasted. At the moment CSIRO shouldn't be getting more money because that money does not get used effectively.
DSTO is the same, they say if you make it 5 years at CSIRO or DSTO you'll be there for life and you would be surprised just how quickly productivity drops after 5 years.
I personally work for Monash Uni and I need to publish a minimum 4 papers a year or I face losing funding.
See, I can understand that there should be some sort of standard for productivity for CSIRO employees, especially if they are earning a fat wad of cash for only doing 650 or so hours of work in a year. But I feel like enforcing something like a minimum number of papers written would just result in 4 shitty papers being slapped together by whatever grad student the employee felt like throwing a bit of money at?
I really don't want to be an Abbott apologist and I'm not saying he's doing it with best intent, but cutting funding is a supremely efficient way to make systems and processes more effective and cost efficient.
This management strategy assumes that you are, of course, genuinely interested in improving systems and plan to balance the books out. If you are just interested in being anti-intellectual and want to silence your biggest critics well, it's pretty effective at that too
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
They DID get their funding reduced in the 2014 federal budget.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
"mostly"? What about the thousands of people who work for the CSIRO that don't get paid that much, and do complete a full working week?
I'm not saying they need their funding cut. I'm saying the government needs to first get rid of the unproductive people so that the money CSIRO does get isn't wasted. At the moment CSIRO shouldn't be getting more money because that money does not get used effectively.
DSTO is the same, they say if you make it 5 years at CSIRO or DSTO you'll be there for life and you would be surprised just how quickly productivity drops after 5 years.
I personally work for Monash Uni and I need to publish a minimum 4 papers a year or I face losing funding.
See, I can understand that there should be some sort of standard for productivity for CSIRO employees, especially if they are earning a fat wad of cash for only doing 650 or so hours of work in a year. But I feel like enforcing something like a minimum number of papers written would just result in 4 shitty papers being slapped together by whatever grad student the employee felt like throwing a bit of money at?
There is typically a standard that needs to be met, I need to publish in journals with an average impact factor of 4 (i.e. the journal averages 4 citations per publication in that journal for a given year).
Buuuuuuuuuuuuut you are right, people just pump out iterative papers where they make one breakthrough and milk it for years.
But honestly that is a problem with academia/publishing in general, not just CSIRO.
The pressure to publish (or the lack of) is pretty much why permanent CSIRO or DSTO jobs are so prized.
+3
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I really don't want to be an Abbott apologist and I'm not saying he's doing it with best intent, but cutting funding is a supremely efficient way to make systems and processes more effective and cost efficient.
This management strategy assumes that you are, of course, genuinely interested in improving systems and plan to balance the books out. If you are just interested in being anti-intellectual and want to silence your biggest critics well, it's pretty effective at that too
The biggest problem with just cutting funding instead of actually auditing their corporate structure is that when funding is slashed, the people making the budgeting decisions (i.e likely the ones getting paid heaps for doing very little) generally don't decide to fire themselves.
In addition, I am somewhat offended by the notion that we need to be holding our scientific researchers to some blue ribbon standard of efficiency. I work in the private sector and yo we ineffectual like woah. Don't even get me started on the pollies
I'm sceptical of Tef's claim in the general sense, there's a lower bound when it comes to efficiency and input/output optimization and funding cuts aren't a universal way to improve this relationship. Sometimes it's applicable, but there's a school of business management which believes there is always more 'fat' to be trimmed. Not only is that not always the case, I'm a firm believer that a certain amount of fat helps keep the system well oiled.
Frankly the CSIRO stuff sounds like the usual hyperbole surrounding public sector jobs. When I was at ANU the rumour mill about alleged waste over there (literally across the road) was always running rampant, but only about 20% of it was ever justified. Do people still perform well without the constant threat of termination hanging over their heads? I'm sure some slack off. but the 2-3 year postgrad contract cycle reverses the problem, it takes a very specific sort of problem or research environment to be able to funnel that system into ongoing useful output. The geneticists seem to do ok but in engineering it just means the building is littered with half-done projects no one will ever touch again.
And there's no real evidence that shows that simply increasing the quantifiable metrics someone has to fulfil in order to retain a contract results in better research. It's an attempt to apply an incremental approach to things that may not be incremental in nature, like major breakthroughs and novel idea generation.
I think it's fair to say that me pointing out the strategy, in and of itself, can be valid is not particularly constructive in this instance.
As you, Nic, I dare say a lot of it is grand standing about the public sector and academia in particular. As Blake quite rightly pointed out over a few beers the other day, within these kinds of fields you need to be able to let people try and fail without the spectre of unemployment looming over them to allow for breakthroughs
Does that mean that there aren't a bunch of slackarse deadshits working in this organisations? No, of course there are - the same as many organisations!
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
I've seen some sentiment that backpackers should be hit harder because they're in the cash in hand economy so fuck them. Note that this opinion came from a fucking dipshit.
Backpackers are now either going home early or playing the knife-hand game with cash in hand work until they get caught and deported.
I've seen some sentiment that backpackers should be hit harder because they're in the cash in hand economy so fuck them. Note that this opinion came from a fucking dipshit.
Backpackers are now either going home early or playing the knife-hand game with cash in hand work until they get caught and deported.
Well, it is true that backpackers live a life of luxury off the back of the rest of use hard working blighters whilst taking our jobs and drinking our beers.
that paid parental leave restriction is fucking bullshit, tell you what
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
I mean, I'd say around half of the engineers I've worked with are from overseas. That's from a decently sized engineering firm.
Huh, interesting. Although judging from my classes at UNSW, I probably shouldn't be too surprised.
Never really thought much about it before, though.
工事中
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2015
I am so, so, so confused by this whole paid parental leave debacle.
You don't call someone who claims on both Medicare and Private Health Insurance a "double dipper" - i.e., for my knee surgery, Medicare covered a chunk, Medibank covered another chunk, and I paid the remaining gap. The system works there, yeah? No one would call me a double dipper for that?
So why are mothers who are using negotiated PPL schemes with their employers to supplement the government's PPL scheme getting called "double dippers?"
Am I missing something here? This is awfully confusing.
It's mostly getting wasted on over inflated salaries for people who barely work. There are people who have worked there for 30+ years working 2 hours a day and making 120k.
Oh, well, yeah. That sort of thing is more of a financial management issue. I get antsy when governments with an anti-science agenda use structural failures as an excuse to cut overall research funding, even if there is some bullshit that needs sorting.
to be perfectly frank, Cobalt's complaints can easily be applied to literally any organisation ever
you almost have to account (financially) for dead weight
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2015
I just find it fucking hilarious that people will readily go "where are the PARENTS?!" when shit goes wrong socially.
THEY'RE AT WORK, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT LETTING THEM RAISE THEIR CHILDREN.
And then in the same fucking breath, people absolve themselves of any community responsibility - I've had people say "why should *I* behave in public?! it's the PARENTS' issue if their kids act like fuckheads, nothing to do with meeeeeeeeeeeee!"
WELL THEY'RE AT WORK, SO MAYBE TO OFFSET THEIR ABSENCE WE NEED TO HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS OF COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY, YOU SELF-CENTERED JERK.
I am so, so, so confused by this whole paid parental leave debacle.
You don't call someone who claims on both Medicare and Private Health Insurance a "double dipper" - i.e., for my knee surgery, Medicare covered a chunk, Medibank covered another chunk, and I paid the remaining gap. The system works there, yeah? No one would call me a double dipper for that?
So why are mothers who are using negotiated PPL schemes with their employers to supplement the government's PPL scheme getting called "double dippers?"
Am I missing something here? This is awfully confusing.
Any opportunity to paint working mothers taking leave as a burden is a good one?
I am so, so, so confused by this whole paid parental leave debacle.
You don't call someone who claims on both Medicare and Private Health Insurance a "double dipper" - i.e., for my knee surgery, Medicare covered a chunk, Medibank covered another chunk, and I paid the remaining gap. The system works there, yeah? No one would call me a double dipper for that?
So why are mothers who are using negotiated PPL schemes with their employers to supplement the government's PPL scheme getting called "double dippers?"
Am I missing something here? This is awfully confusing.
Any opportunity to paint working mothers taking leave as a burden is a good one?
It's about messaging. Control the messaging, control the public opinion on the subject, create a 'problem' then look good when you 'resolve' it. Basically, someone wanted to get rid of the government PPL and worked backwards. It's generally a pretty effective way of doing things politically.
Posts
And also be completely unsurprising.
I'm unemployed (but don't say sorry, cause I'm quite OK with it overall) and my climbing is improving, so good!
Yourself??
Satans..... hints.....
Netflix tax to start from 1 July 2017
Cents per km deduction for work car usage to be merged from the 3 rates for different engine sizes to a flat rate of $0.66 for all cars
Still drafting legislation to tax profit shifting multinationals
I can only assume it's a political stunt of some kind, since the revenue generated wouldn't be worth squat. Is there a Liberal voter base who hates backpackers? Maybe old people...
It's fucking cowardice, is what it is. A percentile increase on taxable income within the financial sector would easily make up for trying to screw over backpackers.
Fuckin... The sooner we bury this fucking hard right faction of the LNP, the better
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I dunno, out of all the things in the budget I don't think this is the one issue to get the most riled up with. I mean I don't think someone coming to Australia is going to sit down and figure out what tax break they are in before they go on the flight.
Satans..... hints.....
I think it's more like word will spread that Australia is extremely expensive and the government is going to take most of your money/you don't get paid much; why not just go to New Zealand instead?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
If we're honest, there's probably a bunch of other reasons to go to NZ instead besides this, but a proper backpacker would be doing both. Besides, only Australia can provide an authentic Wolf Creek experience!
Hello! I have honestly been better; I had a really good day yesterday and by contrast today has been terribad. So, really, just taking things a day at a time.
and the backpackers tax confuses me, because they barely make any money anyway! it's decisions like this that make me think that some Aussies really need to pull their finger out and stop thinking that people come here because it's a magical cash-making economic sanctuary of boundless cash
no one comes here for that reason except engineers, and even THEY don't do that anymore
They did that at one point? o.O
Mining, usually.
But I'm certainly not returning until CSIRO and the climate council are fully funded.
Of course the major brain drain in this country is the one out of abbots ears, so
As someone who works in science research, CSIRO actually needs the fat trimmed more than anything.
It is where federal funding goes to be pissed away.
Also unless it's getting pissed away on admin (which is likely), I don't believe any research funding counts as wasteful. Federal funds exist to be spent.
They DID get their funding reduced in the 2014 federal budget.
"mostly"? What about the thousands of people who work for the CSIRO that don't get paid that much, and do complete a full working week?
I'm not saying they need their funding cut. I'm saying the government needs to first get rid of the unproductive people so that the money CSIRO does get isn't wasted. At the moment CSIRO shouldn't be getting more money because that money does not get used effectively.
DSTO is the same, they say if you make it 5 years at CSIRO or DSTO you'll be there for life and you would be surprised just how quickly productivity drops after 5 years.
I personally work for Monash Uni and I need to publish a minimum 4 papers a year or I face losing funding.
I mean, I'd say around half of the engineers I've worked with are from overseas. That's from a decently sized engineering firm.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
See, I can understand that there should be some sort of standard for productivity for CSIRO employees, especially if they are earning a fat wad of cash for only doing 650 or so hours of work in a year. But I feel like enforcing something like a minimum number of papers written would just result in 4 shitty papers being slapped together by whatever grad student the employee felt like throwing a bit of money at?
This management strategy assumes that you are, of course, genuinely interested in improving systems and plan to balance the books out. If you are just interested in being anti-intellectual and want to silence your biggest critics well, it's pretty effective at that too
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
There is typically a standard that needs to be met, I need to publish in journals with an average impact factor of 4 (i.e. the journal averages 4 citations per publication in that journal for a given year).
Buuuuuuuuuuuuut you are right, people just pump out iterative papers where they make one breakthrough and milk it for years.
But honestly that is a problem with academia/publishing in general, not just CSIRO.
The pressure to publish (or the lack of) is pretty much why permanent CSIRO or DSTO jobs are so prized.
The biggest problem with just cutting funding instead of actually auditing their corporate structure is that when funding is slashed, the people making the budgeting decisions (i.e likely the ones getting paid heaps for doing very little) generally don't decide to fire themselves.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Frankly the CSIRO stuff sounds like the usual hyperbole surrounding public sector jobs. When I was at ANU the rumour mill about alleged waste over there (literally across the road) was always running rampant, but only about 20% of it was ever justified. Do people still perform well without the constant threat of termination hanging over their heads? I'm sure some slack off. but the 2-3 year postgrad contract cycle reverses the problem, it takes a very specific sort of problem or research environment to be able to funnel that system into ongoing useful output. The geneticists seem to do ok but in engineering it just means the building is littered with half-done projects no one will ever touch again.
And there's no real evidence that shows that simply increasing the quantifiable metrics someone has to fulfil in order to retain a contract results in better research. It's an attempt to apply an incremental approach to things that may not be incremental in nature, like major breakthroughs and novel idea generation.
As you, Nic, I dare say a lot of it is grand standing about the public sector and academia in particular. As Blake quite rightly pointed out over a few beers the other day, within these kinds of fields you need to be able to let people try and fail without the spectre of unemployment looming over them to allow for breakthroughs
Does that mean that there aren't a bunch of slackarse deadshits working in this organisations? No, of course there are - the same as many organisations!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Backpackers are now either going home early or playing the knife-hand game with cash in hand work until they get caught and deported.
Well, it is true that backpackers live a life of luxury off the back of the rest of use hard working blighters whilst taking our jobs and drinking our beers.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Huh, interesting. Although judging from my classes at UNSW, I probably shouldn't be too surprised.
Never really thought much about it before, though.
You don't call someone who claims on both Medicare and Private Health Insurance a "double dipper" - i.e., for my knee surgery, Medicare covered a chunk, Medibank covered another chunk, and I paid the remaining gap. The system works there, yeah? No one would call me a double dipper for that?
So why are mothers who are using negotiated PPL schemes with their employers to supplement the government's PPL scheme getting called "double dippers?"
Am I missing something here? This is awfully confusing.
to be perfectly frank, Cobalt's complaints can easily be applied to literally any organisation ever
you almost have to account (financially) for dead weight
THEY'RE AT WORK, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT LETTING THEM RAISE THEIR CHILDREN.
And then in the same fucking breath, people absolve themselves of any community responsibility - I've had people say "why should *I* behave in public?! it's the PARENTS' issue if their kids act like fuckheads, nothing to do with meeeeeeeeeeeee!"
WELL THEY'RE AT WORK, SO MAYBE TO OFFSET THEIR ABSENCE WE NEED TO HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS OF COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY, YOU SELF-CENTERED JERK.
Any opportunity to paint working mothers taking leave as a burden is a good one?
It's about messaging. Control the messaging, control the public opinion on the subject, create a 'problem' then look good when you 'resolve' it. Basically, someone wanted to get rid of the government PPL and worked backwards. It's generally a pretty effective way of doing things politically.