There's a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) I know, a non metro based engineering firm that engineers & manufactures all sorts of industrial products & does general heavy repairs. A family owned & run operation employing half a dozen staff.
Times have been tight, the business has buckled under and has soaked up some of the slowly decreasing margins. COVID19 hits and now, they need to stay in the black, maintain some profit buffer to maintain their loan repayments, pay their suppliers, the higher freight charges they get hit with and look after their staff.
They're on the brink of delivering the facts of life to the staff and how they'll all have to buckle under, raise productivity to keep floating in case things get much worse, that there may be some cuts to pay rates to keep the doors open. The mum n dad owners have been putting off this "talk" but had set a date to do it when a week before one of their young staff members hits them up for a pay rise. His award for his position, at his age, at his level of training & experience is just under $24/hour. He's house sharing with 3 young mates. They could be putting money away or should have for the last few years but they've been living high on the hog.
He already gets paid above the award, he gets paid $30/hour. He hits up his employer and says his house mates (who do the same job at a rival business) get $36/hour and that he should too...just as things tighten.
His employers explain there's no way they can afford that but they'll buy him a tank of fuel per week for his car to help make ends meet. He accepts that but still wants an extra $6/hour or rather $13/hour above his award of $24/hour.
Now in 7/11 stores, fuel stations and restaurants across Australia we hear of underpaid staff. They were paid less than they were entitled, they are owed that money and usually court proceedings follow to ensure, quite rightly, that the staff get what they were entitled to. However here we have a case where staff are over paid & want more because the rival employer pays more.
Here's what happened. The owners of the 2 businesses got together and had a chat. Turns out the other business is NOT paying $36/hour. He pays exactly the same amount. He also spent an entire day with his accountant just trying to tackle & interpret the Award. Its was a mine field.
There's some discussion now about one clause, which I'm yet to track down, one clause in the act covering payments above the award. It may be that staff may be entitled to the award but perhaps now it seems the employer has the right to expect that the above award segment is credited to the employer, that either there's a rise in productivity or a stretch in hours work to the value of the over payment.
In any case, both businesses actually knock the staff off work 15 minutes BEFORE time each day. So they're working 1.25 hours less per week than their supposed to, they're getting paid $7/hour extra for every hour they work (and the 1.25 hours a week they don't) and now one is getting a free tank of fuel.
So now we have a business with reducing margins, trying to rationalise the costs they can and the young staff member wants more he feels he is entitled to, despite the effect on the business and they size of his current over payment.
How this will pan out I don't know, the business will either continue on tighter margins and survive until a post COVID19 economic recovery, or go broke and close. Or the staff take a pay cut, work their full hours and share in the pain with the business owners to keep open, to keep working, to keep in a place where they can survive and reposition as things improve.
I am actually not going to be surprised if the young staff member comes out with "Yeah but I need the extra money, I'm buying a jet ski"
I think its time for the Government to rationalise or at least simplify the Awards, reduce the number of awards and reduce the need for lawyers to be required at every turn. In the meantime one daft young staff member has ear marked himself as perhaps needing to be the first staff member let go when times get even tougher. Ironically this is a business where the owners have been other people's staff members so they said they would never pay below the award. Yet with this slap in the face during their greatest financial threat I think they can be forgiven for paying exactly the Award Rate & not one cent more and expecting staff to work their entire required hours each week.
Saturday, 4 April 2020
Wednesday, 18 March 2020
Albany's State Election
Albany is in a unique spot come the next State Election less than a year away. We have an incumbent member retiring from politics and we have a very open race.
We have 3 parties who're in the box seat to win the seat but (all things being equal) it's likely to be a very slender win whoever wins it.
Labor has held it for a long time but now everything has changed.
Peter Watson is a really nice bloke, has never done anything bad, controversial or scandalous but fair to say he hasn't actually brought anything to the region either. He was openly backing the now failed Carnegie Wave Energy until it went belly up into loss mode. Even when it was above the red line the jobs were scant, all in Perth & strangely some in the UK with one in Albany. Now all gone.
Peter Watson was very loud about overcrowding in the Albany Prison whilst in opposition, talking of the need for expansion or another prison. Now he's been in office as a member of the government for 3 years & he's virtually silent enough to hear crickets chirping.
As was predicted 3 years ago, the government took power and Peter Watson was elected to be Speaker of the House signalling his forward silent announcement of retirement. He's 72, about to turn 73 and for the last 3 years as the Speaker he has no involvement in Government business at all.
As Speaker he cannot vote on anything unless there is a tie in the vote. He's not been the most strict Speaker, at times failing badly relying on direction of the clerks and has let things slip badly. Several times the opposition has complained about comments from seated Government members has said "Sorry I didn't hear that"
Yes he does the schools thing, gives away a bike, jumps in front of the camera every chance he can & dons a silly hat to entertain the elderly during the free meal he delivers. He does advocate for those who grace his door with issues, sending correspondence up the chain where required but he hasn't stood loud for any issue.
He hasn't crossed the floor & avoids certain topics like Deregulated Trading Hours.
His replacement the aspiring Rebecca Stephens has entered the fray and will no doubt find the hustings for State Parliament to be far more arduous and mean compared to running for a seat of Councillor of the City of Albany.
In her recent ABC Radio interview she refused to answer on the topic of deregulated trading hours. Why? well apparently she was new to scene of state politics & the Labor party and would have to consult the community.
WRONG.
As a City of Albany Councillor, deregulated trading hours has come before the council and the council, including Rebecca ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST IT. So she has ideas about it, she has a stance on it, she has been briefed on it and for 2 years on the City of Albany council she has or should have been engaged with the community & what they want.
So what happened?
She didn't know what Labor wanted her to say or stand for.
Now we turn to the Adele Farina Incident. Labor put forward the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation in the Lower House. The Premier declared the legislation was sufficient and that wasting time on amendments was not required, that the Upper House should just pass it.
In the end we saw a very slow passage through the Upper House with in the end 55 amendments to the legislation, none of which the Lower House dumped on when it returned to the Lower House. They were needed. Small handful were even put forward by the government. Some were put forward by Upper House Labor MP Adele Farina. All Labor MPs were given a conscience vote, meaning they could vote how their conscience told them without any political reprisals.
WRONG.
Adele voted against the legislation & now she's been thrown under the bus.
Her conscience vote was a Clayton's vote, the conscience vote you have when you don't have a choice.
If it was a normal vote, a non conscience vote and she crossed the floor she would be expelled from the party & opposed at every following election, targeted and socially ex-communicated.
This was a conscience voted where she was expected to vote with the Government by choice, she didn't so she won't be expelled, she will just be prevented from re-entering office. She is to be placed 3rd on the ticket which is virtually unwinnable. She has Alannah McTeirnan taking the number one spot on the ticket so Pierre Yang can take Alannah's spot so he, a very compliant party member & part of a dominating faction, can be kept in Parliament.
This is how Labor operates. No free thinking. No proper representation of the electorate in Parliament.
This is what Rebecca Stephens is walking into & she will not be able to navigate the treacherous waters of the state's Labor Party. Peter Watson stayed low within the party, was one of the few who stayed out of the factions but in the end he was a beige fence sitter in the party and in the Government as an MP. Never set the world on fire, never burnt anything down either. He just sat quietly and smiled nicely.
Whether or not you like Rebecca or not, she's a cooked goose before she even starts. She is a pawn & in her ABC Radio interview even came out saying "Not particularly" when asked if she was a long supporter of the Labor Party. Apparently only recently & her lack of knowledge on the vicious play pen of the state's Labor Party is showing.
This next election is one of the first open contests we've seen in the seat of Albany. Even if you're an avid fan of Councillor Rebecca Stevens, do her a personal favour, don't vote her into State Parliament. She will be a lamb unto the lions. The very hungry lions, she cannot beat the Party Machine & you will in the process lose a young city Councillor. Should she get elected Albany will lose out twice.
In her 7 minute ABCRadio interview she said no comment several times & whilst well spoken she was not telling us anything except she isn't ready for the political cage fight ahead in State Parliament. Our best hope in Albany is to change which party represents it to get more attention & focus "down here" instead of the steady as she goes, token efforts meaning nothing. She will not deliver more than Peter Watson, he didn't deliver much at all. She will be hamstrung from the get go and won't be in a position to deliver anything at all. Our best hope is she loses the state election and decides to return to the City of Albany Council & the Albany seat becomes a more swing seat where you don't get re-elected if you don't perform.
Peter Watson got re-elected but hasn't performed. His retirement has headed off his electoral loss at the pass. Peter Watson is the only winner here if Labor is re-elected. Rebecca Stevens will be devastated if she's elected into the controlling coven and so to will Albany lose through no fault of Rebecca.
Ironically both Albany & Rebecca will actually be far better off if Rebecca loses the election to a conservative. What will be hard, perhaps impossible for some to accept but there's a number of Labor supporters are thinking and very quietly saying this. I expect they'll cease comments lest they get expelled and ex-communicated from the party too.
Next March, if you have a vote, don't waste it. Some will vote Greens but their vote is already wasted. They cannot win the seat & their vote will end up being redirected to the Labor candidate.
A election loss will be a blow to Rebecca personally, but bot she & Albany will be far better off if she loses the election. I wish Labor could lose the seat without the personal blow that Rebecca will receive. So its despite Rebecca and because of Labor that I won't vote for Rebecca and hope few others will.
We have 3 parties who're in the box seat to win the seat but (all things being equal) it's likely to be a very slender win whoever wins it.
Labor has held it for a long time but now everything has changed.
Peter Watson is a really nice bloke, has never done anything bad, controversial or scandalous but fair to say he hasn't actually brought anything to the region either. He was openly backing the now failed Carnegie Wave Energy until it went belly up into loss mode. Even when it was above the red line the jobs were scant, all in Perth & strangely some in the UK with one in Albany. Now all gone.
Peter Watson was very loud about overcrowding in the Albany Prison whilst in opposition, talking of the need for expansion or another prison. Now he's been in office as a member of the government for 3 years & he's virtually silent enough to hear crickets chirping.
As was predicted 3 years ago, the government took power and Peter Watson was elected to be Speaker of the House signalling his forward silent announcement of retirement. He's 72, about to turn 73 and for the last 3 years as the Speaker he has no involvement in Government business at all.
As Speaker he cannot vote on anything unless there is a tie in the vote. He's not been the most strict Speaker, at times failing badly relying on direction of the clerks and has let things slip badly. Several times the opposition has complained about comments from seated Government members has said "Sorry I didn't hear that"
Yes he does the schools thing, gives away a bike, jumps in front of the camera every chance he can & dons a silly hat to entertain the elderly during the free meal he delivers. He does advocate for those who grace his door with issues, sending correspondence up the chain where required but he hasn't stood loud for any issue.
He hasn't crossed the floor & avoids certain topics like Deregulated Trading Hours.
His replacement the aspiring Rebecca Stephens has entered the fray and will no doubt find the hustings for State Parliament to be far more arduous and mean compared to running for a seat of Councillor of the City of Albany.
In her recent ABC Radio interview she refused to answer on the topic of deregulated trading hours. Why? well apparently she was new to scene of state politics & the Labor party and would have to consult the community.
WRONG.
As a City of Albany Councillor, deregulated trading hours has come before the council and the council, including Rebecca ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST IT. So she has ideas about it, she has a stance on it, she has been briefed on it and for 2 years on the City of Albany council she has or should have been engaged with the community & what they want.
So what happened?
She didn't know what Labor wanted her to say or stand for.
Now we turn to the Adele Farina Incident. Labor put forward the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation in the Lower House. The Premier declared the legislation was sufficient and that wasting time on amendments was not required, that the Upper House should just pass it.
In the end we saw a very slow passage through the Upper House with in the end 55 amendments to the legislation, none of which the Lower House dumped on when it returned to the Lower House. They were needed. Small handful were even put forward by the government. Some were put forward by Upper House Labor MP Adele Farina. All Labor MPs were given a conscience vote, meaning they could vote how their conscience told them without any political reprisals.
WRONG.
Adele voted against the legislation & now she's been thrown under the bus.
Her conscience vote was a Clayton's vote, the conscience vote you have when you don't have a choice.
If it was a normal vote, a non conscience vote and she crossed the floor she would be expelled from the party & opposed at every following election, targeted and socially ex-communicated.
This was a conscience voted where she was expected to vote with the Government by choice, she didn't so she won't be expelled, she will just be prevented from re-entering office. She is to be placed 3rd on the ticket which is virtually unwinnable. She has Alannah McTeirnan taking the number one spot on the ticket so Pierre Yang can take Alannah's spot so he, a very compliant party member & part of a dominating faction, can be kept in Parliament.
This is how Labor operates. No free thinking. No proper representation of the electorate in Parliament.
This is what Rebecca Stephens is walking into & she will not be able to navigate the treacherous waters of the state's Labor Party. Peter Watson stayed low within the party, was one of the few who stayed out of the factions but in the end he was a beige fence sitter in the party and in the Government as an MP. Never set the world on fire, never burnt anything down either. He just sat quietly and smiled nicely.
Whether or not you like Rebecca or not, she's a cooked goose before she even starts. She is a pawn & in her ABC Radio interview even came out saying "Not particularly" when asked if she was a long supporter of the Labor Party. Apparently only recently & her lack of knowledge on the vicious play pen of the state's Labor Party is showing.
This next election is one of the first open contests we've seen in the seat of Albany. Even if you're an avid fan of Councillor Rebecca Stevens, do her a personal favour, don't vote her into State Parliament. She will be a lamb unto the lions. The very hungry lions, she cannot beat the Party Machine & you will in the process lose a young city Councillor. Should she get elected Albany will lose out twice.
In her 7 minute ABCRadio interview she said no comment several times & whilst well spoken she was not telling us anything except she isn't ready for the political cage fight ahead in State Parliament. Our best hope in Albany is to change which party represents it to get more attention & focus "down here" instead of the steady as she goes, token efforts meaning nothing. She will not deliver more than Peter Watson, he didn't deliver much at all. She will be hamstrung from the get go and won't be in a position to deliver anything at all. Our best hope is she loses the state election and decides to return to the City of Albany Council & the Albany seat becomes a more swing seat where you don't get re-elected if you don't perform.
Peter Watson got re-elected but hasn't performed. His retirement has headed off his electoral loss at the pass. Peter Watson is the only winner here if Labor is re-elected. Rebecca Stevens will be devastated if she's elected into the controlling coven and so to will Albany lose through no fault of Rebecca.
Ironically both Albany & Rebecca will actually be far better off if Rebecca loses the election to a conservative. What will be hard, perhaps impossible for some to accept but there's a number of Labor supporters are thinking and very quietly saying this. I expect they'll cease comments lest they get expelled and ex-communicated from the party too.
Next March, if you have a vote, don't waste it. Some will vote Greens but their vote is already wasted. They cannot win the seat & their vote will end up being redirected to the Labor candidate.
A election loss will be a blow to Rebecca personally, but bot she & Albany will be far better off if she loses the election. I wish Labor could lose the seat without the personal blow that Rebecca will receive. So its despite Rebecca and because of Labor that I won't vote for Rebecca and hope few others will.
Monday, 2 March 2020
Rego Reduction For Retro Rides - What's Required, Plain & Simple
Several months ago the WA Minister for Transport, Rita Saffioti MLA announced the "Rego Reduction for Retro Rides". It was a concept announcement with details to follow with a full announcement later in the year. (See more below *)
In broad terms it is a 75% fee reduction for classic &/or modified cars 30 years & older. Its a great initiative. Long overdue & installed in most other states.
1) There is some time before the final structure is unveiled but there rough outline seems to be this.
a) Cars must be 30 years and older
b) The scheme has nothing to do with the vintage/veteran car club scheme people refer to as the "404"
c) Owners will be restricted to a set time useable in a calendar year, generally accepted to be 25% of the year (roughly 90 days)
d) It will be a club based scheme, administered & policed by clubs and their officials
e) Log books may be required or registering the club runs via an App may be introduced
f) People will be penalised for falsifying their log book or driving over their allotted days or driving without club sanction
g) Cars must only be within their allowable 90 days use & then only on club organised runs & events.
h) Cars must still be legal & roadworthy.
i) Cars in the scheme will have an "identifier" which is said to be an attached bar on the number plate with the words "RESTRICTED USE ONLY" or similar.
Some of these things are already being touted as "Not Negotiable" which can be rejected straight away as no department has the ability to declare what is and isn't negotiable. The Minister might and the minister will have to account for that position in the Parliament. No one else has supreme ruling authority to tell the public to "hush now, do as you're told".
Lets please not forget the wide chasm of definition between the two phrases "Public" and "Public Servant"
(2) Things which are acceptable and easily wise decisions for inclusion.
a) Cars must be 30 years or older.
b) Log books may be required
c) People are penalised for non compliance. Steep fines, impounding the vehicle for 30 days & delicencing the vehicle and exclusion of the individual from entering into the scheme for 5 years (as examples only) would not phase most right minded people who don't break the rules.
d) The cars must (like any other vehicle) be kept in good order, be roadworthy and street legal. This means complying with VSB-14 or the engineering certificate that belongs to the car or the Street Rod National Guidelines. Very straight forward & simple.
e) The "Identifier" - Whatever the department defines as being attached to the number plate to signify to authorities that its on the scheme is not only fair but actually required and wise. If its as is rumoured I doubt anyone right minded will care too much. Plenty of cars run the Vintage identifier or the Veteran identifier on the number plate.
3) What isn't required and why...
a) "Club involvement is required" - No it isn't at all, clubs do not need extra burdens such as organising events, runs & cruises to keep members happy as well as policing & enforcing compliance to the scheme and extra administration to keep the department happy. Forcing people to join a club to access the scheme when its not required is what's referred to as "Third Line Enforcement" - its an ugly solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The scheme would largely be taken up by those already in clubs and those borderline thinking of joining a club. People in country areas cannot. I spoke with 2 people from Jerramungup who are 160kms from the nearest club. I received an email from a chap from Carnarvon today, again no club. Got emails from 3 others across the Pilbara & if you think they can form a club, no you'll need 10 people and those 3 are 200kms at the closest. This scheme if connected to club membership will be appealing to metro car owners only & then only those who are keen to join a club or already in a club. There are many people who do not want to join a club. Start your own club? Well its likely a eligible club will have to be an incorporated body.
There's also the case that this is for personal reduced road use, not club life. If a person wants to duck down the shops, go for a joy ride on a great day, drive their daughter & date to the school ball, take the wife out for an evening meal, attend a hot rodder's funeral or go for an impromptu run anywhere they have limited or no ability under the club only prospect. Its dictating use of personal property.
b) "Extra administration is required." No it isn't at all. With a simple logbook (or App log book) a car owner can record their allotted day's driving before leaving and they're done. With the number plate identifier the police can pull the vehicle over for a log book check if they need to, all in order and their on their way. With it being a Logbook App the police don't even have to pull them over, just access the App system, punch in the number plate and see if they're on a pre-logged day of use or if they're outside their 90 days. Simple. No onus on a club, its left up to the individual to do the right thing or suffer the consequences if they don't. It really is that simple
Its does not need to be a club managed trip on club organised event, they can go to the shops to get the paper, go to a family outing, take the wife or significant other out, do the school ball, the wedding because its about life on limited days of road use, NOT club life.
c) "The Indentifier means police will hassle car owners" - No. Flatly No.
Its a small price yet wise price to pay. Already we have Taxi plates in WA, we have Vintage identifier, Veteran Club Identifiers and we also have Farm Plates for limited road use of tractors, trucks, farm utes & fire fighting units. None have resulted in unfair police scrutiny, none require a club sanction, policing or approval, NONE. The individual is solely responsible and if they break compliance they & only they rightly suffer the consequences.
d) All other states have this as a club based registration scheme so we have to as well - Well no.
I'm not certain all states have this solely as a club based scheme but even if they do, they are other jurisdictions, they are not Western Australia and we can design and implement a better, simpler scheme that is available to all Western Australians no matter where in WA's 2.6 million square kilometres they live.
At the end of the day, if the car is unroadworthy on the scheme, it would be unroadworthy on a normal registration. Don't keep an unroadworthy car.
At the end of the day, if you drive in a reckless or unsafe manner on the scheme, it would be unsafe and reckless on normal registration. Don't do that.
Its not rocket science, it doesn't have to be onerous and cumbersome to adhere to or comply with. It can be simple. It also can not only be made simple with consequences laid at the feet of transgressing individuals but with the smarter, simpler scheme framework rural & regional people will be able to access the scheme instead of being unfairly disadvantaged.
* Background information - https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2020/01/McGowan-Government-flags-classic-car-and-street-rod-rego-discount.aspx
In broad terms it is a 75% fee reduction for classic &/or modified cars 30 years & older. Its a great initiative. Long overdue & installed in most other states.
1) There is some time before the final structure is unveiled but there rough outline seems to be this.
a) Cars must be 30 years and older
b) The scheme has nothing to do with the vintage/veteran car club scheme people refer to as the "404"
c) Owners will be restricted to a set time useable in a calendar year, generally accepted to be 25% of the year (roughly 90 days)
d) It will be a club based scheme, administered & policed by clubs and their officials
e) Log books may be required or registering the club runs via an App may be introduced
f) People will be penalised for falsifying their log book or driving over their allotted days or driving without club sanction
g) Cars must only be within their allowable 90 days use & then only on club organised runs & events.
h) Cars must still be legal & roadworthy.
i) Cars in the scheme will have an "identifier" which is said to be an attached bar on the number plate with the words "RESTRICTED USE ONLY" or similar.
Some of these things are already being touted as "Not Negotiable" which can be rejected straight away as no department has the ability to declare what is and isn't negotiable. The Minister might and the minister will have to account for that position in the Parliament. No one else has supreme ruling authority to tell the public to "hush now, do as you're told".
Lets please not forget the wide chasm of definition between the two phrases "Public" and "Public Servant"
(2) Things which are acceptable and easily wise decisions for inclusion.
a) Cars must be 30 years or older.
b) Log books may be required
c) People are penalised for non compliance. Steep fines, impounding the vehicle for 30 days & delicencing the vehicle and exclusion of the individual from entering into the scheme for 5 years (as examples only) would not phase most right minded people who don't break the rules.
d) The cars must (like any other vehicle) be kept in good order, be roadworthy and street legal. This means complying with VSB-14 or the engineering certificate that belongs to the car or the Street Rod National Guidelines. Very straight forward & simple.
e) The "Identifier" - Whatever the department defines as being attached to the number plate to signify to authorities that its on the scheme is not only fair but actually required and wise. If its as is rumoured I doubt anyone right minded will care too much. Plenty of cars run the Vintage identifier or the Veteran identifier on the number plate.
3) What isn't required and why...
a) "Club involvement is required" - No it isn't at all, clubs do not need extra burdens such as organising events, runs & cruises to keep members happy as well as policing & enforcing compliance to the scheme and extra administration to keep the department happy. Forcing people to join a club to access the scheme when its not required is what's referred to as "Third Line Enforcement" - its an ugly solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The scheme would largely be taken up by those already in clubs and those borderline thinking of joining a club. People in country areas cannot. I spoke with 2 people from Jerramungup who are 160kms from the nearest club. I received an email from a chap from Carnarvon today, again no club. Got emails from 3 others across the Pilbara & if you think they can form a club, no you'll need 10 people and those 3 are 200kms at the closest. This scheme if connected to club membership will be appealing to metro car owners only & then only those who are keen to join a club or already in a club. There are many people who do not want to join a club. Start your own club? Well its likely a eligible club will have to be an incorporated body.
There's also the case that this is for personal reduced road use, not club life. If a person wants to duck down the shops, go for a joy ride on a great day, drive their daughter & date to the school ball, take the wife out for an evening meal, attend a hot rodder's funeral or go for an impromptu run anywhere they have limited or no ability under the club only prospect. Its dictating use of personal property.
b) "Extra administration is required." No it isn't at all. With a simple logbook (or App log book) a car owner can record their allotted day's driving before leaving and they're done. With the number plate identifier the police can pull the vehicle over for a log book check if they need to, all in order and their on their way. With it being a Logbook App the police don't even have to pull them over, just access the App system, punch in the number plate and see if they're on a pre-logged day of use or if they're outside their 90 days. Simple. No onus on a club, its left up to the individual to do the right thing or suffer the consequences if they don't. It really is that simple
Its does not need to be a club managed trip on club organised event, they can go to the shops to get the paper, go to a family outing, take the wife or significant other out, do the school ball, the wedding because its about life on limited days of road use, NOT club life.
c) "The Indentifier means police will hassle car owners" - No. Flatly No.
Its a small price yet wise price to pay. Already we have Taxi plates in WA, we have Vintage identifier, Veteran Club Identifiers and we also have Farm Plates for limited road use of tractors, trucks, farm utes & fire fighting units. None have resulted in unfair police scrutiny, none require a club sanction, policing or approval, NONE. The individual is solely responsible and if they break compliance they & only they rightly suffer the consequences.
d) All other states have this as a club based registration scheme so we have to as well - Well no.
I'm not certain all states have this solely as a club based scheme but even if they do, they are other jurisdictions, they are not Western Australia and we can design and implement a better, simpler scheme that is available to all Western Australians no matter where in WA's 2.6 million square kilometres they live.
At the end of the day, if the car is unroadworthy on the scheme, it would be unroadworthy on a normal registration. Don't keep an unroadworthy car.
At the end of the day, if you drive in a reckless or unsafe manner on the scheme, it would be unsafe and reckless on normal registration. Don't do that.
Its not rocket science, it doesn't have to be onerous and cumbersome to adhere to or comply with. It can be simple. It also can not only be made simple with consequences laid at the feet of transgressing individuals but with the smarter, simpler scheme framework rural & regional people will be able to access the scheme instead of being unfairly disadvantaged.
* Background information - https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2020/01/McGowan-Government-flags-classic-car-and-street-rod-rego-discount.aspx
Tuesday, 18 February 2020
Election For the Seat of Albany
So it's begun, the worst kept secret in Albany is now official. Local Labor folk selected Rebecca Stephens as their candidate some months ago & it anger some Labor members. Its been simmering for ages and today (19/02/2020) it was finally announced. Well the other night at a Labor do.
Rebecca sits as a councillor on the City of Albany. She had an interview on the radio this morning.
Someone is going to mention she says "um" a lot so we might as well get this out of the way...she sure does, in under 8 minutes she said "um" no less than 63 times.
She said she knows "our community" because she's born & bred here. But when pressed what she'd add she said she's connected & embedded in the community saying she's interesting in everyone getting a fair go.
When asked has she always been a Labor follower she said "Not overly" she said her family didn't grow up with politics. Which might explain the suggestion that just after getting the nod to run for Labor she didn't know there were 2 houses of Parliament in WA. If true, bit concerning.
She's been on Council and is connected, embedded to the community & yet couldn't add one thing on tricky subjects like stating a position on 7 Day Trading. Peter Watson said it's a City of Albany thing. She wouldn't commit.
Rebecca Stephens - "Yep I'm not going to comment on that"
Tyne Logan - "Why not?"
Rebecca Stephens - "Because I'm not in a position to comment"
She hasn't been instructed what Labor position wants her to stick to.
She claimed to be on board for mere 48 hours and was looking forward to getting out into the community to see what the community wants.
Ahhh did she not do this as a City of Albany Councillor. She was asked for a vision but could give anything specific but people had opportunity to get involved.
She wasn't sure she'd support a wave energy project.
When asked "Would you like to see that programme continue to be funded by the McGowan Government?"
She said she wasn't aware of the ins & outs of that programme, but was aware there is a meth problem in WA, that the government has an action plan but something needs to be done whether its in the form of that programme or not.
She possibly is also unaware that in the first McGowan Government they budgeted more money in one year on basketball courts in the Premier's electorate than TWO YEARS funding to help the Albany meth rehab programme called Ice Breakers.
There remains more Labor problems.
Peter Watson has spent the last 3 years as Speaker of the House so effectively he has had no part in Government Business for 3 years as he's the umpire in Parliament. He cannot vote unless there's a tie and as a result has had no input of vote on Albany's behalf for THREE WHOLE YEARS.
So we've gone from no representation or vote in Parliament for 3 years so Peter Watson retires on a much higher salary to pick up higher superannuation contributions upon leaving Parliament & we got nothing for it.
An ineffective Member of Parliament to be replaced but one who'll try to do more without having any idea what to do or how to do it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Labor.
Rebecca sits as a councillor on the City of Albany. She had an interview on the radio this morning.
Someone is going to mention she says "um" a lot so we might as well get this out of the way...she sure does, in under 8 minutes she said "um" no less than 63 times.
She said she knows "our community" because she's born & bred here. But when pressed what she'd add she said she's connected & embedded in the community saying she's interesting in everyone getting a fair go.
When asked has she always been a Labor follower she said "Not overly" she said her family didn't grow up with politics. Which might explain the suggestion that just after getting the nod to run for Labor she didn't know there were 2 houses of Parliament in WA. If true, bit concerning.
She's been on Council and is connected, embedded to the community & yet couldn't add one thing on tricky subjects like stating a position on 7 Day Trading. Peter Watson said it's a City of Albany thing. She wouldn't commit.
Rebecca Stephens - "Yep I'm not going to comment on that"
Tyne Logan - "Why not?"
Rebecca Stephens - "Because I'm not in a position to comment"
She hasn't been instructed what Labor position wants her to stick to.
She claimed to be on board for mere 48 hours and was looking forward to getting out into the community to see what the community wants.
Ahhh did she not do this as a City of Albany Councillor. She was asked for a vision but could give anything specific but people had opportunity to get involved.
She wasn't sure she'd support a wave energy project.
When asked "Would you like to see that programme continue to be funded by the McGowan Government?"
She said she wasn't aware of the ins & outs of that programme, but was aware there is a meth problem in WA, that the government has an action plan but something needs to be done whether its in the form of that programme or not.
She possibly is also unaware that in the first McGowan Government they budgeted more money in one year on basketball courts in the Premier's electorate than TWO YEARS funding to help the Albany meth rehab programme called Ice Breakers.
There remains more Labor problems.
Peter Watson has spent the last 3 years as Speaker of the House so effectively he has had no part in Government Business for 3 years as he's the umpire in Parliament. He cannot vote unless there's a tie and as a result has had no input of vote on Albany's behalf for THREE WHOLE YEARS.
So we've gone from no representation or vote in Parliament for 3 years so Peter Watson retires on a much higher salary to pick up higher superannuation contributions upon leaving Parliament & we got nothing for it.
An ineffective Member of Parliament to be replaced but one who'll try to do more without having any idea what to do or how to do it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Labor.
Saturday, 8 February 2020
If you want to get bogged down in detail then Socialism is a great place because its like an onion in a way, lots of differing layers & levels but its all onion just the same.
There's varying strains of Socialism before & after Marx going back to the French Revolution and even earlier but after the Marx/Engels efforts its come to broadly mean (to most not all people) the opposition to Capitalism and the advocating for an alternative to capitalism which includes the state ownership of the means of production. Some times the words state & workers are interchangeable but it means no enterprising entrepreneur is really going to have a good chance of building a small business into a large business.
For a nation to be a proper Socialist Nation, so far its not been tried without being a totalitarian state.
That means harsh authoritarian rule. There is the seemingly glib but still rather accurate idea that socialism can only work until other people's money last & then follows brutal force and killings.
Then there's communism. Like socialism, it opposes capitalism. Like socialism it will need brutal force to survive. It will centralise power to one party, it will make even less concessions to free markets than Socialism and it will repress any dissent. Communism is more about all wealth & production controlled by the state, Socialism more along the lines of equal distribution amongst the people.
Its all hair splitting to some and there's a lot of strains of either. But again, its what Socialism, Communism, Marxism all share that's important.
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
So what is the difference between that and Nazism/Fascism?
A lot and not a lot.
look for the things in common & the differences. Socialism & communism is seen as the left, Nazism is seen as the far right. Are they?
Well Fascism was really firstly formed by Giovanni Gentile and from there strains developed.
But whilst Socialism was based on being anti class & then forming one class (in theory until the ruling class then develops and takes control) Nazism was based on extreme Nationalism & Race.
Whilst they spring board from different points, they share commonalties
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market unless the market is benefitting the chosen few.
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
Both Socialism/Communism and Nazism/Fascism are more than willing to kill their own people to keep the system pure.
The accepted "Western" model of nations will allow free movement, citizens have individual rights, they can work, buy & sell as they choose. They can profit & after paying tax can do whatever they want with their profits no matter how big or small the amounts are. Migration is allowed, racism is banned, they are free market based.
So its pointless arguing whether Fascism is of the left or the far right. Both need brutal totalitarian rule, the power to take anything & everything from whomever the state dictates. Both are horrid political forms of brutal tribalism that eventually will cost lives to sustain itself.
In the free market country no one is forced into re-education camps because of race, religion or political views. The Marxist/Fascist countries...standard operating procedure.
Here's the saddest point, which is considered worse these days Communism or Nazism?
Easy, Nazism. They caused the holocaust, tried to conquer the world, caused the death of many through systematic genocide.
But going wider, who killed more, Stalin, Mao or Hitler & who got demonised the most?
Well the numbers are irrelevant but because all caused the death of millions, the real question is, why aren't Stalin & Mao not demonised as much as Hitler?
Easy. Hitler was defeated. All were brutal genocidal regimes.
No one asks how many people a British PM caused because they haven't had an totalitarian regime committing war, mass murder & genocide.
In fact if you're going to put Stalin, Mao & Hitler in the same boat (you should) you probably should put North Korea's Kim dynasty in there, plus Pol Pot, Cuba, Venezuela...
The argument should not be "Is Nazism of the left or the right?"
Its probably like Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism et al in that they're brutal anti free market murderous totalitarian regimes of death, heresies of humanity.
There is no safe harbour or perfect high moral ground for any form of government, however the western capitalist one doesn't build re-education camps, dispossess individuals assets, commit mass murder and control all means of production.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but its non oppressive and murderous.
If its not a western based, free market based, individual rights preserved type of society, its either murderous or soon will be.
There's varying strains of Socialism before & after Marx going back to the French Revolution and even earlier but after the Marx/Engels efforts its come to broadly mean (to most not all people) the opposition to Capitalism and the advocating for an alternative to capitalism which includes the state ownership of the means of production. Some times the words state & workers are interchangeable but it means no enterprising entrepreneur is really going to have a good chance of building a small business into a large business.
For a nation to be a proper Socialist Nation, so far its not been tried without being a totalitarian state.
That means harsh authoritarian rule. There is the seemingly glib but still rather accurate idea that socialism can only work until other people's money last & then follows brutal force and killings.
Then there's communism. Like socialism, it opposes capitalism. Like socialism it will need brutal force to survive. It will centralise power to one party, it will make even less concessions to free markets than Socialism and it will repress any dissent. Communism is more about all wealth & production controlled by the state, Socialism more along the lines of equal distribution amongst the people.
Its all hair splitting to some and there's a lot of strains of either. But again, its what Socialism, Communism, Marxism all share that's important.
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
So what is the difference between that and Nazism/Fascism?
A lot and not a lot.
look for the things in common & the differences. Socialism & communism is seen as the left, Nazism is seen as the far right. Are they?
Well Fascism was really firstly formed by Giovanni Gentile and from there strains developed.
But whilst Socialism was based on being anti class & then forming one class (in theory until the ruling class then develops and takes control) Nazism was based on extreme Nationalism & Race.
Whilst they spring board from different points, they share commonalties
They oppose capitalism
They oppose free choices of the individual to the point where the state is more important than any individual or group of individuals. (Some will argue groups of any individuals will be dissuaded or banned)
They do require lots of other people's money.
They oppose the free market unless the market is benefitting the chosen few.
The State rules over everyone, it needs authoritarian/totalitarian rule to survive
Both Socialism/Communism and Nazism/Fascism are more than willing to kill their own people to keep the system pure.
The accepted "Western" model of nations will allow free movement, citizens have individual rights, they can work, buy & sell as they choose. They can profit & after paying tax can do whatever they want with their profits no matter how big or small the amounts are. Migration is allowed, racism is banned, they are free market based.
So its pointless arguing whether Fascism is of the left or the far right. Both need brutal totalitarian rule, the power to take anything & everything from whomever the state dictates. Both are horrid political forms of brutal tribalism that eventually will cost lives to sustain itself.
In the free market country no one is forced into re-education camps because of race, religion or political views. The Marxist/Fascist countries...standard operating procedure.
Here's the saddest point, which is considered worse these days Communism or Nazism?
Easy, Nazism. They caused the holocaust, tried to conquer the world, caused the death of many through systematic genocide.
But going wider, who killed more, Stalin, Mao or Hitler & who got demonised the most?
Well the numbers are irrelevant but because all caused the death of millions, the real question is, why aren't Stalin & Mao not demonised as much as Hitler?
Easy. Hitler was defeated. All were brutal genocidal regimes.
No one asks how many people a British PM caused because they haven't had an totalitarian regime committing war, mass murder & genocide.
In fact if you're going to put Stalin, Mao & Hitler in the same boat (you should) you probably should put North Korea's Kim dynasty in there, plus Pol Pot, Cuba, Venezuela...
The argument should not be "Is Nazism of the left or the right?"
Its probably like Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism et al in that they're brutal anti free market murderous totalitarian regimes of death, heresies of humanity.
There is no safe harbour or perfect high moral ground for any form of government, however the western capitalist one doesn't build re-education camps, dispossess individuals assets, commit mass murder and control all means of production.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but its non oppressive and murderous.
If its not a western based, free market based, individual rights preserved type of society, its either murderous or soon will be.
Thursday, 6 February 2020
Current State of Politics in Australia
Its pretty easy to stereotype a group & demonise them. For many years politicians, real estate agents, used car salesmen, insurance brokers, government bureaucrats...there's groups we sling off about. But why are we so down on these groups as a whole when there are in those groups quite a few people who are thoroughly decent & honest human beings?
I think they could just possibly reflect society as a whole and every day people in Australia who have a little anti-Authoritarian streak in them see those people having more power & control than they have. One possibility.
Other is, they have something in common with every other Australian citizen. They're humans.
As a result they can have some leanings & beliefs, aims & goals that might differ from others. Some are in politics are genuine, in there to make a difference and improve things. Some however are there because they view it as their job & career and therefore smell the wind regularly to see which way to face will lessen their chances of a re-election loss.
Politics has great, good and bad people amongst its ranks.
In recent decades we've seen not only a record amount of PM turnovers from leadership spills but more leaders change since the day John Howard retired than any other era of the same length of time in Australian Political History.
Yes, there's "Kingmaker Syndrome" that's swept into all parties like a contagion where some back benchers believe they can call some shots, they can rule from the shadows and indeed there's been quite a few times where the cut n thrust triumphed over greater party goals and greater national interest.
No party is immune, all have had it, I think all still do,
Why?
We probably have a less than helpful media. They need blood and disgust to sell a headline. Currently there's front page interest in a long retired West Coast Eagle champion being found drunk & asleep on the street in Kalgoorlie.
It's tragic & horrific for his friends & family and I'm not suggesting it needs a cover up, but I think it's in no one's interest, neither his nor the general public's to report it. It was front page & would help sell some copy & therefore some advertising in an age when paper is reducing and online newspaper with required sensationalised click bait...well you see that is going to sell better than a purely factual report on stock market movements.
Aside from that, the politicians and their supporting party framework have to take some blame too. Sadly whilst many parties still have a "Party Whip" they mainly attend to helping arrange party business in parliament. In the old days it was different. Whilst its a dark comedy/drama piece the old TV mini series out of the UK "House of Cards" showed lots of cloak & dagger but lots of scandal or trouble prevent or kept in check by a ruthless, fearless party whip. Cross the Whip and the Whip very much crossed you, sometimes crossed you out.
It can reduce factional wars to an extent but humans are humans and they will still go to war.
But the PM revolving doors, the Leadership Spill Pandemic through all parties & the odd avoidable scandal & spill could have been avoided with the old fashioned ruthless Whip.
But they're a soft version these days, discipline is sporadic at best, at worst accidental when it does happen. Then there's the slightly variating party machine which MPs should be answering to. When I say Party Machine I mean the part of a respective party that is the lay members conduit to the elected members. When that becomes distant & token, that further adds to the rise in scandals and unhelpful promotions, demotions, scandals, spills, public fights or threats to cross the floor.
Until all the parties get their act together, their structure of accountability right the problems will continue.
This might be amplified by those media outlets that want Churnalists not Journalists, that want controversy to sell because it does sell. Churnalists become influencers not reporters. They try to become protagonists & players instead of observers & commentators.
This means those who're struck with King Maker Syndrome use the media and the media use them to help create angst and controversy to their own gain.
I don't expect the media to change anytime soon & strange as it seems I think it's the political set that has to raise the bar & stop leaking which adds fuel to avoidable fires that are really of no beneficial public interest. All the parties have a organisational structure with flaws, less accountability and shared vision. That's not a team, its at best several competing teams within a party.
So yes "journalism" is very much at fault, but so too are the MPs and their parties. Once the lay members are disconnected and the MPs not as answerable...well its give an inch and take a mile without any resistance.
Solution is more peeved off people should decide which party is more to their liking & join up so as to have a say. If you're firing a shot off on Twitter or in the local paper its not influencing against the problem. As I was told "No point pissing on the tent pegs when you'd be better off inside the tent throwing sh*t everywhere"
Quite a picture painted there, but a gloriously high amount of truth in it.
If the country is to do better, lay members need to be in control of their parties and their MPs need to be answer to their party.
Simple answer, but trouble is there exists the same common denominator that ruins everything.
Humans doing what humans do...
I think they could just possibly reflect society as a whole and every day people in Australia who have a little anti-Authoritarian streak in them see those people having more power & control than they have. One possibility.
Other is, they have something in common with every other Australian citizen. They're humans.
As a result they can have some leanings & beliefs, aims & goals that might differ from others. Some are in politics are genuine, in there to make a difference and improve things. Some however are there because they view it as their job & career and therefore smell the wind regularly to see which way to face will lessen their chances of a re-election loss.
Politics has great, good and bad people amongst its ranks.
In recent decades we've seen not only a record amount of PM turnovers from leadership spills but more leaders change since the day John Howard retired than any other era of the same length of time in Australian Political History.
Yes, there's "Kingmaker Syndrome" that's swept into all parties like a contagion where some back benchers believe they can call some shots, they can rule from the shadows and indeed there's been quite a few times where the cut n thrust triumphed over greater party goals and greater national interest.
No party is immune, all have had it, I think all still do,
Why?
We probably have a less than helpful media. They need blood and disgust to sell a headline. Currently there's front page interest in a long retired West Coast Eagle champion being found drunk & asleep on the street in Kalgoorlie.
It's tragic & horrific for his friends & family and I'm not suggesting it needs a cover up, but I think it's in no one's interest, neither his nor the general public's to report it. It was front page & would help sell some copy & therefore some advertising in an age when paper is reducing and online newspaper with required sensationalised click bait...well you see that is going to sell better than a purely factual report on stock market movements.
Aside from that, the politicians and their supporting party framework have to take some blame too. Sadly whilst many parties still have a "Party Whip" they mainly attend to helping arrange party business in parliament. In the old days it was different. Whilst its a dark comedy/drama piece the old TV mini series out of the UK "House of Cards" showed lots of cloak & dagger but lots of scandal or trouble prevent or kept in check by a ruthless, fearless party whip. Cross the Whip and the Whip very much crossed you, sometimes crossed you out.
It can reduce factional wars to an extent but humans are humans and they will still go to war.
But the PM revolving doors, the Leadership Spill Pandemic through all parties & the odd avoidable scandal & spill could have been avoided with the old fashioned ruthless Whip.
But they're a soft version these days, discipline is sporadic at best, at worst accidental when it does happen. Then there's the slightly variating party machine which MPs should be answering to. When I say Party Machine I mean the part of a respective party that is the lay members conduit to the elected members. When that becomes distant & token, that further adds to the rise in scandals and unhelpful promotions, demotions, scandals, spills, public fights or threats to cross the floor.
Until all the parties get their act together, their structure of accountability right the problems will continue.
This might be amplified by those media outlets that want Churnalists not Journalists, that want controversy to sell because it does sell. Churnalists become influencers not reporters. They try to become protagonists & players instead of observers & commentators.
This means those who're struck with King Maker Syndrome use the media and the media use them to help create angst and controversy to their own gain.
I don't expect the media to change anytime soon & strange as it seems I think it's the political set that has to raise the bar & stop leaking which adds fuel to avoidable fires that are really of no beneficial public interest. All the parties have a organisational structure with flaws, less accountability and shared vision. That's not a team, its at best several competing teams within a party.
So yes "journalism" is very much at fault, but so too are the MPs and their parties. Once the lay members are disconnected and the MPs not as answerable...well its give an inch and take a mile without any resistance.
Solution is more peeved off people should decide which party is more to their liking & join up so as to have a say. If you're firing a shot off on Twitter or in the local paper its not influencing against the problem. As I was told "No point pissing on the tent pegs when you'd be better off inside the tent throwing sh*t everywhere"
Quite a picture painted there, but a gloriously high amount of truth in it.
If the country is to do better, lay members need to be in control of their parties and their MPs need to be answer to their party.
Simple answer, but trouble is there exists the same common denominator that ruins everything.
Humans doing what humans do...
Friday, 17 January 2020
Most Problems & Fixes For Organisations
This came up yesterday in a conversation, and while there's lots of organisation doing well or surviving with any number of different problems there are some common problems that pop up more than others.
Some think their organisation, or the leadership team or their executive are useless or do nothing.
Possibly a little more to it and most times when we've drilled down into it we've found more and were able to point to corrections they can make to not only survive but thrive.
The bad part is it's often very simple, very obvious & been missed by the alleged culprits and their accusers to the point that the common response is throw out the alleged culprits and install a new group who'll get things done. Sometimes there's big improvement, most times there's short new improvement then a return to the same negative cycle.
The problem? Not always the case but the most common faults are either an ill fitting constitution that needs a review, a constitution that isn't known and/or observed & people or members not know the precise roles in play and the rights & responsibilities.
This is what we call the fundamentals. We, well we is a small group of us who get a shoulder tap to come & help fix their floundering or toxic not for profit. More often than not its a return to the fundamentals.
Nearly always the worst NFPs (and some listed companies) have a constitution that doesn't quite match who they are and what they do and/or people within aren't really aware of their legal requirements, their rights & responsibilities within the organisation.
So far in pretty well every NFP (and some listed companies) we're all separately gone into help has ended up with some or all of the following...
1) Constitution Review and most likely a simplification that still complies with the Incorporations legislation or the Corporations Act.
2) Elected office bearers learning they ARE company directors, are legally liable under law personally, legally financially and learning their rights & responsibilities.
3) Knowing the Governance line between an organisations paid staff and elected leadership. Paid staff cannot be voting on matters affecting the NFPs membership/shareholders. They are ex-Officio.
Some think their organisation, or the leadership team or their executive are useless or do nothing.
Possibly a little more to it and most times when we've drilled down into it we've found more and were able to point to corrections they can make to not only survive but thrive.
The bad part is it's often very simple, very obvious & been missed by the alleged culprits and their accusers to the point that the common response is throw out the alleged culprits and install a new group who'll get things done. Sometimes there's big improvement, most times there's short new improvement then a return to the same negative cycle.
The problem? Not always the case but the most common faults are either an ill fitting constitution that needs a review, a constitution that isn't known and/or observed & people or members not know the precise roles in play and the rights & responsibilities.
This is what we call the fundamentals. We, well we is a small group of us who get a shoulder tap to come & help fix their floundering or toxic not for profit. More often than not its a return to the fundamentals.
Nearly always the worst NFPs (and some listed companies) have a constitution that doesn't quite match who they are and what they do and/or people within aren't really aware of their legal requirements, their rights & responsibilities within the organisation.
So far in pretty well every NFP (and some listed companies) we're all separately gone into help has ended up with some or all of the following...
1) Constitution Review and most likely a simplification that still complies with the Incorporations legislation or the Corporations Act.
2) Elected office bearers learning they ARE company directors, are legally liable under law personally, legally financially and learning their rights & responsibilities.
3) Knowing the Governance line between an organisations paid staff and elected leadership. Paid staff cannot be voting on matters affecting the NFPs membership/shareholders. They are ex-Officio.
4) That leadership team should be reporting their decisions to the members/shareholders where required. This is much easier with NFPs but it's not the day to day running of the organisation by management...they report to the board/leadership team. But the board/leadership team are answerable to the members/shareholders. Most organisations that means the AGM, but all committees, sub committees, standing committees must be regularly reporting to the board/leadership group fully and completely. That means minutes available but most importantly an Action Statement that details what decisions were made by the committees/leadership team, who is responsible for the matter and the completion date so the board can get a quick, succinct proper helicopter view and ask questions where required. If you have a team not doing that, you have a shadow board, with shadow directors. That's not only not allowed, its damn dangerous.
5) Roles definitions. These need to be sorted out, set out and delivered to new people to the role as a part of their orientation. It keeps them compliant and protects them and the organisations.
Know this, organisations need to know if they cut corners to get things done they need to be very careful.
We also need people to understand what is a Reasonable Persons Test.
If you have a Chairman/President who either alone or with his/her board has made a questionable decision...question it.
As they're explaining it apply the Reasonable Persons Test. Is what they've done what a Reasonable Person might do in the same situation? If yes, then you should be very unlikely to nail their liver to the mast. You should be more likely to set a new process in place that benefits the organisation/company, meets compliance better and keeps everyone protect.
Once everyone understand their role, everyone else's role, everyone knows the rights & responsibilities then the fundamentals fall into place. People end up sticking to their job, duplication is quashed, reporting is made sensible and once the processes are learnt & known they're generally met. It frees up more time for people to get on with what needs & should be done by them.
This is the Fundamentals Reboot.
This is what allows better compliance, better use of time & resources and stops people wanting to over throw people they deem to be doing nothing and replace them with others who don't know or comply with the fundamentals.
Those that finish the reboot seem a little stunned that it genuinely is that simple and so incredibly effective. Look at your company/NFP's problems and look at the fundamentals not those at the helm.
5) Roles definitions. These need to be sorted out, set out and delivered to new people to the role as a part of their orientation. It keeps them compliant and protects them and the organisations.
Know this, organisations need to know if they cut corners to get things done they need to be very careful.
We also need people to understand what is a Reasonable Persons Test.
If you have a Chairman/President who either alone or with his/her board has made a questionable decision...question it.
As they're explaining it apply the Reasonable Persons Test. Is what they've done what a Reasonable Person might do in the same situation? If yes, then you should be very unlikely to nail their liver to the mast. You should be more likely to set a new process in place that benefits the organisation/company, meets compliance better and keeps everyone protect.
Once everyone understand their role, everyone else's role, everyone knows the rights & responsibilities then the fundamentals fall into place. People end up sticking to their job, duplication is quashed, reporting is made sensible and once the processes are learnt & known they're generally met. It frees up more time for people to get on with what needs & should be done by them.
This is the Fundamentals Reboot.
This is what allows better compliance, better use of time & resources and stops people wanting to over throw people they deem to be doing nothing and replace them with others who don't know or comply with the fundamentals.
Those that finish the reboot seem a little stunned that it genuinely is that simple and so incredibly effective. Look at your company/NFP's problems and look at the fundamentals not those at the helm.
Lack of fundamentals is the villain NOT those doing their best at the helm unaware of the Fundamentals. Reboot WITH them.
https://seriouslythinkforaminute.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-simplified-version-of-corporate.html
https://seriouslythinkforaminute.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-simplified-version-of-corporate.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)