New attacks on workers rights
The government has new attacks on workers in the pipelines: restrictions on union access to workplaces and an extension of the 90-day fire at will bill to more workplaces. Trade unions have come out strongly against this proposal. Maritime Union General Secretary Joe Fleetwood says the restrictions on union access to workplaces was a serious attack on the right of New Zealand workers to organize. "National have now dropped any pretense of moderation in their policies – the phoney war is over and National's agenda of tax cuts for the rich, privatization and now tearing up the basic rights of working people is out there for all to see." [ More ]
Rail and Maritime Transport Union General Secretary Wayne Butson saiys “the Fire at Will law means that an employer doesn’t need to give any reason whatsoever for dismissing a worker. ‘Letting someone go’ can be the offensive euphemism for getting rid of a worker who stands up for their right to a safe workplace or wants to join a union.”
John Key is expected to give details when he speaks at the National Party's mid-term conference in Auckland this weekend. A protest is organised for Sunday, 18th July, 10am at the Sky City Hotel.
Comments
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-ne
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/employment-laws-in-line-shake-up-3646512...
This is really fucked. As we know, this means is that all employers will be able to hire a new employee every 90 days, evading pay rises, holiday pay and sick leave, annual leave and all the other rights one has to earn through long term employment. Higher turnover means lower pay rates and more cash in the hands of the employers. Anyone keen to organise some resistance in Christchurch?
Jared
But I thought you were anti-union?
Hi. I'm confused in another post your were clearly anti-union. You would be happy that they have restricted union access rights? Maybe because workers won't have a union you can some how sneak into the workplace and organise a "workers assembly."
Just because I think the way
Just because I think the way current unions operate is flawed, doesn't mean I don't recognise the valuable things unions do and have done since the days of the Red Feds (or earlier). Removing the right of union access is more than just stopping someone from entering unions entering the workplace: it effectively cancels out any kind of solidarity from outside one's own workplace, union or not. This is a real problem and is a natural progression from when the sympathy strike as a weapon was outlawed.
What's worse than that though is the implementation of casualised labour by the state via the 90 day hire and fire bill. Unionist or not, this is a major issue, if not the major issue (more so than the union access changes).
CHCH: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140758862617521&ref=mf
Jared
Solidarity action
Removing the right of union access is more than just stopping someone from entering unions entering the workplace: it effectively cancels out any kind of solidarity from outside one's own workplace, union or not.
What solidarity action does this stop? Now I really am confused.
Your other arguement to me about unions not being good because of how weak they are is just a load of middleclass tosh. If the union's not weak, its because the bosses are too strong! It's not some union official conspiracy. Anarchists are meaningless in New Zealand. Does that mean I think it's because there are some elite activists running things? No! It's because anarchists are meaningless. :) Teasing!
if the union is weak i mean.
if the union is weak i mean.
There's also a demo happening
There's also a demo happening tomorrow in Dunedin.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=588613678#!/event.php?eid=112928748756297&ref=mf
No.
I'm not sure what the problem is with 90 day trial periods. 90 days or longer is common place in most developed countries. With skilled work, it takes about 60 - 90 days to bring a worked up to full efficiency. After spending money to train that person, you'd only let them go if they weren't up to the task.
I see a 90 day trial period as positive for workers too (particularly skilled workers). Giving those people who want to prove their worth to an employer an opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have can only be a good thing. While there may be abuses in some cases, I think it will result in a net benefit.
Too many businesses (and Government!) have employed people only to find that they are a drain on business. Workers get stuck in jobs that don't suit them because of lack of alternative employment opportunities. This, in turn, caused by employers hesitant to take on workers that they can't get rid of. This is bad for employers, workers and general productivity.
In any case, the protection of the ability to take a personal grievance is an illusory one. It requires legal action to enforce. So it is only really available to the irrationally aggrieved and the overpaid.
The problem with 90 day trials
Employers have always had the right to dismiss someone who isn't capable of doing the job. Despite their perpetual complaints about how it's practically impossible to fire someone, there are in fact people being fired every day. What the 90 Day trial is about is the employer gaining the right to dismiss a worker without that worker having the rights they would normally have under workplace legislation - in other words, to be able to be fired without real cause. I struggle to see how anyone could look objectively at that withdrawal of the right to appeal an unfair dismissal and see it as anything but an attack on the basic rights of workers. Of course if there were strong workers organisations the employer couldn't get away with this sort of thing but successive Labour and National governments have succeeded in all but destroying the union movement, making workers increasingly dependent on the crumbs they are trown in the form of weak labour legislation and the individualised mechanism of the personal grievance process which, as "The Real Lentil" observes, is inadequate.
For me though, this is not simply an issue of "fairness", but a class issue. Measures like the passing of a 90 Day Fire At Will Bill are actually skirmishes in the class war, albeit a pretty one-sided class war at present. Industrial law is always about shifting the balance of power between workers and employers and this is another instance of a bid to shift it further away from the workers.
If you see the world through the eyes of the capitalist, statements like "After spending money to train that person, you'd only let them go if they weren't up to the task" ... "Giving those people who want to prove their worth to an employer an opportunity" ... "Too many businesses (and Government!) have employed people only to find that they are a drain on business" and "employers hesitant to take on workers that they can't get rid of" appear completely natural, but they rest on the assumption that the job is the employer's to "give". Under capitalism that is how it works, but there is nothing eternal about that.
For me, opposing the 90 Day Fire At Will measure is about trying to get people to challenge a whole raft of assumptions that appear natural but are in fact specific to capitalism. Only that way can we expect to get a better world, although I assume it's not one "The Real Lentil" would choose . . .
Cheers,
John
Thoughts.
Hi John,
I see where you're coming from. And I'd be the first to say that employees should be entitled to collective bargaining (on a voluntary basis, of course). However, I think current employment law, in practice, goes much further than this. It overshoots the mark to the extent that is unhealthy for employees and employers. To be frank, it favours the lazy and incompetent over the productive.
Let me flesh out where I'm coming from. I have had personal experience with organisations where management assessed a particular employee's contribution to the business as being consistently and significantly negative. I'm not just talking in terms of morale. I'm talking financially negative. It is costing the business money to keep that person employed. But those employees stayed on, becoming less and less productive every year.
"Why don't those organisations fire those employees?" you may ask. The answer is that the risk adjusted cost of firing those employees is relatively high. Management have to factor in potential litigation costs, disruption of management time and the negative effect on staff morale. That is significant financial risk that responsible management will assess as being higher than the burden of keeping those people employed. Those risks are a direct function of employment law. The irony being that those employees that contribute the least to a business are, as a result of human nature, those with the greatest sense of entitlement - and therefore the ones most likely to bring a personal grievance.
The net effect of all this is less motivation on bad employees to stay productive. And management are more hesitant to hire new employees unless they really need them because of the risk that they may turn out to be a liability into annuity. Compounded to this is the lack of financial flexibility for an employer to hire a new person, because that cash is already committed to an existing (bad) employees pay. The result is a more stagnant job market. Less employment. And more employees in unsuitable positions... Those are bad outcomes.
Contrast this with the 90 day proposals. It removes the right of those let go in the first 90 days of employment from taking the legal claim of a "personal grievance". This gives an employer confidence that they can take on a person knowing that there is an "out" if that person turns out to be unsuitable, hence giving more liquidity to the job market.
Furthermore, those proposals don't really remove anything concrete from the average employee. Who can afford to fund personal grievance litigation? Not your average working class/middle class punter - I can tell you that much. It wasn't a viable option to begin with, so removing it is more symbolic than concrete for the average worker. What it does remove is the ability for overpaid and aggressive former employees to take vexatious personal grievance claims to try and force settlements.
Final thought. In anything other than small organisations, management are likely to be employees too. If management perform badly this has a profound effect on the entire organisation. The owners suffer. The employees suffer. Shouldn't the owners, as the people sponsoring the business in the first place, have the right to remove inefficient management - for the best interests of all stakeholders?
Look forward to your views.
TRL.
I don't deny that there are
I don't deny that there are cases where employees aren't doing their jobs well but the company finds it difficult to fire them. It does happen, but despite the employers' organisations claiming it's some kind of epidemic, the opposite situation is far more common, where employees are dismissed with little opportunity for redress. As you yourself say, the PG model doesn't really work, especially with union density at virtually record lows. Workers taking malicious grievance cases are, as far as I know, rare and generally unsuccessful. The first choice for most workers is to simply try to find another job, even in times of high unemployment. They simply don't have the resources to do otherwise. As you noted, taking a PG case is expensive - you described it I think as the prerogative of the irrational and the overpaid. While I would not entirely agree with that categorisation, I would definitely agree that the PG system is not a worker-friendly one. It was intended as part of the shift away from union involvement in the work place. If it's not employer-friendly either then all I can say is that it has one redeeming feature :-)
As for the so called "entitlement culture", the sickest and most hypopcritical example of that that I have seen in a long time is "Sir" Roger Douglas, raising his snout from the trough only long enough to snort his entitlement (his term) to jet around the world courtesy of the state's coffers. Almost as nauseating was fellow ACTor Rodney Hide. This is far more disgusting that a worker having the audacity to feel entitled to employment. After all if society requires that the vast bulk of the population work for someone else in return for a wage, then it damn well does owe people the right to work.
There have not been many cases (although there certainly have been some) over the last year of the existing 90 Day Act having been enforced by employers against employees who wished to remain in their jobs. I suspect that the main reason for that is that in a period of downturn employers have not been looking for staff other than on short term contracts anyway. When the economy finds its way out of this bust cycle and into another period of anaemic growth, which it seems is all it can muster, that is when more instances of abuse of the provisions are likely to come to light.
The reality is that employers have had the best of it over the last 25 years and more. it doesn't stop them complaining mind you. First they got Rogernomics and the beginnings of the destruction of the union movement. They got the Richardson era and the ECA, which allowed for massive implementation of speed up and the slashing of penal rates etc. Then they got the ERA, which clawed back a few of the worst excesses of the ECA but critically, in terms of worker solidarity, made the sympathy strike illegal (thanks due to the Labour Party). But employers still come with sob stories about how they don't have enough power over their workers and they can't sack them without consequence. Now measures like this new 90 Day Fire at Will Bill and, as "Radical" mentions, the restriction on union access to worksites, are on the agenda. The gap between the richest and poorest quintiles in New Zealand has grown to the point where we are ranked 6th most unequal in the developed world, and yet the problem is supposed to be lazy workers not being sacked easily enough!
Cheers,
John
Workers taking malicious
That's because these cases will generally settle. Settlement agreements almost universally contain confidentiality clauses preventing either party from discussing the terms of settlement. That's why you don't hear about them.
Of course the media do report some which involve large sums or prominent personalities. As part of the media's most recent witch-hunt against public sector excess it dragged up this case. It demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.
Settlement often occurs even when the employees case is without merit. That is because the litigation process itself is very expensive and risky. Because of that risk and expense, the employer is often in the position where the only rational, commercial business decision available is to settle.
Having said all that, I don't deny that it is often the case where employees are treated terribly and the right processes are not followed. I can think of one case I'm aware of where a person was let go while the HR manager was eating sushi and had her legs up on the desk. I was appalled when I heard about that. Equally problematic is that effective remedies are often not available to employees in these circumstances, for the same reasons - cost.
What is the answer? I don't know. But at least, the 90 day period will give employers more confidence in making hiring decision. This should provide more opportunities for workers, not less.
I agree with your point about the ACT party. While they're not the only ones with their snouts in the trough, they're the ones telling others to get theirs out. Disgusting.
Not surprised about where this comes from!
I disagree with this justification of the 90 day trail period! It is generally quite easy to find out whether a new staff member fits into existing staff and work environments and can do the job within a much shorter period like 1 month. That is indeed more common internationally than the unreasonable 90 day period here.
A 90 day period is an invitation for abuse by ruthless and mean spirited employers. They can legally hire someone and get rid of that person after 89 days. Then they can take on the next one to possibly face the same predicament.
As for supposedly "lazy" and inefficient staff I must say that that is a quick judgment employers and some nasty fellow workers like to use to stigmatise workers that may have limited capabilities or have health issues impacting negatively on their work performance. I believe that almost all employees will try their personal best to work and deliver if they get a fair chance and reasonable pay.
With an employer only paying the minimum wage and expecting high performance, which is not rare in many low skilled jobs, there is admittedly little true incentive for any worker to go to great lenghts in proving themselves and contribute to the better profits of the employer.
As for grievance procedures it is quite limited by law what can pass as a true grievance issue. I know for a fact that many employers that complain about the problem of getting rid of a worker are actually very incompetent themselves. If there is clear evidence of wrong conduct, of unwillingness to work and even underperformance, there is always under present law a clear and fairly easy way to dismiss a staff member.
That though is too much to expect of from an incompetent or possibly even unfair employer, because she or he may be exposed for wrong conduct her- or himself in the process anyway. Such employers we do not need, same as we should have a concern about workers not giving their best on the expense of fellow workers.
Even more disgusting is the intention to stop union delegates
It is even more disgusting what this National (Nazi) government wants to do re access of union delegates to workers at their work places! That is indeed a measure that resembles that of what dictatorships do to unions. If employers are given rights to block and refuse access of union delegates to speak to their workers, then that is a breach of human rights. Workers have a right to organise themselves and freely join or simply talk to a union. It is already very restricted as it is what union delegates can do. To give an employer the right to stop any union delegate to talk to staff is draconian and dictatorial. It is an invitation to more intimidation as we have already. So this government is now showing more and more of its true colours. It is not at all surprising and it must be confronted with vigorous opposition. With the pussy footed union movement we have these days I fear that not much but verbal complaints and protests will be the result. Such intended measures should actually motivate all unions to stand together and call a day of action like a General Strike. But then again, when did we last have this in NZ? Sadly too many are just out for their own opportunities and advantages. It is essential to involve and activate the true proletariat on low wages and exploitative working conditions to start of a fight. Unite Union may be leading the way here once again.
Urgent call for action -
Urgent call for action - Christchurch Cathedral Square Sunday 18th 10am onwards!!!
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/event/78748/protest-chch-cathedral-sq-agains...
Strikes.
Radical,
My understanding of the proposed changes, as far as they relate to unions, is that the unions must give reasonable notice that a delegate is visiting the worksite. At the moment, as I understand it, Union delegates have an unrestricted discretion to visit worksites at any time of their choosing. I don't think the proposals are a significant change. It certainly would not prevent delegates from talking to workers, as you have suggested.
As for General Strikes. My understand is that the current regime prohibits "sympathy strikes". This would preclude the possibility of a General Strike. I'm not sure that there would be a lot of support for a General Strike these days anyway. People are too concerned with putting food on the table, rather than agitating for higher wages.
TRL
You are misinformed - Lentil
Under present legislation a union delegate cannot at leisure simply enter a work place without giving notice and following strict rules! The Employment Relations Act, which was brought in to replace the Employment Contracts Act does give unions a bit more power again, but it is a far cry from what it used to be before the ERA was brought in.
As for General Strikes yes, sympathy strikes are basically forbidden. But whatever is forbidden is not necessarily right or just, is it?
Your arguments that there would be little support for such a strike is based upon the result of wide-spread intimidation and suppression of workers and citizens as a whole. Yes, many are too concerned to put food on the table. Reality is that fact is simply proof of the injustices that are now common place in NZ! People dare not to speak out, people dare not take action, people are struggling to survive, which is because they are suppressed by laws and the forces of the state like the police.
I know no country in the western world that has such a submissive, suppressed, intimidated and dumbed down population like NZ. In many other countries it is common to see robust demonstrations and debate. Not so in NZ. People have been pushed so far they are too afraid to speak out these days. They would risk losing employment, not getting a job, getting harassed by government agencies if they end up on a benefit and so forth.
Protests in NZ are mostly a laugh and joke. I see little true and forceful demonstrations. Swiftly the police come with charges for disorderly behaviour and similar charges. You need permissions by restrictive councils to hold a demonstration, the police must be consulted, certain placards could be "illegal" because of being too "politically incorrect" and the likes.
Freedom in NZ is a total farce, same as the nonsensical elections every three years, where people have a choice between more or lesser evils. Then the governments elected do not keep promises and cheat the voters anyway.
So go on about all this. I would like to see NZ'ers get pushed to the very limits, so that a general strike will be inevitable and happen.
I saw the smashed shop windows all along Queen Street in 1984 or when this was after the last "Queen Street Riot". That was an experience. Nobody would have expected such a thing to happen. I tell you the day will come where that and worse may become true!
Too many businesses (and
Couldn't agree more Lentil. The world certainly needs less of both. And as you hinted, they are synonymous with each other.
From Wikipedia: Fascism
Why bother?
The original 90 Day Act was passed with hardly a whimper - as most trade union organisers are not interested in representing part-time and casual employees, especially those from minority groups that the bosses target for discrimination. I meet many young workers who have no idea about their rights, especially as few unionists can be bothered contacting them and asking them to join. If you are not a union member and you get sacked by a discriminating boss, most unions don't care. If you are on the benefit from being made redundant, after spending years as a fee-paying union member, most unions don't care. This is no surprise - as most union organisers I have met are more concerned about keeping the support of their members who voted for the government, to keep their cosy jobs, than fighting for workers rights. I wish these bureaucrats would be honest and say that they only fight for 'full-time workers and fee paying members of our union', rather than continue to pretend that are fighting to the rights of all working people. I could suggest that organised trade unions do a recruitment drive towards all people who are employed at their workplace, then call a general (law-breaking wild-cat) strike to break this bill, but I would be wasting my time.
Seems rather strange when the
Seems rather strange when the majority of the members of the NDU are part-time and casualised workers. Unite is in the same situation.
The thing I'm finding strange is that people say the unions won't help them. Unions are membership organisations. The union isn't something "out there", its the members organising collectively together. Unions aren't "insurance", they are mutual aid.
Unfortunately due to th bosses onslaught and low union numbers and funds, union do tend to focus on specific issues - hopefully the most strategic and winnable to help build power to take on the harder issues.
And btw, if a union member doesn't let the union know there's an issue how can they help support the worker to fix it? Get your mates to contact the union. If they aren't in the union yet, then that's probably part of the reason why there's a problem in the first place.
Unions
While that's what unions should be it isn't always what they are. Changes in the union movement over the last few decades has shifted them further away from being "members organising collectively", and towards being insurance providers, about guarding whatever conditions workers have through the courts rather than fighting for better rights and a better world.
The reasons are complex and I don't pretend to understand the process fully. A couple of points I would make though are. one, that unqualified preference, which goes right back to the defeat of the waterfront strike in 1893, was a step in that direction. Unions were dependent on the state rather than on the militancy of their members as their primary source of strength.
Another is the close relationship between Labour and organised labour, between the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement. This has also led to unions seeing the election of "our" government as the most important political issue for them. Hence a lesser evilism that says it doesn't matter how bad Labour is, and how much they do to weaken the union movement, such as their action in the 51 lockout or their introduction of neoliberalism in the 80s, the union movement still sees the Labour Party as at most an ally, at least, a lesser evil, opening up more room to manoeuvre.
How many union officials have you heard complaining about the Labour Party making it illegal to strike in solidarity, one of the most important of all rights for workers. No, they'll just tell you the ERA is better than the ECA. It may be true - access rights are better under the ERA, but they're still vastly worse than before the ECA.
Further, and connected to the last point, is that workers have become atomised and demoralised as a class due to the reforms of the last 25 years. Most young workers barely know what a union is, let alone whether it's "insurance" or "mutual aid". They have no historic sense of workplace solidarity, little idea of their existing rights, and no confidence in their ability to change anything in the workplace, let alone beyond it in society as a whole.
What is needed is not a less evil government but a movement that sees beyond that illusion of choice and takes on the task of building a better world beyond the constraints of capitalism. Unfortunately I still think there will be more ground given before that really starts to happen but I hope I'm mistaken.
Cheers,
John
Hi John,Thanks for your post.
Hi John,
Thanks for your post. You make excellent points, in particular: “Unions were dependent on the state rather than on the militancy of their members as their primary source of strength.”
I certainly know the limits and problems in the union movement and have experienced it myself. However comrades here on Indymedia give bcrats far too much credit for stopping action! It's capitalism and a lack of organising culture that is the problem. I don't doubt that if workers were in revolt bcrats would be there to hold them back. But the fact is that the attacks in the 90s and the failure of unions to develop new strategies and tactics has meant workers aren't itching to pull the pin.
Just a quick point on the 90s and sympathy strikes.
Most people blame union leaders for the failure of the 90s resistance to the ECA. This is wrong. The actual problem was that a self-organising ethos didn't permeate the union movement and so large groups of workers relied on union officials to mediate their struggle.
In the NDU we have drivers who take illegal strike action outside of bargaining and who refuse to cross picket lines. This isn't a sympathy strike but it is similar. I'm sure many officials would like to see this happen more but the fact is that worksites like this are a minority. (I want to point out that I'm not saying unions have a strategy to help get members to this stage.)
Organisers at the NDU know how important sympathy strikes and the right to strike in general are. I certainly think it's an important fight. But I get frustrated when people seem to think that the right to strike at anytime is all we need to fix things. It comes from this false beleif that people are itching to have a blue. If workers don't take action when it's legal now, why would they necessarily take action if it was legal at all times? I beleive in the right to strike at all times but haven't a right does not equate to the right being used. There are no quick fixes here or short cuts - organising is the only answer. Lets get to it!
P.S. - I have absolute faith that people will take action particularly if it works!
"Most people blame union
"Most people blame union leaders for the failure of the 90s resistance to the ECA. This is wrong. The actual problem was that a self-organising ethos didn't permeate the union movement and so large groups of workers relied on union officials to mediate their struggle."
Nice try but no cigar.
Mass protest welled up all over the country and workers marched in record numbers. Calls at mass meetings for a general strike were deflected by union officials, as can be seen in detailed People's Voice articles written at the time.
At every turn the official CTU propaganda was about "opposing' the ECA, not "stopping" it.
At the crucial CTU conference Ken Douglas pulled out every stop to talk down a general strike and managed to succeed. Soon after that effort he got the bourgeiosie's top decoration Order of New Zealand.
Hi Don,I probably wasn't
Hi Don,
I probably wasn't clear enough on what I was saying.
I wasn't trying to say that officials weren't trying to stop things.
I was saying, why should people stop doing things just because of CTU propaganda. Yes lots people went ahead and did it anyway, but why did those others who didn't listen to the CTU?
The Labour Party says shit all the time, it doesn't mean we have to do it.
What we need is a labour and social movement that doesn't rely on the dictates of bcrats and is self organised.
I was trying to criticise the view of my co-workers who think we simply needed better leaders.
Rather than simply moaning on Indymedia about what union bcrats may or may not be doing today, we need to actively help and build a rank and file network that is self-organised and militant and doesnt rely on the views of the CTU officials.
SimonO
"I was saying, why should
"I was saying, why should people stop doing things just because of CTU propaganda. Yes lots of people went ahead and did it anyway, but why did those who didn't take action listen to the CTU?"
Dunedin demo went well. About
Dunedin demo went well. About 60 people, loud and militant.
Why Bother
Ever heard of Unite Bluntmannz?
Yes and I don't think much of
Yes and I don't think much of them. Led by Matt McCarten, a social democrat reptile. Low density except in a select few mostly Auckland workplaces. Many of their organisers are Workers Party or Socialist Aotearoa because other groups on the left won't have anything to do with them. Then we have the wonderful $15/hr minimum wage, which was an idea Socialist Worker had in the nineties.
McCarten = Joke.
Matt McCarten?
Failed Alliance politician? Backstabbing egotistical meat-axe that tried to roll Jim Anderton, only to realise that the only reason he was in Parliament was Jim Anderton (and Laila Harre - but only because a generation of limp-wristed-lefties secretly wanted to see what else she could do with that mouth, other than lisp)? Herald weak as shit retort to Stuff's equally retarded Minto?
Don't make me choke on my dahl.
TRL
"Lentil"
No, because Matt McCarten was never in parliament. He wasn't ever even a candidate as far as I know, although Alliance politics is hardly my specialty. As for your abusive attacks on Laila Harre and John Minto, I'm sure there are criticisms you could make of both of them; I certainly have mine. But you haven't exactly elevated yourself in my esteem with such juvenile ranting. So Laila Harre has a lisp, (and I'd rather not go where you intend with your other comment), and John Minto is "retarded"? I would have expected better from you but perhaps my expectation was misplaced. I don't think I'll be bothering to engage with you in any further debate because you're clearly incapable of sustaining rational discussion.
Cheers,
John
Sorry - McCarten was party
Sorry - McCarten was party president, I stand corrected. But he was still the sponsor of the Pyrrhic coup that emasculated, and then destroyed, the Alliance.
Please don't take offence at my comments. They weren't directed at you. I'm simply describing public figures the way that I see them. They certainly shouldn't detract from the debate we're having further up the thread.
TRL.
So trying to roll Anderton
So trying to roll Anderton for supporting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was wrong.
I see.
The only thing you ever tried
The only thing you ever tried to roll omar, was a joint. :)
Different spin.
No. Backstabbing your friends is wrong. And alienating the person that gives you political credibility is stupid. But enough about McCarten, we've wasted too many words as it is.
TRL
Thanks for exposing simplistic views, dear Lentil
i could share a lot of frustrations with most NZ politcians, some activists and so on, but what better alternatives do you offer so far, except pushing your liberal new right kind of philosophy?
That is hardly going to address the real issues this society and the world at large are facing. In short you believe: I am my master of my fortune, I am the Greatest, I am able to change my destiny and I will be a millionaire tomorrow". You have read too many nonsensical books like "Think and grow rich"!
Yeah right, we will all be millionaires at the expense of the low paid workers in China, India, Bangla Desh and so to afford us the debt they owe us by ensuring a better life than them?!
Go and hide in your cave, because the angry people will react soon against such absolute bloody nonsense and brainwashing! Go and play lottery at the NZX or NYSE!
This is a discussion about
This is a discussion about the proposed employment law changes. I don't think that requires me to suggest a comprehensive alternative to the current political system. If you have any views on the point in issue - viz. the 90 day trial period and restricted union access to workplaces - then those would be welcomed. Veiled personal attacks are not.
TRL
the 90 day trial period and
Yeah you are right Lentil, it will change the culture of employers as it has in other countries where this type of fascist scheme is running. Workers need to fight this or get used to 90 day long jobs. WINZ will have to change its policy on fired employees too when in ten years time much of the labour force will be migrant and fired every 90 days so as not to accumulate sick and annual leave, and all the other benefits employers get from turning over their workforce, or at least, the threat of doing so.
Let's not get too excited
I very much doubt that we'll end up with a work environment dominated by "90 day long jobs". It is inconvenient for bosses to have endless turnover of staff. What will be likely to happen though is that if a worker seems to be average, and maybe not quite up to what the boss had hoped, but still competent, then any small issue, like a sick day (unpaid within the 90 days of course) or questioning work safety or conditions, or pay, will be enough to make the boss decide to ditch that worker and try again. Without a 90 day fire at will trial period, that option wouldn't exist.Years ago my father was sacked from an ununionised job for showing the boss a "mistake", actually an underpayment, in the workers' pay. He was instantly dismissed. So it can and will happen. Trial periods already exist, an issue people like "The Real Lentil" are ignoring, but the boss is required to provide a reason why the employee was unsuitable, and if it's unfair, the employee has redress to the PG process. Defence of this proposal is defence of a situation where the boss has absolute authority with no comeback at all.
Cheers,
John
Any Wellington action planned?
I see that Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin have got some organised actions happening, that is great! Is there something planned in Wellington?
Cheers
val
Picket Outside National Party
Picket Outside National Party Headquarters
5:30pm Monday 19th
57 Willis St