<< REPUTATION CEMENTED ~ MAIN ~ TOP MAN DOWN >>

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE

Community and Public Sector Union ABC section secretary Graeme Thomson complains about ABC managing director Mark Scott:

We’ve been trying to talk with him for 10 months. So I don’t think him telling us they’re prepared to talk at the 11th hour was in good faith.

Scott was appointed just four months ago.

(Via reader Ian C.)

UPDATE. Mr Thomson claims to have been misquoted by the Age:

As someone who earnestly encourages others to check their facts and sources, should I be surprised that Mr Tim Blair did not bother to check the comments attributed to me?

For the record …

We have been trying to negotiate with them (management…not the MD) for 10 months.

Your posting makes a cute, but trite point. That is unfortunate because the issues at stake here are serious.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/21/2006 at 09:16 PM
  1. why let the truth get in the way of a good story

    Posted by Killaette on 2006 09 21 at 09:22 PM • permalink

  2. Does anybody know whether the dreaded Australian Workplace Agreements operate within the ABC. Like, do Kerry O’Brien or Geraldine Doogue negotiate their own contracts or do the union do it for them? Is say, Phillip Adams paid at the rate of a Journalist Grade 3?

    Are some of the ABC’s loudest critics of AWA’s in fact beneficiaries of an AWA?

    Also, while we’re at it, if some individuals within the ABC can negotiate their own contracts direct with management, why must the hoipoloi lower profile staff have to have their wages and conditions collectively bargained for by their union?

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 21 at 09:59 PM • permalink

  3. Tsk, don’t be so culturally insensitive ABC workers have a different sense of time, be sensitive to their needs please. They dont do ‘whitefella time.’

    Posted by Nic on 2006 09 21 at 10:47 PM • permalink

  4. Sack the lot,who watches ABC anyhow?

    Posted by gnasher on 2006 09 22 at 12:08 AM • permalink

  5. stay out on strike abc staffers as long as you like….....it’s much better quality tv.

    Posted by vinny on 2006 09 22 at 02:19 AM • permalink

  6. #2… Ha!... good point Bonmot…  Do as I say, not as I do indeed…

    Posted by Isumbras on 2006 09 22 at 02:25 AM • permalink

  7. I’d be surprised if Kerry O’Brien or Phat Phil even belonged to the union.

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 09 22 at 03:06 AM • permalink

  8. As someone who earnestly encourages others to check their facts and sources, should I be surprised that Mr Tim Blair did not bother to check the comments attributed to me?

    For the record…

    We have been trying to negotiate with them (management…not the MD) for 10 months.

    Your posting makes a cute, but trite point. That is unfortunate because the issues at stake here are serious.

    Posted by Graeme Thomson on 2006 09 22 at 03:10 AM • permalink

  9. Serious Graeme? Really?

    Are these workers on the breadline by any chance? Do they work in an unfair working environment with sweatshop like conditions? On what basis does this ambit claim with ‘guerilla tactics’involve ‘serious stakes’?

    Do your best.

    Posted by Nic on 2006 09 22 at 03:34 AM • permalink

  10. Memo To: Mr Graeme Thomson, c/- ABC

    Welcome aboard Australia’s pre-eminent blog Mr Thomson. Here you will learn many things quite foreign to the usual thought patterns of your colleagues.

    Here you will learn that balance actaully exists in the real world. Here you will learn that there are some truly deep thinkers beavering away in the blog business.

    And lastly, you will learn that many of the shiboleths that the left hold gospel, are in fact houses of cards - easily blown away by the simple application of FACTS!

    Keep posting. We will all find your contributions interesting.

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 22 at 03:58 AM • permalink

  11. Mr Thomson, perhaps you could outline to us why you are arguing for a 16% pay rise. The 3.5% rise offer has been rejected, and said that it fails to even meet inflation (which is 4%) - what justifies a pay rise which is four times greater than inflation?

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 09 22 at 03:59 AM • permalink

  12. #8 - that’s not what Kate Hagan of The Age says Graeme. She says “him” (Thomson), not “them” (the management). So it looks like you have been misquoted by The Age. If so, you should demand an apology. This is a serious slur and a not very clever attempt by The Age to make an union official appear incompetent.

    Fancy The Age getting their facts wrong. Who would’ve ever thought it.

    Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 09 22 at 04:09 AM • permalink

  13. “a union” - pimf

    Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 09 22 at 04:10 AM • permalink

  14. why stop at 16%? i think the ABC staff deserve more i reckon they should try for 300%. keep striking until management caves!

    Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2006 09 22 at 04:14 AM • permalink

  15. #8 graeme

    We the public are paying for your distortion of “news” ,we are your employers.
    You do not deserve a rise,it is that simple.

    Posted by gnasher on 2006 09 22 at 04:27 AM • permalink

  16. #2, you won’t find any of this in the ABC’s Annual Report, which doesn’t include a breakdown of staff by level or workplace arrangement, only by Divsion/Location.

    Interesting to note that in 2004-05, Eighty-one ABC senior executives received performance bonuses, an average of $5 494 per senior executive. Seventy-six non-executive employees received bonuses, an average of $4 956. Unless the ratio of Senior to non-Senior staff is around 81/76,then the management gets, or rather gives itself, a somewhat disproportionate level of rewards.

    Posted by Consuela Potez on 2006 09 22 at 05:46 AM • permalink

  17. # 8 the exhalted Graeme Thomson

    Gee, I bet you needed to have ABC the IT department temporarily disable their internet filters so you could access this rightie blog!

    Your posting makes a cute, but trite point. That is unfortunate because the issues at stake here are serious.

    Ummm… “serious”, why / how?  Most of Australia couldn’t give a rat’s arse if you get a pay rise or stay on strike permanently.  What are your ratings like again?

    Aren’t you concerned that a pay rise for the ABC elite will widen the gap between the rich and poor in Australia?  Have a heart!!  Will the ABC be reporting reaction from ACOSS?

    As Paddy McGuinness so eloquently stated: if the staff get their 16% pay rise, there’s no additional drag on the taxpayer (for now) - the ABC management just has to cut services somewhere else.  Presumably job cuts will be part of this.  But not yours, Graeme - I’m sure you fulfill an essential function within the ABC.  Telephone sanitiser perhaps?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 09 22 at 06:12 AM • permalink

  18. Maybe because he is a Liberal Party stooge?

    Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 09 22 at 07:51 AM • permalink

  19. The Coodabeen Champions were on in the morning, it made my day.  The ABC going on strike is a positive step.

    BTW, I’m now back in Sydney.

    Posted by Stevo on 2006 09 22 at 09:02 AM • permalink

  20. Stop Continental Drift!

    Dirty telephones cause plagues.

    However TV executives are Ark-B fodder.

    Posted by Rob Read on 2006 09 22 at 10:27 AM • permalink

  21. Oooh boy

    #10 As well as learning all that other stuff, if he continues to post here, Mr Thomson will get the opportunity to learn the real difference between an insult and an offer of a payrise.

    Baby steps…

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 22 at 11:03 AM • permalink

  22. Easy mistake to make. Those manager guys all look alike in their fancy suits when you’re a representative of the downtrodden masses.

    Posted by PW on 2006 09 22 at 04:14 PM • permalink

  23. Oh, and Graeme:

    ... Tim Blair did not bother to check the comments attributed to me ...

    I will look forward to your reader contribution to The Age setting the record straight on their misquotation of you. You did mean to say that they’re the ones who screwed it up, right?

    Posted by PW on 2006 09 22 at 04:18 PM • permalink

  24. 10 months? They have been haranguing the rest of us for many years.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 09 22 at 05:00 PM • permalink

  25. Hey, Thomson, many people aspire to “cute but trite”. Don’t kill my dream.

    Posted by paco on 2006 09 22 at 11:28 PM • permalink

  26. #8

    ...the issues at stake here are serious.

    Hey Thommo, do you mean the Age’s misquote, or workplace practices at the ABC? If it’s the former, do something about it rather than whining here! If it’s the latter, then f—k off. If there’s a group of Australians less deserving of a pay rise, it’s public service journalists. Is there anybody in the ABC who actually understands the concept of hard work? You are a useless sack of s—t and may you lead ABC employees into a year-long strike after which the organisation will be dead.

    All the best to you, you scum-sucking swamp infestation.

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 09 23 at 12:16 AM • permalink

  27. Mr. Thomson, you said:

    As someone who earnestly encourages others to check their facts and sources, should I be surprised that Mr Tim Blair did not bother to check the comments attributed to me?

    The complete quote of you, from The Age article Tim linked to, follows:

    The “11th-hour” timing of the email showed it was not sent in good faith, Community and Public Sector Union ABC section secretary Graeme Thomson said.

    “We’ve been trying to talk with him for 10 months.

    “So I don’t think him telling us they’re prepared to talk at the 11th hour was in good faith.

    “But we’ll take it at face value and make contact to re-open negotiations.”

    Emphasis is mine.

    Your quote in the age specifically refers to Mark Scott as “him” twice, and the ABC in general once.  Tim directly quoted the Age quoting you.  Any errors, or lack of fact checking and sources, can only be attributed to either the Age or to yourself.

    Therefore, any complaints should be directed to the Age.  Your complaint is nothing more than a whine after being outed for making an error in public, an attempt to discredit the messenger with your “cute but trite” comment.

    Being part of a news organization, you are well aware that you can contact the Age to complain about any errors.  You’ve had a couple days to do. 

    Have you contacted the Age about a correction?  Has one been published?  Or have you avoided contacting the Age because you know that you are in error?

    Your credibility is on the line, Mr. Thomson.  Not because you made an error, which in fact is understandable.  But because you seem to be attempting to hide the fact that you made an error.  That’s unethical, and a stupid move over such a silly event.

    So you can either request the Age to make a correction, and at least complain to the right source, or ignore this point…..and look like a ignorant fool. 

    Your call.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 23 at 12:53 AM • permalink

  28. I know you just want to have a go…but the question you rise is valid and deserves a straight answer.

    There has been significant media distortion about the nature of our claim.

    16% represents the extent to which salaries have fallen when compared with general community movements over the past ten years. This figure can easily be easily verified by comparing ABC wages (on the public record…see Wagenet) against the official ABS figures on Average Weekly Ordinary Tiem Earnings.

    While a 16% increase may be fair, it is clearly not achievable in an ABC that has been bled of funds by sucessive governmnets (both Liberal and Labor). What we have consistently said is that we will take any salary offer back to members for their consideration.

    Posted by Graeme Thomson on 2006 09 23 at 01:01 AM • permalink

  29. Looks like Graeme Thomson went to the Margo Kingston school of spelling.

    I expect more for my 8 cents a day.

    Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 09 23 at 01:45 AM • permalink

  30. Oafish, no doubt their reporting is just as accurate…

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 09 23 at 02:12 AM • permalink

  31. trite  –adjective,  1. lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale: the trite phrases in his letter. 

    2. characterized by hackneyed expressions, ideas, etc.: The commencement address was trite and endlessly long. 

    3. Archaic. rubbed or worn by use. 

    Not to be pedantic or anything, but I’m curious.  How is Tim’s comment trite?  Is Thomson saying Tim’s been rubbing something?

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 23 at 04:02 AM • permalink

  32. You know, I’m sure I’m the minority here when I say this.  But I’m glad when persons who are involved in an issue commented by Tim come here to explain their position or side of the affair.  It takes guts to do so.  And consequently, I’m inclined to treat them a bit more gingerly than the usual commenters here.

    I appreciate Mr. Thomson’s two comments explaining the demand for a 16% raise.  In my job when I negotiate, I too will start out with the highest demand I can, but I make sure I justify it as well as I can.  It’s not an unreasonable thing to do.  It’s just part of the back and forth.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 23 at 04:13 AM • permalink

  33. I’m with Wronwright. Well done, Graeme for joining the mass of seething Blairites.

    You’re a brave man.

    I would also like to nominate Hanyu for Diplomat of the Week.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 23 at 07:38 AM • permalink

  34. I was going to jump in to poor Mr Thompson, but then I read #29 and realised that the_real_jeffs had only left a few feathers and bones on the road

    Posted by Big Jim on 2006 09 23 at 07:43 AM • permalink

  35. Er… # 27 that is

    Posted by Big Jim on 2006 09 23 at 07:44 AM • permalink

  36. Sent to graeme (dot) thomson (at) cpsu.org.au:

    Mr Thomson;

    I noticed that you answered my question on http://www.timblair.net about how a 16% pay rise is justified for ABC staff. While I disagree with your argument, I would like to commend you for taking the time to respond. I was not in fact trying to have a go, but was genuinely curious about how the figure came about. Thank you for responding.


    Ian Deans

    I’m not a fan of unions, but it is nice to see that some people are still prepare to engage in discussion like this.

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 09 23 at 08:55 AM • permalink

  37. Of course the term “cute but trite” doesn’t make any sense in this context, but it does convey a kind of school-marmish condescension that I am all for.

    I hope Mr Thomson doesn’t mind if I borrow it.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 23 at 10:17 AM • permalink

  38. wronwright, you are correct.  Mr. Thomson is to be commended for coming here to defend his people and their desire for a pay increase.  His care and concern for this matter is obvious, his passion laudable.  For this, I salute him, even if I do disagree with the very concept of the ABC, as I do with National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast System.

    On the other hand…...

    Has anyone seen a correction in the Age of Mr. Thomson’s quote?  Or any indication that he even bothered to request a correction?

    Just asking.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 23 at 12:02 PM • permalink

  39. Big Jim, thanks for the high praise!

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 23 at 12:05 PM • permalink

  40. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.