||Issue No. 267||10 June 2005|
Rivers of Gold
Interview: The Baby Drought
Industrial: Lies, AWAs and Statistics
Workplace: The Invisible Parents
History: Bruce’s Big Blunder
Politics: All God's Children
Economics: Spun Out
International: Shakey Trials
Legal: Civil Distrubance
Review: Crash Course In Racism
Poetry: You're Fired
The Locker Room
All The Way With The USA
Expensive Door Charge
Teen Years in Detention
Court Cases are Media’s Drug
Lang Is Right
Hertz Meenz Hurtz
Letters to the Editor
As a current Security Operative my interest in the letter Security Lacking (Workers Online , April ,1, 2005), is entirely one of self interest and my first query in relation to this letter is who actually is the author and what is their relationship to the security industry?
I would also query his suggestion that the current high profile of Chubb should be a reason to facilitate a round-table discussion as to work practices and conditions, the implication being that something positive may arise from such dialogue?
While never having worked for Chubb, I cannot form any opinions as to their policies, their procedures and the application of these within the current industrial legislation.
The companies I have worked for have been very aware of the safety of their employees and their work practices and conditions reflect this. So the opinions I have formed as to Chubb are merely from new papers, anecdotal and hearsay and I would expect some would say heresy, but in a democracy they are still valid.
It is my view that rather than some round-table discussions, which could be construed as being a fair and equitable weight being given to the views of all parties, when the reality is that we now live in a deliberative democracy, a euphemism for contemporary feudalism, with the lord of the manor being the CEO of a corporation, a usually anonymous conglomerate of individuals hiding behind corporate law, an entity which the Howard Government is currently, attempting to animate as having the same rights as an individual citizen, with the ability to sue individuals for defamation. This legislation will effectively stifle if not completely remove the ability for free speech.
So while I found John McPhilbins letter interesting, but without example of either what his first paragraph refers to, or actual incidents as examples it was also very ambiguous with the exception of his last paragraph and the only suggestion that I would offer is that the behaviour of the dominant security providers be subject to a Royal Commission.
|Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue|