Letters to Crikey this week include an interesting proposition intended to curb the rise of career politicians, some realities of what it’s like to consider striking in the workplace, and an avalanche of disgust in response to the Financial Review’s description of Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop.

 

On Australia’s tradition of political dynasties

Mary Wood writes: How about changing the rules so no one can serve more than two consecutive terms in parliament — either in the house of reps or the senate? This would mean that each elected person knows they have only six years (or eight if we go to four year terms, preferably fixed). So they know they have a limited time to do something (anything) which has impelled them to seek election. Gets rid of those who are there with no ideas of what needs to be done.

Further, a period equal to the time served before being appointed to any government body or employer (or union) group. Perhaps we would see a re-invigorated parliament including people from all walks of life, and get rid of the career politicians such as are filling up the benches. This could also have the effect of restoring the public service to its intended role of giving frank and sensible advice. Something has to be better than what we now have.

 

On the realities of striking

A university employee writes:  I quote: “The Reserve Bank’s solution for wage stagnation — though it forecasts only a ‘gradual’ rise in growth — is that, in the words of governor Phillip Low, ‘it would be a good thing if workers [were] prepared to ask for larger wage rises’.”

I ask: has Phillip Low seen how hard it is now for unions to try to ask for increases, let alone keep the status quo, when managements are so keen to innovate to increased control and less staff? We can’t just down tools anymore and walk off the job. We have to beg to be allowed to have a vote about deciding if we want to take industrial action — let alone take strike action!

Now, I’ve just grossly simplified a few things, but the central point is true… We can’t just down tools anymore and walk off the job. We have to lodge applications with commissions and courts who are biased against us, follow elaborate procedures and telegraph certain activities to employers (whom of course don’t have to do so to us) — and now, to top it off, Bill Shorten yesterday refused John Setka’s request to change these rules if he gets into the Lodge.

Oliver B writes: Fixing wages by striking is unfair: it benefits workers in industries where unionisation is practical. Worse, its success would split the base of support for broader reforms to address inequality. Those overpaid waterfront workers that Helen Razer admires might have helped the average wage statistic, but that didn’t mean a thing for the chumps on minimum wage.

Old greybearded one writes: One of your better ones Bernard. A worker’s labour is the only thing he has to bargain with and if he cannot withdraw it he has no power at all. The boss of course can lock the door as he pleases. I have been the victim of strikes in my own business in the past, and some were stupid. However, safety and fair conditions are vital.

My dad often said that the reason for the rise of militant unionism was the way employers acted in the Depression. I have worked where unions had to protect the migrants workers and they did. Not now; they have no ability. Unions did not countenance wage theft and there was government backup for them in these matters.

 

On giving (correct) credit where it’s due

Former 4 Corners EP Jonathan Holmes writes: I don’t know if you accept comments on comments, but when Peter Frank compliments Sarah Ferguson, “under whom 4 Corners seems to have regained much of its mojo”, he’s making an elementary error.

4 Corners is not “under” Sarah Ferguson. TV current affairs programs are not made by, controlled by or even especially influenced by their presenters. They’re controlled by their executive producers (who in other parts of the world are called editors). If 4 Corners has recently recovered its mojo — (although in my view it’s been excellent for a decade) — the credit should go not to Sarah Ferguson, but to its EP, Sally Neighbour.

The redoubtable Sarah Ferguson should get credit for the programs she reports — like the three-parter on Russia and the Trump election on which she is currently working — but not for the programs that she merely presents. Indeed for well over a decade in the ’90s and ’00s 4 Corners had no presenter at all.

Where a presenter does a lot of interviewing — as Leigh Sales does on 7.30 — she or he should get credit or blame for the interviews. But as a rule they have little influence on the rest of the program. Just sayin’.

 

On the Financial Review’s erotic fan fic

Klewso writes: Conservative melange does strange things to what’s left of a conservative vision.

Andrea writes: Wow. Be still my beating blood-pumping organ. It’s like he was there as a ghostly presence.

Everyone on Twitter writes: 

 

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.