on โ25-09-2013 07:04 PM
on โ26-09-2013 09:56 AM
what deniers ? rather extreme reactions for a general discussion Crikey
on โ26-09-2013 10:05 AM
@debra9275 wrote:Crikey, the topic is about Telstra axing yet more jobs and outsourcing to countries with cheaper wages. they do it purely to increase their profit margins
business has been outsourcing the supply of parts and labour for years, IT is especially easy to out source.
Many if not most companies are driven by profit for their owners and have little or no social conscience regardless of how we think they should operate.
The only way to control a company is to own it our selves, like all the other publicly owned services that were sold of to private operates for a quick $$ and now we are all paying far more for both the services and lost jobs and having to pay even more tax to make up the lost income from the profitable ones, and yes they had to have had a profit potensial or no one would have bought them.
Its very interesting I just did a little research and calulation and the goverment could quite easily buy Telstra back.
After working out what they recieved for each share from the T1 T2 & T3 sale they recieved $4.77 average per share and last night Telstra close at just $4.93 so it isnt out of reach.
Same they spent all our public money on huge pays for pollies that raped our public assets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra
this bit is of huge concern to me and something I have never heard about
The 17% remainder of Telstra was placed in Australia's Future Fund, which will provide superannuation and pensions for Australia's public servants.[10] In 2009, the Future Fund sold off another $2.4B worth of shares reducing the government's stake in Telstra to 10.9%.[11]
Its no wonder they need to get rid of public servants or have them on short term contracts, so they dont get these benifits, shame they didnt work out that they will still need to pay them out of the public purse regardles of the fact its a super or welfare payment.
on โ26-09-2013 10:07 AM
โ26-09-2013 10:20 AM - edited โ26-09-2013 10:23 AM
@the_hawk* wrote:
@debra9275 wrote:Crikey, the topic is about Telstra axing yet more jobs and outsourcing to countries with cheaper wages. they do it purely to increase their profit margins
business has been outsourcing the supply of parts and labour for years, IT is especially easy to out source.
Many if not most companies are driven by profit for their owners and have little or no social conscience regardless of how we think they should operate.
The only way to control a company is to own it our selves, like all the other publicly owned services that were sold of to private operates for a quick $$ and now we are all paying far more for both the services and lost jobs and having to pay even more tax to make up the lost income from the profitable ones, and yes they had to have had a profit potensial or no one would have bought them.
Its very interesting I just did a little research and calulation and the goverment could quite easily buy Telstra back.
After working out what they recieved for each share from the T1 T2 & T3 sale they recieved $4.77 average per share and last night Telstra close at just $4.93 so it isnt out of reach.
Same they spent all our public money on huge pays for pollies that raped our public assets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra
this bit is of huge concern to me and something I have never heard about
The 17% remainder of Telstra was placed in Australia's Future Fund, which will provide superannuation and pensions for Australia's public servants.[10] In 2009, the Future Fund sold off another $2.4B worth of shares reducing the government's stake in Telstra to 10.9%.[11]
Its no wonder they need to get rid of public servants or have them on short term contracts, so they dont get these benifits, shame they didnt work out that they will still need to pay them out of the public purse regardles of the fact its a super or welfare payment.
The last government had a surplus.
I wonder why they didn't?
Heck if it was that important, they could have just raised a few more taxes, introduced a few more compulsory contributions from the Aust public and raised the money that way.
on โ26-09-2013 10:34 AM
The biggest issue is they have sold income producing assetts for a quick $$ then blown the money,.
There is no point complaining about how a private company operates, it should never have ben sold.
on โ26-09-2013 10:36 AM
@just_me_karen wrote:
Previous governments and international students are irrelevant to this thread, stay on topic. It's about telstra earning record profits and sacking 1,100 employees, most likely to ship the jobs offshore.
So you think it's ok to do that?
hahaha, it's amazing how someone can turn a conversation about Telstra sacking workers into an uninformed attack on Aussie universities. The bonus is each sentence doesn't end with "eh?"
โ26-09-2013 10:38 AM - edited โ26-09-2013 10:40 AM
I have read 'defending the indefensible' so many times over the past few years lol
Crikey, who is suggesting that this is the biggest problem ? We are discussing a current matter .yes we he have a new PM now...
We won't stop or limit discussion ,stop having a here and now or a future and all that involves ...just because we have a new PM .I hope that he would appreciate that too as well as acknowledge his responsibilities to all of us and his accountabilty .
Our PM should not need to use/have others use the same tactics he used while in opposition.
on โ26-09-2013 10:43 AM
huh?
on โ26-09-2013 10:45 AM
@just_me_karen wrote:
Previous governments and international students are irrelevant to this thread, stay on topic. It's about telstra earning record profits and sacking 1,100 employees, most likely to ship the jobs offshore.
So you think it's ok to do that?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Gee, that's really bad, eh?
What a mean nasty thing to do.
Now we just wait for every other CSer to come in and say the same thing. Is that what you want?
Of course it looks to be a bad thing, no one (and especially not me) is saying otherwise.
But there are other factors involved.
There are other factors which drive these kinds of decisions. It's kinda important to put it all into perspective.
Might not be palatable, and we may wish it were different. but it's not.
The nuts and bolsts of this thread and this decision is WHY?
Why is it like this?
Why doesn't the Gov prevent it or buy back the shares etc?
There's a much bigger picture.
on โ26-09-2013 10:48 AM
@the_hawk* wrote:The biggest issue is they have sold income producing assetts for a quick $$ then blown the money,.
There is no point complaining about how a private company operates, it should never have ben sold.
Maybe not.
Why did they sell?
Who blew the money?
Why doesn't anyone fix it and buy back the shares or introduce legislation to control how they operate?