If lorry drivers were employees then they would not care any more about RUC than you or I.

Do you think we will see commercial pilots (employees) wanting to strike because of the price of jet fuel or landing fees?

With 70 per cent of goods transported by truck, a prolonged strike could paralyse the booming Indian economy.’ http://english.aljazeera.net

If lorry drivers in NZ were not self employed, be it as sub-contractors or whatever, then the Indian scenario would be illegal under the ERA.

Employees in NZ are hamstrung.The only time a worker can (legally) strike in NZ is during negotiations. Employment Law is and always has been designed to protect Employers.

But you see no contradiction between that and support for the EFA?

Explain to me then, why Helen Clark and John Key (or Insight and Crosby Textor, if you’d prefer) can spend vast amounts of my, yours and every other taxpayers’ money advancing their political ends but me, you, the EPMU or the Exclusive Bretheren (or the RSPCA, the Salvation Army, the Socialist Workers’ Party or the National Front, come to that) can’t do so without being hogtied in red tape and probably prevented from so doing if we wish to even come close to matching their budgets?

And don’t say you, me and the SWP don’t have the money to spend – that’s irrelevant. If I get filthy rich (fat chance, alas) and die, I plan a handsome bequest to the RSPCA. So why shouldn’t they be able to spend over $120,000 arguing (rightly, in my view) that they should be government funded?

And, it’s already legal for capital to strike (may be not a one day lock-out but in other ways) and I can’t see a way of making it illegal really.

employers – a publicly-owned state-run ACC system is important to us; so important that we are willing to strike – giving up a day’s pay, and prevent you from operating for that day to the detriment of you and the wider economy, to make that point. The government should see the detriment to the economy and change its mind, and you should see the detriment to you as the employer should push the government to change its mind.

You can come down on either side, but this makes sense as an argument.

However, if you permit this, consistency would suggest that you should also permit this:

employees – a cut in the rate of company tax is important to us; so important that we are willing to impose a lockout, cease operating for a day and give up a day’s earnings, to the detriment of you and the wider economy, to make that point. The government should see the detriment to the economy and change its mind, and you should see the detriment to you you as the workers should push the government to change its mind.

Do you support both, and are consistent? Or only one, and are not?

So smaller operators would effectively subsidise the big ones. And if you think that amount would be insignificant, remember the amount in question is the reason for this whole protest (in theory).

I have a few Decrees to Issue:

1 – Turnips will not form a state monopoly, swedes and other such produce will be allowed (hope that satisfies, PB).

2 – The island will be small and horrible, in a poor location (sorry t-rex), so the Libertarians don’t find me when their society self-destructs and the bastards want a hand-out.

3 – all applications welcome. Cloth cap issued with acceptance and secret coordinates.

Yes, and Tane’s argument is employees striking for political reasons shouldn’t be banned when the law does allow capital to punish society or the rest of the economy to make a political point.

Ultimately, you can only hurt by striking those who depend on you to provide your good or service – employees can only punish their employers by striking, capital can punish the rest of the inter-connected economy.

Remember, it’s not about driving down the road slowly – that’s just political theatre, the strike is the cessation of normal operations.

The complaint was that there was a double standard because the the Employment Relations Act prohibited employees acting in an analagous way to employers. This is false.

The Employment Relations Act prohibits political strikes by employees and political lockouts by employers. It has nothing to say about other protest action that might harm the economy engaged in by either.

The law prohibits workers making a political point by punishing their employers, and it prohibits employers making a political point by punishing their employees. You might disagree, but out of consistency, you should want both or neither.

And now we have a new one – Webber

Is there a spam bot on the web programmed to spout this line?

I’ve always voted Labour but won’t be this time round as well.

If you look at the polls I would think that there are a lot of us floating around.

1. It was incredibly foolish to raise RUCs abruptly, and immediately after buying the rail network back. The government deserves all the bagging they get for this , it’s cynical. King could have obviated most of the bad blood here by simply giving the 30-day warning she said she’d give.

2. I dispute the designation of independent truck drivers as capital rather than labour. I agree that owner-operators are an edge case, but Webber makes a good point that they themselves are beholden to actual genuine capital interests, and are themselves simply workers with an expensive tool.

3. The question of whether trucks or rail are more efficient for haulage is decided by two articles of belief: first, do you believe oil is going to become mroe scarce and expensive in the long term?, and second, do you believe that carbon-trading is going to impact on this calculation in the medium term?

L