This is my Monday morning must .
I have become a voyeur in other peoples lives, although I know not who they are.
I compulsively have to log in AM Monday to see what has been posted
I have cried, been in awe, laughed and been shocked
I envy those with secrets to share..Anonymously or not
I think it would be a great way to get rid of baggage
So; in the like mindedness; of Postsecret..I am sharing the site with my readers ( all 3 or 4 of you)
Friday, February 24, 2006
AWB , WT and Free Enterprise
Given that there are varying stories about and people jumping ship like rats I was interested in the spin being placed on the "reason" behind the matter of the Australian Wheat Board ( AWB) paying the Government of Iraq ( Saddam's coffers???)to accept shipments of Australian wheat. Why it is all coming out now they have been caught out, if it was such a noble and just reason, I cannot understand .
Apparently, as is the "norm" with the so called free trade and enterprise within this world of ours, some shipments arrive, as per specifications, be they live exports, produce, goods, whatever and are found to be "faulty" or some part of the shipment agreement has not been adhered to or the consignment note conditions have not been met....So you have umpteen tonnes of wheat in port in a foreign land, you have farmers to pay back home and the country to which you are exporting is/was under sanctions and the people of this country need the wheat. SO what do you do, you make an ex gratia payment for the consignment to be accepted. How this works out in $$ I cannot see as the shipment would have been worth less than the $ paid and any further shipment might be up for the same treatment. This happens on a smaller local level too, a grocery chain has purchased 12 pallets of lettuce from a co operative, whilst the consignment is in transit, they are give "incentives" to purchase same from another supplier, which they do. Dilemma...2 deliveries of lettuce due, accept the one the "incentive" was given for and when the other arrives...Find some fault with it, "freezer burn" is a common enough complaint and refuse to sign con. note or accept delivery. Details are discussed and no fault can be found, transport co refuses to accept liability, goods are going to be wasted, in an act of "good faith" the co operative agrees to make an ex gratia payment ...This is the cost of doing business!!!!
Perhaps I have a simplistic view of things, but given that in the world of free trade, some countries (who may remain nameless as I do not wish to end up in the Gutamo gulag) PAY their primary producers not to grow crops in some years so to increase world demand. Our primary producers have to suffer the ups and downs of supply and demand without sufficient subsidies, no one suggests to them that for the price of the yield of the previous years crop..They plough this years into the ground!!!
I have watched my family and others struggle to meet the every increasing demand placed on them by co operatives ( what ever happened to dealing direct with a local milk company or the local stock merchant) Government and greedy ass, "would not know a Friesian from Jersey" export conglomerates. There was a time when you sold your milk to the local dairy for processing to Ideal and Pauls, if you had 500l you were paid for 500l if you had 400 same again. Now they only buy a certain amount from you ,therefore causing you to decrease your herd, which in turn requires less pasture. You have excess pasture on which you are paying rates on, water privileges and taxes as a primary producer, but the co op will only purchase XX amount of your produce. Many Australians do not realise that the beef and lamb they consume is second rate to the produce exported overseas. The incentive to supply the local market is not there as there is no money unless you are willing to meet the criteria for the export market, then what is deemed unsuitable is sold on the local market BUT at the export market rate. We are being held to ransom by the "big business" of farming, they enforce quotas which are either un achievable or not tenable. The days of selling your excess to whoever you wished outside of a contract quota have gone...Excess yield in the market place would decrease the market price and therefore the profit. In years past, meat produce prices increased and decreased with drought and disaster conditions, good rains and decreased irrigation costs,less stock meant less produce for market and an increased cost to keep what you had alive for market, more stock meant more for market therefore a steady supply and a cheaper cost. However, meat prices have continued to increase regardless of these "deciders".
As opposed to popular belief, it is not the "cow cockies", graziers and other primary producers who are getting rich from this...If it was the case why are so many young people turning their backs on the "family business" and the chance to be your their boss to go work at Coles or Mc Donalds? Because, as a farmer, you no longer have the right to decide to have another 50 head because the milk is not part of your quota and your contract with ABC BUyers is only for 80 carcasses per season. This is not free trade, this is not free enterprise, this is not farming by choice...soon there will be no one wanting to farm and that will be a real loss to our heritage.
Apparently, as is the "norm" with the so called free trade and enterprise within this world of ours, some shipments arrive, as per specifications, be they live exports, produce, goods, whatever and are found to be "faulty" or some part of the shipment agreement has not been adhered to or the consignment note conditions have not been met....So you have umpteen tonnes of wheat in port in a foreign land, you have farmers to pay back home and the country to which you are exporting is/was under sanctions and the people of this country need the wheat. SO what do you do, you make an ex gratia payment for the consignment to be accepted. How this works out in $$ I cannot see as the shipment would have been worth less than the $ paid and any further shipment might be up for the same treatment. This happens on a smaller local level too, a grocery chain has purchased 12 pallets of lettuce from a co operative, whilst the consignment is in transit, they are give "incentives" to purchase same from another supplier, which they do. Dilemma...2 deliveries of lettuce due, accept the one the "incentive" was given for and when the other arrives...Find some fault with it, "freezer burn" is a common enough complaint and refuse to sign con. note or accept delivery. Details are discussed and no fault can be found, transport co refuses to accept liability, goods are going to be wasted, in an act of "good faith" the co operative agrees to make an ex gratia payment ...This is the cost of doing business!!!!
Perhaps I have a simplistic view of things, but given that in the world of free trade, some countries (who may remain nameless as I do not wish to end up in the Gutamo gulag) PAY their primary producers not to grow crops in some years so to increase world demand. Our primary producers have to suffer the ups and downs of supply and demand without sufficient subsidies, no one suggests to them that for the price of the yield of the previous years crop..They plough this years into the ground!!!
I have watched my family and others struggle to meet the every increasing demand placed on them by co operatives ( what ever happened to dealing direct with a local milk company or the local stock merchant) Government and greedy ass, "would not know a Friesian from Jersey" export conglomerates. There was a time when you sold your milk to the local dairy for processing to Ideal and Pauls, if you had 500l you were paid for 500l if you had 400 same again. Now they only buy a certain amount from you ,therefore causing you to decrease your herd, which in turn requires less pasture. You have excess pasture on which you are paying rates on, water privileges and taxes as a primary producer, but the co op will only purchase XX amount of your produce. Many Australians do not realise that the beef and lamb they consume is second rate to the produce exported overseas. The incentive to supply the local market is not there as there is no money unless you are willing to meet the criteria for the export market, then what is deemed unsuitable is sold on the local market BUT at the export market rate. We are being held to ransom by the "big business" of farming, they enforce quotas which are either un achievable or not tenable. The days of selling your excess to whoever you wished outside of a contract quota have gone...Excess yield in the market place would decrease the market price and therefore the profit. In years past, meat produce prices increased and decreased with drought and disaster conditions, good rains and decreased irrigation costs,less stock meant less produce for market and an increased cost to keep what you had alive for market, more stock meant more for market therefore a steady supply and a cheaper cost. However, meat prices have continued to increase regardless of these "deciders".
As opposed to popular belief, it is not the "cow cockies", graziers and other primary producers who are getting rich from this...If it was the case why are so many young people turning their backs on the "family business" and the chance to be your their boss to go work at Coles or Mc Donalds? Because, as a farmer, you no longer have the right to decide to have another 50 head because the milk is not part of your quota and your contract with ABC BUyers is only for 80 carcasses per season. This is not free trade, this is not free enterprise, this is not farming by choice...soon there will be no one wanting to farm and that will be a real loss to our heritage.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Sour grapes????
ROTFLMAO is what I have been doing as this story is a bit of a laugh
Political aspiration is a strange mistress, it causes some to act with outright rage and desperation and jealousy yet in others it creates humility, gratitude and grace.
Political aspiration is a strange mistress, it causes some to act with outright rage and desperation and jealousy yet in others it creates humility, gratitude and grace.
Monday, February 20, 2006
What next????
I was aghast at this story regarding an ASX listed company trying to palm fines off onto workers, never mind that childcare workers are amongst the lowest paid employees in the community and that this corporation just keep gobbling up centres all over...If a centre is lax, it is the upper echelons who are at fault, not the workers. These are children we are talking about and many child care workers;despite the pay, LOVE their work; but they are forced to cut corners due to cost efficiency measures bought about by the corporate owners. I know centres who run AM shifts with one mothercraft nurse and two teenagers who come in before school, the Level 1, 2 and 3 childcare workers come in after 0900. The system of checking is flawed, the Department of Human Services needs to have carte blanc entry rights to child care centres at ANY time. Surely they realise that correct staff ratios are adhered to when they are in attendance only, the rest is just names written in a book as they have no access to pay details or hours worked for cross referencing.
Now, corporate child care giants want to have the fines for failure to comply with regulations enforced on the employees. Hello, work at the coal face for a while and see how you cope with the work conditions you enforce as POLICY!!! Coporatisation has no place in the care of our children. Bottom line is that a child absconded from a western suburbs centre, question is
How did they get out if child proof locking devices where installed??
And the child was gone for 1/2 hour, fine, a head count was done prior and another not due until a staff change over or movement from indoor to outdoor activity. This is tantamount to saying that truck drivers have to pay for losses in transit, train drivers reimburse commuters for late train arrivals. Seems the onus is on the OWNER not the employee, due diligence in mantaining a fit and proper place for the carrying out of the work for which is was intended. You can buy up the centres so that you own hundreds but the fact remains that the owner is where the buck stops. Give me a owner run and operated creche any day, least the owner is on site working with the staff, not in a highrise office unaware of any staff except the sycophants in the offices about them. Wake up and smell the nappies corporate creches.
Now, corporate child care giants want to have the fines for failure to comply with regulations enforced on the employees. Hello, work at the coal face for a while and see how you cope with the work conditions you enforce as POLICY!!! Coporatisation has no place in the care of our children. Bottom line is that a child absconded from a western suburbs centre, question is
How did they get out if child proof locking devices where installed??
And the child was gone for 1/2 hour, fine, a head count was done prior and another not due until a staff change over or movement from indoor to outdoor activity. This is tantamount to saying that truck drivers have to pay for losses in transit, train drivers reimburse commuters for late train arrivals. Seems the onus is on the OWNER not the employee, due diligence in mantaining a fit and proper place for the carrying out of the work for which is was intended. You can buy up the centres so that you own hundreds but the fact remains that the owner is where the buck stops. Give me a owner run and operated creche any day, least the owner is on site working with the staff, not in a highrise office unaware of any staff except the sycophants in the offices about them. Wake up and smell the nappies corporate creches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!