Written By: - Date published: 11:56 am, July 3rd, 2008 - 71 comments
Categories: workers' rights -
Tags: democracy, Employment Relations Act, right to strike, trucks
Howcome when capital goes on strike over political issues it’s seen as a legitimate part of democracy, but if workers tried the same thing it would be illegal under the Employment Relations Act?
[UPDATE: Seems frog had similar thoughts over here.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Very simple reason Tane. 67% of commercial transport industry is individual owner drivers. They decide whether to go strike and face economic consequence to their business if they do it. This is not big business on strike, this is small business fed up with Government taking them for granted, not consulting, imposing higher and higher cost, and financially screwing over.
Ninety percent of commercial truck business are 1-5 trucks. Sixtyseven percent of commercial truck business are just one truck. This is not big business tane.
this is small business fed up with Government taking them for granted, not consulting, imposing higher and higher cost, and financially screwing over.
Sure, they’d voluntarily pay higher RUC to fund roading improvements. Maybe we should leave an honesty box in each business.
I’m not interested in whether the owner of capital is big or small. I’m simply highlighting the hypocrisy here – when owners of capital go on strike to further their own political interests they’re standing up for democracy. When workers try the same thing they’re charged with breaking the law.
Bloody good question, tane.
Because they are the ones as the small business owners that are losing out by not working during that time. It is a protest not a strike..
Surely if sympathy strikes over non bargaining matters were a good thing and depriving workers of their legitimate rights, then high profile Labour ex unionists, who we are told have an equal share in policy, such as Darien Fenton, Sue Moroney, Taito Philip Field and Lesley Soper would have insisted that it be introduced and resigned if it wasnt
I thought it was legal to strike.
captcha: sinking due, he he
Because when workers go on strike for political reason he is risking not just his labour but committing employer’s capital to strike as well Tane. Worker doesn’t have right to risk anything other than labour Tane. If worker want to protest he can resign from job and then protest. If business owner goes on strike he still has to pay workers and he risks own capital.
I thought there were too many bureacrats? Now we need to get more so that we can ‘consult’ with business. I loved the way the guy on Sunrise complained that the lack of consultation was because there were too many bureacrats. He is as bad as English, no matter what the issue, the real problem is the bureacracts.
vto. it’s not legal to strike for political reasons. eg. workers can’t legally strike when petrol excise is adjusted for inflation.
rjs131. strike/protest it’s semantics.
Dilip. That’s actually the msot intelligent comment I’ve seen from a rightwing commentator in ages. It’s still wrong though – the worker only denies his labour, if the capitalist can’t find labour to operate his capital, that’s not the workers’ fault, he has no duty to man the capital, he’s not a serf.
So capitalists can strike but workers can’t. Where do I sign up to this capitalist democracy you speak of?
Nice post Tane, good to see someone else thought there was a double standard here. Are NDU or AWUNZ truck drivers allowed to refuse to protest for their company if they want? They are allowed to opt out of union protests.
Funny – when I raise the question the comments in reply focus mostly on transport costs. When Tane raises it the comments focus mostly on employment relations. Shows the value of having a diverse, inclusive blogosphere!
…he has no duty to man the capital, he’s not a serf.
Course he does if he freely promised he would.
This is just so bogus. What the truck drivers are proposing to do is by no sensible definition a strike.
I wish I could strike. Bloody economy is about to zap me with a lightning bolt.
Billy. Of course it’s a strike.
In fact here’s a sensible definition of ‘strike’ from The Free Online Dictionary “A temporary stoppage of normal activity undertaken as a protest”
or from Webster’s “a temporary stoppage of activities in protest against an act or condition”
- that’s precisely what the truck companies are doing.
captcha: “Manufacturers purse” awesome.
vto – I did promise to run away one day and grow turnips on an island, untouched by the evils of globalisation and capitalism, oblivious to peak oil and global warming (clearly not an atoll). That’s as close as you’ll get to ‘striking’ from ‘the economy’ until the revolution. Application forms available…
“Application forms available ”
Turnips are the devil’s vegetable. Count me out.
Well OK, clever clogs. But the truck drivers are withdrawing their labour from themselves. So it’s not the same thing.
Mr Pilott I will be doing the kiwi version – whitebaiting on the coast. Only 8 weeks to go!
Trucks blocking the way into the city?! Where’s this guy when you need him, huh?
I hope you’re not implying “capital” (which is in fact people – in this case the owners of small businesses, often employing only themselves) shouldn’t be allowed to strike?
Of course both they and workers should have the right to take whatever protest action they wish without penalty – it’s a democracy after all.
But quite how one can take that view while supporting the EFA – which created two classes with very different rights to speech: exisiting Parliamentary parties and everyone else – without seeing the inconsistency is beyond me.
all I can see is a whole lot of rugged individuals who are not so rugged when it comes down to it. they ok when everything is going forward but the moment the tide goes out they begin to whinge like all the rest of the tin pot tories or two bob snobs. Just because they own their own truck means nothing to a currency trader in New York or an oil trader on the London exchange
also keep in mind that this isnt a strike along the lines of “we are refusing to do X” this is a strike that has as its main intent the purpose of shutting down central aucklands traffic (and therefore auckland) for several hours – if not most of the morning.
Im yet to know enough about the situation to sit either side of this one, but i dont appreciate the attempt to use aucklanders (or any populace) as leverage for a political protest.
Why arent they blockading parliament instead? (they could also then leverage the “journey to parliament” in the media as well)
seems like the main result of this will be a lot of f****d off commuters
Good to see that some people still think all workers (and owners for that matter) are male. /sarcasm
Anyway, this shemozzle has put me in mind of many years ago when Major was British PM and the farmers in the UK did a similar thing (probably over some EU related issue, I forget) and Major, outraged, proclaimed on the telly “GET YOUR TRACTORS OFF MY LAWN!!!” For some reason I’ve never quite shaken the mental image.
And apparently they are blockading in Wellington too, I think I just heard that on the 1pm news. 7am – 10am tomorrow?
I have sympathy for the truck drivers and reacted with some minor glee when I heard about it. But I used to hate with a vengeance the Cook Strait ferry strikes for dragging Joe Public into their personal problems.
Same applies here I guess. You have a good point mr fraser. Are they the new ‘wharfies’?
Julie. I chose to use gendered language because the lack of a proper gender-neutral singular third person in English is a pain in the arse. This time is was he, other times it’s she – it’s standard practice from law school. Accusing people of misogyny when it’s not there ain’t cool.
captcha: to CALIFORNIA – where captcha leaving for if Labour wins the election?
Matthew: “Sure, they’d voluntarily pay higher RUC to fund roading improvements.”
Of course they wouldn’t but that is not the issue here. The truck drivers who make up the “Sixtyseven percent of commercial truck business are just one truck.” are going to get screwed over by the Government subsidizing a rail company that competes directly with all those owner-drivers. So they know that these extra RUC will be going into subsidizing this competitor.
No one (except for maybe a few sadomasochists) wants to pay to get shafted.
I wasn’t having a go at you specifically Steve, but I see the lead that you have set, by using male pronouns, has continued in this thread. Citing “standard practice from law school” isn’t a free pass to assume your language is inclusive, imho. Anyway your comments are your comments, not mine, so you are entitled to do whatever you want, language wise, I look forward to seeing you and commenters here use female pronouns in the future. Arguments made here (in posts and comments) aren’t above scrutiny, so why shouldn’t choice of language be open to critique?
In case you can’t tell I don’t have much truck (boom boom) with the claim that it’s simply easier, in English, to use gendered language (almost always male) to imply inclusion of both genders. Many of us are sniggering away at Key’s imprecision but perhaps sometimes we (including myself) need to consider our own?
IIRC, this thread is about truck drivers, withdrawl of labour, and the view that the former doing the latter is not really that different from workers striking isn’t it? I didn’t expect an irritated aside about pronouns to derail things, and I hope it doesn’t.
Bryan, I’ve already shown that all RUC are going towards new roading projects, apart from the standard allocation for PT (see the Taumarunui thread). Now, didn’t you mention a while back that rail’s worthless and we’ll alays need torucks for end-line distribution? Could have been someone else.
So the issue here is that all RUC goes into roads and simply because the government is supporting an industry that competes with some aspects of theirs, they’re going to ruin many peoples’ day. Well it’s democracy, the Government isn’t a lobby group for truckies, last I checked.
BS: Sorry, where did the “RUC’s are going to fund Cullens trainset” line come from? I’ve heard it from other posters here, but have yet to see any evidence.
Actually, if you read the articles around about the blockage, you’ll see that truckies are upset because they can’t bulk-buy their RUC’s before the price rise. As Ms. King says, they bought something like $17.1 million worth in the lead-in to the previous rise.
Considering that, why is it wrong to raise them without warning? Would you also prefer that petrol companies are forced to give us at least 48 hours notice of any rise in the price of petrol?
How typical of a bunch of fundie commies (come the revolution, indeed!) to pick on such an irrelevancy. Surely the question you should be asking is whether Cullen’s drive to bankrupt the railways competitors is good for workers.
I love how the herald is all over this with ‘extensive coverage’ but come Crosby/Textor it takes them a couple of days to even acknowledge it.
Matt – I’d like a form please. Have you got an island picked out that I can inspect? I like a mix of tall sea cliffs and sandy beaches. Something like the one in ‘The Beach’ would be grand.
And temperate/sub-tropical, so we can grow something that’s not turnips.
This weekend I’m gonna blockade an isle at the supermarket because they don’t give any warning of price increases!
Rex, I support the right of all groups in society to protest, even if I disagree with the protest. Obviously there are caveats involved, as with any complex issue.
I don’t see any contradiction between that position and support for the principles of the Electoral Finance Act.
Tane, did you happen to see the post by frog on the tactics that Labour use at question time while you were at frogblog?
I don’t see a double standard – unless you are suggesting that the law permits a lockout for political reasons?
Workers cannot strike for political protest, employers cannot lock out for political protest. Seems to work equally(even if you disagree with it – it is a standard, not a double standard).
Do you think the law should allow employers to say: “we disagree with the Government’s tax policy, we want a tax cut, so all you workers don’t come in today – we’re not paying you as a protest”?