My take on Kathy Jackson's evidence at the Royal Commission yesterday
Morning editorial on 31 July 2014 - the day after The Hearing!

Amortiser's take on the Peter Mac agreement

I've spoken with Amortiser several times and I respect his counsel.   Here's his take on the commercial and real-life implications of the Peter Mac agreement (for context, he's responding to another thread).

You then state, in effect, that the union was complicit in dudding the Peter Mac researchers. This I think is nonsense and the evidence put forward by Stoljar clearly shows this. The whole process was put to the workers concerned and they agreed to the outcome. While they did not receive back pay they did get an enhanced outcome into the future. The alternative was that 38 staff would lose their jobs as there was no money to pay the shortfall in entitlements. In this regard, the union showed a level of understanding that is absent in many such organisations. Other unions show no compunction in sending businesses to the wall resulting in their employees losing their livelihoods. The researchers knew what the ramifications were for their jobs and in full knowledge of what the situation was acceded to the Deed of Settlement. What on earth was wrong with that?