Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Free Speech and Pedophiles Uncle

Free Speech and Pedophiles Uncle

Further to Peer’s Peers and NSW Bailees Do Not Receive Entitlements many people including “taxifixer” refuses to contribute in the NSW TDA forum due to the infamous practice of selective free speech.


Are you attacking me personally because I stood up for taxi drivers’ right at the NSW IRC? Once you describe CC Connor as Mad Connor in your scabbie magazine and in the post below you called him “Justice Connor”! Do you understand the difference between CC Connor, "Mad Connor" and “Justice Connor”?

Anyway, to increase your knowledge please read Mike Hatrick below.

“The following day, a number of taxi drivers were frog marched behind the "messiah" Robert Mayell at the Industrial Commission in front of CC Connor (NSW IRC Matter No 2383 of 1993).
No one is suggesting any conspiracy here! Poor Faruque and a few taxi drivers busted in anger and confronted the "messiah" Robert Mayell and the Transport Workers Union lawyer Adam Hatcher. During that time those new taxi drivers of Granville asked Faruque to be quiet and follow Meyall. Faruque told them, "I do not know who you are and I have not seen you in any of TWU meetings earlier – who are you people and what is the game going on here"?
Later many of these people confessed to Faruque and others that they were not even members of the TWU, many of them were not financial members of the union and the taxi bosses encouraged them to join in the TWU!
During the proceedings, the TWU lawyer said to CC Connor, "we reserve the right to oppose at a later date".
The good CC Connor found the opportunity and then he keenly passed the responsibility of gas and wash to the bailees without any compensation whatsoever. He did so despite strenuous objections made to him by Faruque and other drivers.

The decision by CC Connor did not change the bailor/bailee remuneration principle or law, but he made a decision which was not opposed by the parties.”

“Today, who is increasing the LPG price and on what basis no one knows or cares. The net impact is the weaker party in the chain is carrying the burden while "taxi mafia" is laughing all the way to the bank. The TWU lawyer Adam Hatcher found a chamber at the higher end of the town and become a BARRISTER! The good union boss Steve Hutchins became the president of the NSW Labor Party and eventually a number one ticket SENATOR from NSW.

Taxi drivers made an appeal to the Full Bench.

After a long and costly exercise, we found out that only the TWU have the right to represent taxi drivers at the Industrial Commission! During that hearing the rights and wrongs of the actual case were not discussed.
That means, in reality the court said the TWU can do whatever they like and they can ignore their own taxi driver members all together or their welfare! They are virtually not answerable to anyone. The union bosses do not have to follow justice, fairness, courtesy or common sense!
Since then the union removed a few bi-laws of their own constitution i.e. they don't have to advance the well being of their own members". The law is same today.”

Source: LPG to Iraq and Discrimination

--- In Sydney_TaxiCorruption@yahoogroups.com, "taxifixer" wrote:
When driver fronts up to a bailor and asks for work and the bailor offers a job with the sniffof work a tantalizing probability if the worker will listen to the mention of foregoing AnnualLeave for lower than ceiling pay ins I call that thinly veiled coercion and the grub making theoffer no better than a pedophiles uncle
Mike Hatrick

Source: http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sydney_TaxiCorruption/message/1047

--- In NSWTDAFORUM@yahoogroups.com, Peer Lindholdt wrote:
Re: Digest Number 990

Re: Digest Number 990Posted by: "union_faruque" http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/NSWTDAFORUM/post?postID=XPC553ejZLrmIVSQ1UDIfslJgq9UsvBm-osl4501HtUxkxlcPf8BUhs2BMcz-pZznFIQ6f2cyUQye9vOowLds6foeQ union_faruqueFri Apr 18, 2008 11:02 am (PDT)
> Peer,
Are you familiar with Case and Statute Law? In law, there is nothing called trade off! If you want to know more then ask CIM Miller. By the way, have you ever been to the IRC in your life?>
if you had bothered to read my posting properly you would have noticed I wrote "a gentleman's agreement" which is obviously not legally binding but is generally considered morally so, at least amongst decent folk.

Yes I have been at IRC taxi hearings twice. Once I even watched you stand up and make a fool of yourself. Even Justice Connor found it amusing and let you rave on longer than usual.

--- In NSWTDAFORUM@yahoogroups.com, "union_faruque" wrote:
Re: Digest Number 990

Are you familiar with Case and Statute Law? In law, there is nothing called trade off! If you want to know more then ask CIM Miller. By the way, have you ever been to the IRC in your life?

--- In NSWTDAFORUM@yahoogroups.com, Peer Lindholdt wrote:

firstly NSW drivers were not awarded entitlements, only Sydney drivers (see your points 1 and 2).

Secondly, in a previous posting here I explained the 3 reasons why most drivers don¹t get entitlements:

They don¹t drive enough shifts either by choice or because their operator won¹t let them; they don¹t ask for them or they have a gentleman¹s agreement to offset them against lower pay-ins. That the latter doesn¹t legally stand up in the IRC should the driver be a prick and still demand holiday pay later is irrelevant to this debate.

My information is that all full-time bailee drivers at the base at Cabcharge HQ and all at Lime get their entitlements. I have also spoken to many other drivers who do. We always did at TCS in Paddington provided we asked for them.

The Taxi Council has a strong argument in the IRC, backed by the claims below (1 & 2), for operators to be allowed to trade off entitlements by a set figure against lower pay-ins.

There is a strong rumour that the TC intends to apply to the IRC that method 2 be scrapped in favour of method 1 (50/50 split). That would presently cost many drivers dearly as the earn more than the pay-ins but in a recession would be to the drivers¹ advantage. Also, their income would not be affected by fuel prices as the operator pays for fuel under method 1. Maybe the NSW TDA should start telling its members to choose method 1.

The figure used by IPART of $4,000 towards entitlements is obviously inadequate if an operator has 2 full-time drivers, which makes him liable for $8,000, as shown in the PwC model.

You frankly don¹t know what you are talking about when you say ³... that has been the case for so long that operators with impunity do NOT allow for the payment and cost of Entitlements in the Payins.². The notional cost of entitlements is INCLUDED in the pay-ins ($4,000). The operator can¹t not allow for them, they are there, in the cost model. If they discount that's their choice, their gamble.

The idiocy of the IPART and PwC models is that if an operator avoids paying entitlements by whichever method, he pockets the money himself and there is no simple way of fixing that problem. And that is an incentive to operators not to give their drivers 5 shifts a week especially if there is a glut of drivers which will happen soon enough.

As I have said before, the only fair way to fix the problem is for IPART and the IRC to agree that ALL drivers who regularly drive 3 shifts or more p.w. be classified as permanent full-time drivers and that operators MUST charge the maximum pay-in and pay entitlements to such drivers. A lower maximum pay-in could be set for casual drivers.

That is what the NSW TDA and ATDA should have pushed for in their submissions. Why should cabbies have to work 60 hours a week to get holiday pay when other workers only have to work 40 or less?

The only other alternative is to scrap entitlements altogether and have lower maximum pay-ins. The Taxi Council would love that.

No comments: