Union battles builder at the National Gallery

P.S. When it comes to finding the truth, I was always taught to look not listen.

Oh, ho!

You say you’ve cleaned your room and you can go out to play, hmmm?

Let’s have a look.

But wait ….

Hark and lo!

What is this stuffed under the bed, my good offspring?

As a single mother I had some exceedingly bad experiences with the effects of strikes back in the 80’s, so I am as far removed from your traditional union supporter as north is from south.

In fact, if you wanted to make me really, really angry you only had to mention the word ‘union’. Too bad if you were referring to the British flag …. *Tee hee* But I digress!

I have just come to realise over the last few years how much tireless work the few unsung union reps do on behalf of the many individuals that come to them for help with injustices that are too big for them alone.

I am all for balance, and that necessarily does include the existence and involvement of trade unions.

It still seems to me that it is the company that is playing the political games with the stakes being safety.

There wouldn’t be any need for games if they just let the representatives of those workers that are union members inspect the site.

How bad can it be to double check?

Granny I suspect that your are using the term “workers” to mean “union members”. Whilst they can be both they are not all both.

This appears, on face value, to be an essentially political excercise on the part of the union rather than being about the safety of construction workers. That’s fine. But so is the choice of the company to not play political games.

The whole point is that the workers, the people who have to trust their lives to the place, are obviously not satisfied, and if they are so wrong about that then why not let their representatives take a look.

The stakes are much higher for the workers, who are potentially going to be brained by concrete slabs, than for any of the other stakeholders.

The company is going to waste just as much time arguing about it as if they just demonstrated good faith in the first place by acquiescing to the request.

Great photo. Was that on a balloon flight Jb?

Clown Killer said :

It’s the company that bears the legal responsibility for the safety of the people on its site, and is, in my view the entity best placed to decide how that goal is achieved. If the company’s happy, and Workcover are happy then there really doesn’t seem to be any need to take things further.

Leave it up to those benevolent employers and the A.C.T. Government’s Workcover. No wonder the CFMEU wants access.

I suspect we’re arguing at cross purposes here.

If Workcover – who are the legally appointed statutory body responsible for investigating possible breaches of work place safety and enforcing the law have conducted an investigation – as it is claimed – and if they are happy that the crane is safe then I don’t see that anybody’s interests are served by having a duplicate investigation.

Construction sites are, as you suggest potentially dangerous places and the company has a responsibility to manage the risks associated with getting the job done and the safety of their staff and contractors. It’s the company that bears the legal responsibility for the safety of the people on its site, and is, in my view the entity best placed to decide how that goal is achieved. If the company’s happy, and Workcover are happy then there really doesn’t seem to be any need to take things further.

Granny said :

I disagree. If I was representing a group of people with safety concerns in a dangerous industry, I would want to satisfy myself of the actual risk.

I would certainly not want to return to the days when human life was secondary to the expediency of a corporation.

Often the only person who will listen to somebody is their union rep. Workers aren’t stupid. If they think something’s dangerous it probably is.

+1

I disagree. If I was representing a group of people with safety concerns in a dangerous industry, I would want to satisfy myself of the actual risk.

I would certainly not want to return to the days when human life was secondary to the expediency of a corporation.

Often the only person who will listen to somebody is their union rep. Workers aren’t stupid. If they think something’s dangerous it probably is.

I doubt that it’s a case of not having anything to hide Granny. If the appropriate Government people from Workcover or wherever have checked it out and it’s been given the thumbs up, then there’s really nothing more to do and the company probably just wants to get on with the job rather than having to deal with a bunch of visitors on site hosting their own unessessary investigations.

If they have nothing to hide, why not let them in?

Sounds suss.