Rafe [125]:
Haven’t had much to do with internal security, have you?

Use of balaclavas [face-hiding ones, not the keep-warm ones]:
1, By security forces - to empower and embolden [usually accompanied by the hiding of name-tags, the chanting in unison, etc etc.].
2. By rioters/strikers/dissidents/whatever - also to empower and embolden as well as for dramatic effect; it gives the impression to the impressionable that what the balaclava-wearers are doing is so courageous that the identity of these heroes must be protected [and, of course, the police or security forces didn't get thousands of portraits BEFORE the balaclavas went on? :-)]
3. By strike-breakers - usually on the orders of the mine-owners, the foreign firm or whoever is paying for the circus. It’s subtle way the boss has of intimidating his strikebreakers into continuing compliance; so long as the strike-breaker is compliant his identity will be kept a deep dark secret. Naturally, no neighbours, colleagues, distant relatives, shoe-shine boys - and strikers - could possibly guess the identity of each-and-every strike-breaker within 3 days, could they?

b.t.w. You mentioned balaclavas ….. what about that other “identity protection”? Frogmarching a suspect into a police station with a jacket or a towel chucked over his head; it’s an image that shouts “Guilty!!!!” even before any charges are made ….. but that’s another story …..

Such fanatastic scenarios!

Graham, as long as you concede that they practiced sabotage during the war, now tell us why the recent strikebreakers wore balaclavas.

The Australian shipbuilding industry was probably wrecked in boardroons in Britain [just as our aircraft industry was wrecked in boardrooms in America]. The covert use of specific union officials to undermine a rival’s business is a tactic as old as the hills - is that what happened in the Australian shipbuilding industry?

Reform of the Australian waterfront was long overdue and it was already well underway when all the theatrical happened - and they were theatricals - completely unnecessary theatricals with balaclavas, yapping dogs, dramatic night raids and all the other wankery. What a spectacular substitute for tough patient negotiation and for inspired management [oh sorry, I forgot, we had run out of that; all our best-and-brightest managers had shot through and were building themselves rewarding careers overseas instead of hanging around in this bosses-and-unions backwater].

Why no comment about the driving force behind all the ballyhoo, those NFF taxeaters and their full-imported ideological garbage?

LAWYER: Objection! Mr Combet clearly rocks. The question is redundant.

JUDGE: Overruled. Ouch! What keeps hitting me in the head?

GREG COMBET: That would be my halo, your honour. I do apologise.

JUDGE: Harrumph. Mr Corrigan will answer the question.

CHRIS CORRIGAN: Must . . . eat . . . living . . . human . . . brains . . .

GALLERY: Oooooh!

One of them even referred to the leadership of the MUA as an aristocracy, obsessed with their own power and influence. Some diligent readers will recall Hutt’s quote from an ancient leader of the workers who talked about the “bloody aristocracy of labour” in the trade unions, exploiting other workers out of their own self-interest

There is no need to suggest that every single wharfie was a thug and a standover man, a saboteur and a thief, but there were more than enough who were prepared to do the dirty work out of greed, committment or loyalty to the union.

How did they get away with it for so long? They were, and still are, protected by the false and sentimental view that the workers were always exploited so anything they do to strike back is ok. Bullshit! They were also protected by the framework of legislation and custom that made it practically impossible for managers on the wharves to get serious about management and the vulnerability of the system to violence and sabotage.

It was a scandalous situation where the bullies could always expect to win because they could do more damage than it was worth to fix things up. If the views of the ABC prevail on this topic the truth will never be properly understood in the community at large.

One strike breaker was strike maker Chifley, he sent in the troops to bust up the coal strike.

What was the reason for the coal strike? - a struggle by communists to take power from Labour.

what was gained? - nothing.

who lost? - the commos.

who suffered as a consequence of the strike? - the public

Stick to the basic problem and face up to it.

Do you condone the potentially lethal degree of violence on the picket lines?

Do you know why the strike breakers wore balaclavas?

See if you can speak the truth.

In the bigger picture, do you deny that industries like shipbuilding were wrecked by the rorts and work practices of the unions?

As for me [as General Robbie was so fond of saying] “I’ve heard otherwise” …. and I shall continue to rely on what I have seen and heard myself, whether that be agreeable or disagreeable.. The wharfies did indeed cause us trouble during the Viet-Nam War but on the other hand, most of the ones I have come across, including ones who are now in the industry, were good decent hard-working blokes.

Much has been made of pilfering. Not a word has been uttered about stuff being pinched AFTER it was loaded onto trucks and left the wharves. Just ask anybody who has worked in the industry. Since many of the truckies were owner-drivers, wasn’t that taking free-enterprise just a little too freely? “Only ten dollars each mate; they fell off the back of a truck - ha-ha-ha”.

Everyone:
Why all the shyness and coyness about mentioning either Peter Reith or the NFF?

Nobody has had anything to say about the deception, the dumping, the betrayal and the intimidation [by your government, not by the unionists!!!!] of the soldiers who were shamefully conned into strikebreaking. I seem to recall redress being sought at the Supreme Court in Brisbane back in June 2001.

And then there was the serious security breach at a function where Prime Minister Howard was in great peril and mortal danger because one of these ditched and financially ruined ex-soldiers had the cheek to ask him politely for his intervention.

They caused allied deaths.
Later their rorts destroyed the shipbuilding industry.
You could never count the jobs that were lost due to their strikes and disruption of trade and commerce.

What do you mean they did more than was expected of them? There was war on. Who did not do more than was expected of them?

Who else committed acts of sabotage and vandalism that caused allied deaths?