Written By: - Date published: 1:22 pm, August 22nd, 2008 - 58 comments
Categories: education -
Tags: craig foss, early childhood education
Craig Foss annoyed some students in Napier when he described early childhood teachers as “glorified babysitters”, according to a recent story in the Hawke’s Bay Today (sent in by a bemused reader). He admitted that he used the term “babysitting” yet also tried to argue he was taken out of context. Perhaps he realised his assumptions were not going down too well. Certainly National’s plans to boost the numbers of non-accredited early childhood staff lead me to think they do regard “child-minding” as more of a priority than education of toddlers.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Then again his Party did not sack the local health board in an underhand and murky way so his majority after this statement has gone from “unbelivably freaking ginormous” to “landslide massive”.
Crank. I’ve never heard anyone from hawkes bay bring up the dhb as an issue, let alone a deciding factor in a choice not to vote labour..
Classic attempt to derail the point of this post and start off the thread with your own talking point Crank.
Thanks for pointing out Foss’s ridiculousness Dancer, I’ve picked up on your post and blogged about this too now.
Steve, my understanding is that there is a lot of people in the Hawkes Bay who are still hopping mad about the DHB thing but my take on this is probably as anecdotal as yours.
SP
“I?ve never heard anyone from hawkes bay bring up the dhb as an issue”
Ha best line I’ve heard all day !
Thanks Julie – I think I feel outraged on the “soon to be teachers” behalf as I can’t think of many things as daunting as being surrounded by toddlers 5 days a week, 8+ hours a day, being in charge of growing young minds. Looking after my ones already drives me to distraction! So it sounds like a comment that is really out of touch with what the job and purpose of it really is.
Somehow I feel obliged to apologise on behalf of Foss to the entire teaching profession. As the mum of two kids, I appreciate teachers at all levels very much. That’s a pretty blatant bit off misogyny – but then Foss is only saying what the rest of the Nats are thinking. It’s hard to argue that you value EC teachers while calling for employing less qualified ones.
Foss’ comments tell us what he privately believes, and prove he’s been misleading in his public comments. Like the rest of the National Party, Foss can’t be trusted.
What is with National MPs saying one thing in private and one thing in public. It’s disingenuous and takes New Zealanders for fools. No wonder that One News poll showed no one bloody trusted National.
and I sure am glad I ‘ve got a chance to say a word about the music and the mothers in Nashville.
Early childhood teachers are stupid, they assume that because they are teaching young children they can get away with being mentally deficient. If you know many early childhood teachers you will know im right
if I know the ones that know you then you will be right for you are mentally deficient but I dont so you are wrong.
Billy,
you are an idiot, what a stupid thing to say.
you clearly do not know any ec teachers, and are just basing your views on walking past a child care center and peering in a window.
You do not have any idea the dedication, knowledge, and planning that goes into being a ec teacher, or any teacher for that matter.
They are an extremely under valued part of the education sector, and it is idiots like you that talk without knowing what you are talking about who slow down the progress of ec teachers by undermining them.
get a life you dork.
Billy – The only things that’re mentally deficient are National’s private plans for New Zealand. If they really believe that early childhood teachers are mentally deficient, then they should fucking well come out and say so. Stop being such little chicken shits, and say what you really mean.
Crank your “understanding” is bullshit. I come from Napier, as has my entire family since the first Maori saw the first white person and thought, “hello, whats going on here then?”
The DHB is all about a right wing wannabe oligarchy having a tanty over its cosy cronyism being found out.
The local rag (run by a self-confessed reactionary and christian fundy) has shamelessly championed the anti-modern, Tolkienesque world view that the local squireocracy goes all misty eyed over, and whipped the locals up into an outrage over the invasion of their little Hobbit shire and the disruption of rule by noblisse oblige that marks when all is right with the world.
Since then, the plainly lacking revelations that would prove the genteel rural oligarchs right and the outland lesbian-socialist Orcs wrong has led to more than a few to question what they’ve been told.
Of course, as long as the local paper continues to be the propaganda arm of the Pinochet’s in the Hawkes Bay Club and as long as their local National Party candidate of choice can use his “Clarkson discount” to corruptly work his way around the electoral spending cap it’ll be hard for Labour to win the seat back, but it’ll happen.
God what an absolute stupid issue to complain about.
You really will use anything to attack national won’t you?
Foss is like some back bencher. Plenty of labour’s back benchers have said and done things stupid.
You’re all a bunch of labour party hacks who need to get over themselves and stop complaining.
And don’t talk about transparency and honesty again. That is a complete sham. Labour is equally, if not more, bad.
Smacking anyone? Paint-gate? Corn-gate? Speed-at-160km-and-hang-your-police-escorts-out-to-dry-gate?
Pleease.
Thank god for freedom of expresion.
ahh Sarah, I don’t think the woman in the article found it nothing. Are you saying she doesn’t have the right to be angry? Plus there’s a genuine issue here about how we value those who educate our children.
And sure – you might find egs of MPs from other parties who’s said stupid things (can’t think of any recent Labour backbenchers off the top of my head tho’) – in fact the most recent example of someone saying something silly was…that’s right – Bill English, Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith saying one thing in private and another in public. Guess we should be grateful Foss at least said it in public. But then, if he says this in public what would he say in private anyway?
IF you think Foss has put it’s foot in it, what about the independent union the EPMU – suspending someone for daring to stand for ACT without asking for permission.
Reminds me of all those suppression of free speech of union members quotes aimed at David Farrar when he challenged the EPMU in court
Sure people say stupid things. But most people aren’t putting themselves up to run the country – when you are doing so then your utterances, particularly when you make them in the course of your job as a Member of Parliament, are open to scrutiny. We should be able to get a picture of what a person thinks about a matter based on what they say about it. Surely?
Gosh it’s fascinating to see so many righty commenters trying to drag this thread off topic – can’t you talk about the acutal issue in this thread or did no one issue you any talking points on it today?
The rules of his employment that he agreed to stated that he had to ask permission first before standing as a politician. He broke contract – do you think any other employer would do nothing if one of their employees broke contract?
Sorry about the OTness but these idiots are starting to bug me.
“IF you think Foss has put it’s foot in it, what about the independent union the EPMU – suspending someone for daring to stand for ACT without asking for permission.”
Actually Insider, this is the perfect opportunity for The Standard to show they are not associated with the EPMU by speaking out against this. The Standard are obviously not ACT supporters but have been vocal about human rights and this is obviously a clear breech of human rights and also a breech of what unions were set up for in the first place.
You know what? Screw you.
Labelling us as idiots just because we offer a different view is unreasonable and shows your true nature as a dodgy-dealing ill-informed labour party hack.
He brought up a fair point. Yet you label him as an idiot and treat him like he’s some kind of lesser being just because he brings up a view that is contrary to your own.
And what kind of contract is the Union putting forward in the first place if an employee is not allowed to voice their own opinion and own political view, and must instead follow line with the view put forward by the establishment without wavering. It really shows how prejudicial and biased these sort of unions are.
Sure he made a mistake and didn’t let his employees know that he was running for the ACT party (and there are still dubious circumstances surrounding this — he claims that they told him from the outset that they would fire him if he tried to run for the Act party, but still. Shouldn’t a person have a right to run for whatever political party they want and stand up for their own view without being fired?
Surely the members of this blog will stand up for the rights of this man like they havre done for the rights of all other workers throughout this blog’s history?
The comments by Foss (if true) were unwise. Surely the nats have learnt by now that there will be vermin hiding under every table with a 10 buck dictaphone every time they speak.
On the other topic that some threadjacker brought up.
This is a very bad look for the epmu and an embarrassing one for some posters here. It must be difficult to decide whether to jump in and support your employer or man up and support a fellow employees human rights. it will be interesting to see which side of the morality fence some of you fall.
Draco, EMPU contracts do not superseed the Human Rights legislation. So, question for you, do you support the Union or the Human Rights law? Rock and hard place for lefties.
Also, makes me think the EMPU is just an extension of the Labour Party, and thus should not be able to register as a third party for election purposes. Afetr all, it seems like you can you can stand for any party you like at the EMPU as long as it is Labour.
Question to the EMPU guys; how many EMPU staff have stood for another party other than Labour?
There is doubt that early childhood education and education throughout primary and high school is at an all time low, there seems to be a system that doesn’t recognize the children that may be of higher intelligence than the rest, basically the smart kids are told to dumb down.
I sugggested on kiwiblog that the EPMU would have a different view of Tan were he standing for Labour, and was informed that I was guilty of speculation. Here is my reponse to that allegation: –
“You should stick to debating on facts rather then speculating on something with no base.’
yes yl, and again I apologise for that assumption.
However, I have to suggest that we are living in times when, if it is politically expedient, our political representatives have been known to re-invent themselves, and go against prior statements when the occasion demands it, so although I am speculating, I don’t think it is too long a bow to draw.
Here are some other views on record, from sources you may trust more than ickle me;
“You also forget the Clare Curran was the PR force behind the EPMU’s fair share campaign and still has very good links with the movement. Anyone who knew anything about how Labour and the unions work would know that Curran would have had the EPMU’s backing if her candidacy was serious.’ (Tane – kiwiblog 30th october 2007)
‘ see EPMU President Don Pryde has thrown his hat in the ring for the Dunedin South seat and has the full backing of his union. ‘ (Irish Bill The Standard Oct. 30th 2007)
“Asked about whether he had discussed supporting Mr Pryde with party president Mike Williams, Mr Little said he had met to talk about the party rejuvenation in general and spoke on the need for new candidates.’ (Herald Oct 31st, 2007)
On the other hand it is that case that Andrew Little has indicated that when he goes for Labour Party President/ ‘future’ PM job(?) he will ‘step down’ from the EPMU.
So at least Little is showing a personal consistency. But, it is not too long bow a draw to suggest that the EPMU would ‘bless’ a prospective candidate for Labour were it expedient to do so.
Now, that brings us to the sticky issue of consistency, and whether Tan has been treated differently by the EPMU, than say Curren, Pryde etc purely on the basis of the political views he has chosen to espouse. You may argue that his standing for ACT was without permission, therefore in breach of his contract, but if the EPMU seriously negotiates on behalf of its workers on the basis that the employer gets ‘carte-blanche’ to choose their employees’ ‘rights’ then it is about as useful as a union, as tits are on a snake.
“You should stick to debating on facts rather then speculating on something with no base.’
yes yl, and again I apologise for that assumption.
However, I have to suggest that we are living in times when, if it is politically expedient, our political representatives have been known to re-invent themselves, and go against prior statements when the occasion demands it, so although I am speculating, I don’t think it is too long a bow to draw.
Here are some facts;
“You also forget the Clare Curran was the PR force behind the EPMU’s fair share campaign and still has very good links with the movement. Anyone who knew anything about how Labour and the unions work would know that Curran would have had the EPMU’s backing if her candidacy was serious.’ (Tane – kiwiblog 30th october 2007)
‘ see EPMU President Don Pryde has thrown his hat in the ring for the Dunedin South seat and has the full backing of his union. ‘ (Irish Bill The Standard Oct. 30th 2007)
“Asked about whether he had discussed supporting Mr Pryde with party president Mike Williams, Mr Little said he had met to talk about the party rejuvenation in general and spoke on the need for new candidates.’ (Herald Oct 31st, 2007)
On the other hand it is that case that Andrew Little has indicated taht when he goes for Labour Party President/ pM job(?) he will ‘step down’ from the EPMU.
So on the case in fact, perhaps it is a long-bow to draw given that Little is showing a personal consistency. But, it is not too long bow a draw to suggest that the EPMU would ‘bless’ a prospective candidate for Labour were it expedient to do so.
interesting – twice I have posted with historical evidence that the EPMU and even The Standard’s editorial team does support Labour candidates that originated from the EPMU and twice nothing has shown up on the page. If my posts are banned or disallowed, it would be nice for you to at least inform me, then I will not have to waste my time trying would I?
[lprent: Both wound up in the spam trap. I cannot see exactly why - perhaps someone on another site has been tossing your messages into spam? So they got sent through when I got around to looking at the site. Given a choice between having occasional messages in spam and having to clean a large number of messages each day that get through recaptha... ]
What an absolute beat-up. If that’s the best this blog can come up with on a Friday afternoon then it’s safe to assume that the Labour Party and the Greenies are in deep trouble for the election, whenever that may be. I’m sensing a massive bribe on the way and I can’t wait to hear what’s being cooked up to sway the voters.
The EPMU are not part of the Labour Party Barnsley. They are a separate legal entity. They don’t meet the thresh-hold for using political grounds to exclude a person from employment.
I find it interesting that some people say the fact that Shawn Tan agreed to this clause in his agreement means that he should stick by it. Are these the same people who would argue that an employment agreement where both parties agreed to something that is below the minimum wage, would be oppressive and unfair on the employee?
The only issue for the EPMU is whether somebody can do their job. If Shawn Tan is spending all his time away from his workplace campaigning, or is campaigning using EPMU facilities, then fair enough, he should face disciplinary action. But there’s no evidence of that. He’s just been named as a candidate. Having to go and inform your boss that you’re standing as a political candidate beforehand is outrageous. It’s like having to go and inform your boss beforehand that you’re a lesbian, and asking their permission.
There are lots of lawyers working in the EPMU. I don’t think they honestly believe that somebody can’t represent two different points of view. Your job representing employees in employment disputes isn’t undermined just because you’re a member of a political party that is against collective bargaining. I can’t see how the EPMU can get away with this. I’m not an Act party supporter, and I think Shawn Tan is probably a bit of a weirdo for switching from the Greens to Act in such a short time, but that doesn’t mean he can’t do his job properly.
it looks like the tory provocateurs do not have the capacity to stick to the point which in this case is the idiotic foss calling early childhood teachers glorified babysitters. any connection between this assertion and the rules of the EPMU is contingent on being a glorified upstart tory looking to cause trouble by confabulating the argument into a grab bag of issues the tories care to insert to distract the voters from considering Mr Foss’s ludicrous and demeaning statements
The rules of [Tan's] employment that he agreed to stated that he had to ask permission first before standing as a politician. He broke contract – do you think any other employer would do nothing if one of their employees broke contract?
Conversely, do you think an employee should sit and let his employer breach Human Rights legislation. His employer told him that if he was going to stand for ACT he should resign, implying that if he asked for permission, it would not be granted. It’s a shame he did not get that in writing because Andrew Little has admitted on Newstalk ZB that Mr Tan’s political party of choice is a factor.
Somebody who wants to seek public office for a party whose philosophies and policies and interests are directly contrary to the interests of the union’s members would obviously be foolish to say that that would not have a bearing on any application for approval.
Political opinion is a prohibited ground of discrimination, so even if Tan had tossed up whether to ask permission, he was unlawfully discriminated against even before he made the decision not to seek official permission.
thankyou for the reply – given my own posts about ‘paranoia’ it is a bit rich coming from me to accuse you of censorship. I apologise.
WOuld you please delete the second duplicate. And may I add this take on the Tan thing?
I recently posted on the EPMU ‘Ticklist’. As I then wrote:
“These calls to protect workers’ rights are laudable, I personally would endorse and support the following: “Wages Policy”, “A meaningful right to be in a union”, “Right to be treated fairly and with dignity”, “Right to a safe and healthy workplace”, “Decent minimum entitlements”, “Committment to ongoing training and learning”. ”
The ‘Right to be Treated Fairly and with Dignity’? As much as I would probably wish to ‘suspend’ Tan myself, were I in the EPMU’s shoes, that does not mean that I should be able to. The EPMU appear to be a ‘Law unto themselves’. They ‘warmly endorse’ candidates who stand for Labour, but drum the poor sap who stands for ACT out of his job?
Suspending Tan was a stupid reaction, borne of the above-mentioned arrogance that comes with thinking they are the supreme moral arbiters of what constitutes ‘worker’s rights’. Is Tan being treated ‘fairly and with dignity’ by the EPMU?
You decide.
Lee – monkey with typewriter
It’d be nice to have Tane and IB’s input on this.
randal – too many big words mate.
Since when did defending the BoRA make you a ‘Tory provacateur’? – oh yes, during the SC on the EFA, I remember now….
Are we seeing a pattern emerging?