Written By: - Date published: 6:25 pm, December 10th, 2008 - 55 comments
Categories: articles, national/act government, workers' rights -
Tags: 90 day bill, arrogant, fire at will, manawatu standard, out of touch
The Manawatu Standard has a good op-ed piece today on how National has squandered its honeymoon with its arrogant and out-of-touch behaviour on the fire at will bill.
The National party rose to power on the back of, among other things, scathing accusations that a supremely arrogant Labour party had “lost touch” with the people.
The criticisms were well-founded, or at least voters thought they were, and John Key rode a wave of disaffection to power.
How startlingly it is, then, for this new humble, inclusive government to decide to pass into law a 90-day probation period for new workers before Christmas, avoiding public hearings that would allow public discussion and debate.
Too true. Read the rest of the article here.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
They are going to do the bloody standardised testing too!
FFS!
where’s the standard post on this? Rushing through a massive reactionary change to a bloody good education system- exam worry for 6 year olds!- with out the input of the education sector.
I thought Labour did a poor job on this during the election campaign, and Helen Clark failed to rebut it in her tv debate.
and now they sneak it through under urgency. disgraceful. and it gets covered up by all the lather-well founded mind- over work rights.
Seeing Dad here makes me anticipate with an unkind pleasure his reaction to when this NACT govt gets round to passing law, as they have indicated, to empower Police with the ability hand out “on the spot” non-judicial protection orders in the course of domestic incidents.
Should be interesting to see how that works out in terms of “freedom from Helengrad’s dykeocracy”.
I think both Labour and the Nats ram things through under urgency when they probably shouldn’t. Wether its employment law or civil unions. And both appear to only notice when the other side does it.
Harm principle Matt!!!
who does civil unions harm? nobody actually, unless you believe you have the right to suspend the principle to force your religious views on others, and you find it distasteful.
Right to fire at will, a crucial part of our economy? Many people could get hurt.
Plus, though less a relevant argument now, but if you are a good candidate you are even more likely to go to a big firm where you are granted your work rights. In a small firm you may have a personal disagreement, or an unfortunate night out on the turps with the boss and that is your job canned.
So good candidates with a choice between a small firm and a big one, will be even more likely to choose the big one.
can’t see how this is supposed to be the tonic for an ailing economy. It’s just worker bashing. It is taking more power away from our least empowered. It’s another day at the office with National.
Matt: The problem here is doing it through all stages of the bill and skipping select committee for what is a new bill.
Fine if it is immediate life & limb, or the government about to go illegal and being unable to pay people. But for a normal policy bill – that is just arrogant and outright stupid. The likelihood of the act being a dud escalates immensely.
“I think both Labour and the Nats ram things through under urgency when they probably shouldn’t. Wether its employment law or civil unions.”
Please do your homework instead of making things up.
Civil unions: conscience vote. Full scrutiny. Have you forgotten the protests to Parliament? The weeks, months of public debate?
If you don’t have a basic grasp of the facts, please don’t waste everyone’s time pulling fantasy from thin air.
damn – been a bit distracted. deDad’ing had to wait.
Finally found an article
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKSYD292118._CH_.2420
Huge waves hit PNG.
Lyn just rang on the sat phone from the takuu island. She was ringing for a herald news desk number. Well she is safe and so is the crew. Bet they got some great footage. Lots of damage though.
I should put this in the act denies climate change post
Notice the Maori Party looking a bit tounge Tied on TV tonight. About to find out what a huge mistake they have made going into Govt with Natiopnal.
Michael Cullen had it right in Parliment today in already predicting the downfall of the MP.
A bit off the topic of this thread. But I see that already 30 NZ local councils, including Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington & Hamilton, have signed up for Earth Hour next March:
http://www.3news.co.nz/News/NationalNews/NZ-leads-the-way-in-Earth-Hour-2009/tabid/423/articleID/83727/cat/64/Default.aspx
This would be a good time to have massive collective silent vigils around the country to demonstrate against the government stalling on climate change measures.
The claim of the local coumcils will be that NZ is the first country to switch off the lights for Earth Hour, supposedly leading the way for the world on this. Good time to show up the NACT government’s idiocy on the issue.
I wonder what the cabinat get up to when in the cabinat room….perhaps John gets out a slinky and they play for a wee while. I can see Gerry heading to he deserts counter……
Gone by lunchtime??? Please god yes!
anybody seen Peter?
Carol
“This would be a good time to have massive collective silent vigils around the country to demonstrate against the government stalling on climate change measures.”
Maybe. But here’s the thing. A demo/ campaign against the government’s climate change policy will attract x number of people.
Then another demo/ campaign, starting from scratch will be needed on the issue of work rights. And then another on education policy. And then another and another and another on all manner of policies/decisions.
Far better to mobilise everything in one go…no specific ‘headline banner’…and keep it rolling. The ‘many people, many voices’ concept.
The cohesion would be the broad sense of dissatisfaction and everything would not have to be built up from scratch each time something came around. Constant dialogue, continual broadening and building.
Otherwise, protest or resistance to the government policies will experience a large measure of disarray and bewilderment before collapsing if, as I suspect, this government follows the previously successful tactic of the 80′s and rolls out unpopular measures so thick and fast that by the time people get a handle on what is going to be done and begin to re-organise some form of protest, it’s already a ‘done deal’.
At the moment there is education, work rights and climate change. (More will follow). Pull everything together now and build, rather than organising around these issues as though they were distinct and separate.
It’s not and isn’t designed to be but it is good at propping up failing monopolies.
I’ve been thinking recently on what it would take to get a general strike going…
Yep, start the momentum now and then let everything that the NACT/MP do wrong become another nail in the coffin.
Robinsod:
Why would my employer sack me??
Just for the heck of it???
To have a laugh?
Please get real.
Earth day is coming up, I remember last earth day in christchurch, the traffic was amazing, there were thousands of people in their big ass cars driving to the event and then they took their big asses to McDonalds, then they took their big ass cars again to the recycle plant, that by the way does more harm to the environment than good.
All in all, it Earth day was a great day to screw the earth.
BrettDale :- maybe for spending too much time on blog sites during work hours?
Yes Paul I have heard of the harm principle, I read On Liberty many years ago I also have read the critiques of it. And for the record I don?t agree with it for reasons I have spelt out on my blog. [Btw Mill was clear that if a person consented ( by say signing an employment contract) to the harm or risk of harm it did not violate the principle)]
But to the main point, essentially your response is to my query is that you have substantive philosophical disagreements to the content of this Bill ( based on Mill?s harm principle) but did not to the civil unions bill ( because of your views on religion and public life) its ok to rush the latter through under urgency not the latter. Thanks for making it clear. It?s when the legislation embodies ?liberal? ideals you agree with that it can be pushed through under urgency, when it does not it should not. Things like full public debate and scrutiny is only applicable to legislation lefty liberals disagree with.
It is interesting to note that Pansy Wong informed the Principal & staff of Howick College after the school’s senior prize giving that the National Standards Testing was gone before lunchtime as it was unnecessary and, as the Principal said to the parents, unnecessary and proven unsuccessful where similar testing had been introduced.
Now she’s a cabinet minister.
Obviously still telling people what they want to hear at one point then carrying on with the real agenda… typical of the traditional National Party arrogance and legislation by dictat that we became familiar with under Muldoon, Bolger & Shipley.
Honeymoon?
Over.
The Herald grows a pair – pity they had to wait until after the election to give the nats even the most cursory scrutiny…