Written By: - Date published: 7:46 pm, August 23rd, 2008 - 54 comments
Categories: act, workers' rights -
Tags: epmu, shawn tan
There’s a lot of heat but not much light in the debate about the EPMU’s suspension of Shawn Tan.
What we know from the media is that Tan was told he had to seek approval from the union’s national executive in line with his collective agreement and the rules of the union and then failed to do so. Subsequent to this he was suspended with pay while the EPMU investigated the situation. It’s likely in this case “investigated” meant putting things on hold while they figured out what to do about such a strange situation, because as one of our commenters notes it is very odd for someone who works to enforce the work rights of union members to then campaign for a party that desires to remove all of those rights.
Some are arguing that this constitutes a suppression of freedom of political expression. These people obviously don’t understand what suspended with full pay means. A suspension with pay is effectively a holding pattern move designed to freeze a situation until it can be resolved or until facts are available to make an informed decision. It is not a presumption of guilt or a sign of inevitable sacking. If they had sacked him for standing for ACT it certainly would have been a suppression of political freedom. But they haven’t.
Tan would have known this as he is an organiser and, you’d assume, an employment expert. But instead his party and his advocate have spent their time making public statements about political discrimination and even, absurdly, racism. It also looks like this has been done with Tan’s approval as can be seen in his comment on Kiwiblog directing people to the NBR story about his situation. The word is that he has not exactly been shy about talking to journalists either, which is very strange behaviour for someone who has not even had his first employer meeting to discuss the issue. It could certainly be argued that by doing so he has unwarrantably brought his employer into serious disrepute which would be clear grounds for dismissal. Tan and his advocate would realise this in which case it’s likely Tan has no interest in being employed by the EPMU but does have an interest in attacking them for political gain.
But that doesn’t mean the EPMU has played a particularly smart game either. When they suspended Tan they would surely have been aware that it would go straight to the media as his party is well known for their media-whoring and opportunism and in my opinion they should have allowed him to continue to work there but not have made any concessions to his second job (which is what a serious candidacy effectively is).
The EPMU is now in a position where they would be reasonably expected to fire Tan (if they did not they would be providing a situation in which “disparity of treatment” could enable other staff to attack the reputation of the union in the media with impunity) but in doing so they will open themselves up to the unfounded accusations of political bias we are already seeing from people who don’t understand (or more likely don’t wish to understand) the nature of suspension. They could possibly put him back on duty but with a final written warning for his media stunt but again that then sets a pretty high dismissal threshold and would make it hard to deal with similar situations in the future.
So the basic choice it seems the EPMU has is to:
A) fire Tan and expect to be attacked in the media
B) keep him on and effectively open themselves up to other attacks like this in the future.
It is highly likely there’s more to the situation than the small amount of information we have indicates. In which case there is likely to be an option “C”, as it is so often with employment issues, only time will tell.
[UPDATE: Some excellent points from Jafapete, a dude who knows more than a little about employment law.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
if you really think that hs then you are very stupid and subscribe to viciuos, prenicious, devious right wing contractual device to ensnare workers and drive their wages down. there fore you are a fool.
Daveo
Are you sure freedom of contract means –
allowing bosses to intimidate workers
sack them for joining a union
allowing bosses to refuse to negotiate a collective agreement
removing the legal right to strike
I would have thought that intimidating workers, sacking them for joining a union and removing the legal right to strike are entrenched in law, and in terms of negotiating a collective agreement I would have thought that most large employers would find this easier and simpler than dealing with multitudinous separate contracts.
higherstandard, it’s those rights entrenched in law that ACT wants to remove. They want a completely deregulated labour market.
Some of the more responsible employers prefer collective agreements and in theory it should be easier than negotiating lots of individuals but the reality is in most cases the negotiation of IEAs is a legal fiction. In unionised sites bosses just pass on the union-negotiated terms and conditions to non-members (freeloaders) or if there’s no union they just tell staff what they’re getting paid with no negotiation.
You can see why employers looking to reduce labour costs would prefer that to having to deal with strong unions. It’s about removing a voice for workers and handing absolute power over to employers, that’s why I talked about ACT wanting to restore the master-servant relationship.
Daveo I find your input illumionating and informed, but sometimes spoiled by the sentiments such as ‘Tan doesn’t deserve anyone’s support’, and that Tan has ‘no place in the union movement’. On an emotional level, I share those sentiments fo some degree. Where I find it hard to reconcile with those views is that I have found myself in positions where I have had to advocate for poeple for whom I have no liking or little respect for their views, but have had to try to work within the framework available otherwise, when I have to do the same for a more ‘worthy’ cause, I would have no defence against anyone discriminating against them. A lot of what you said back to me was covered in my first post, and perhaps it is the case that the EPMU have simply fallen foul of a PR -coup for ACT (I suggested that too).
The other point I would like to raise though is that the EPMU are possibly tainted by association with the powers that be, which is why they are prey to accusations of arrogance. ‘fairly and with dignity’? perhaps. With the blessing of the EPMU like Pryde and Curren? certainly not!
I personally agree with the EPMU’s stance on this issue of Tan, but only on an emotional level. My dispassionate side is suggesting that they should have left him alone and let him burn out for lack of publicity, because he is a flake. However, when you have evidence of gushing endorsements for others who have stood for Parliament, who coincidentally are Labour Party members, it doesn’t help things along.
jeeze who writes that crap fo you monkey boy. its sort of a right wing translation of everything by a robot. 10,000,000,000 monkeys have been typing for a hundred years and finally its payoff time. the chimps are beginning to speak. your specious vapid arguments are a a waste of time. hmmmmmm…must design a robotic spamtrasher…squerrrrkkkkkk
yeah – ah-hum … Lee C, perhaps no one reads your blog because your writing style is so self-involved and long-winded? It’s bloody boring to read to be honest. What you convey in 500 words, a concise writer can express in 100 …
You need to learn how to condense/distill your arguments.
Lol.
randal and eger, Thank you both for those insightful contributions to, I don’t know, something or other… randal your last post is classic. You will be joining the hall of fame which so far includes sonic (who inspired the name ‘Monkeys with Typewriters’) and, ‘eger moron’, with his rather Freudian (I thought) ‘sausage-fingers’ jibe. Thanks boys, you are a chuckle-a-minute.
roger:
“You need to learn how to condense/distill your arguments.”
You need to figure out the difference between before tax and after tax income, too, but I don’t see you doing so.
Dean you’re getting boring too. How many times are you going to drag that out?
And how does that explain the email sent by Andrew to all EMPU members about the situation? How is that acting in a dispute in a confidential way?
I would love to see the uproar here if this was the opposite scenario. Be honest boys, you would be screaming bloody murder if somebody got fired or suspended for running for Labour/Greens etc. You would go on about political freedoms being raped etc etc….
Sheesh. Balance please?!
CJH balance is a very threatening concept to some. Good luck all the same.
who cares about a catspaw like tan…gone by morning tea…bye bye
A Champagne Lunch:
That’s what is in store for Tan’s attorney after a Tribunal Hearing. What a ham-fisted bunch your Trades Union must be if they insert a clause in their OWN employment agreements which contravenes the majority of human rights legislation in the western world!
Then, there is the process: If it is sadly true that the union chief has broad-emailed the membership, any rights owed the unfortunate employee have been abrogated by the public airing now given them!
I know nothing about “ACT” but it is beyond belief that any political party would stand on a platform of removing anyone’s rights, be they workers’, etc… You are surely kidding to argue this is the reality?
I think the Union is in for a blast from the Judge/Adjudicator who has this tacky mess placed before him/her! Given the Union’s desire to broadcast the circumstances, I wager the Media will be at the courthouse door to report the outcome. Red for embarrassment I suggest!
I cannot believe that Shawn Tan has the temerity to accept a wage from low-paid workers on the one hand while advocating against them by his candidacy for the ACT party on the other. How on earth can you work for a union while standing for Parliament in a party that essentially wants to eliminate unions?
I don’t think he has any integrity at all based on his fickle political allegiances.
I’m generally critical of SP’s postings but I thought this was bang on the mark.
Tan comes across flaky while the EPMU has followed the rules but looks far from smart.
Where I disagree entirely with many comments is the ingrained view that ACT and other parties can’t do anything for the “workers”. With more successful businesses, things won’t improve for employees. There must be checks and balances but fundamentally without business growth this is no growth for employees.
There is a real distinct between “workers’ rights” and union rights which aren’t necessarily the same thing.
The union is in a difficult place with Shawn Tan. Clearly there are questions about his employment and the radical turnaround in his politics. But Andrew Little’s comment on Natrad that politics would be a factor in his employment are worrying. This issue is particular sensative with journalists who claim political neutrality but are paying fees to an organisation that is trying to be registered as a third party to assist the vote for Labour. Thats one problem – which the epmu skirts around. Now it seems we may be paying for an organisation that decides which parties its staff can support. The question whyetehr I pay union fees to an organisation that will only hire staff who back Labour or the Greens. It is also who owns the union – a political party and its workers – some or whom are no doubt on this blog anonymously – or its members.
A fascinating response from John Drinnan.
I think about the only outcome from the EPMU can be: “We welcome Shawn Tan’s decision to stand for parliamentary office. The EPMU is an organisation that is actively involved in politics, and a range of people who support different political parties are involved in our union. Shawn Tan is free to continue to work at the EPMU if he does not wish to take time off for campaigning. If he does wish to take time off to campaign, then he has the choice to take unpaid leave between now and the election.”
Anything else looks like the EPMU are bullying him out of a job because of his political views. I agree with several other people that Shawn Tan seems like he’s a bit of a flake–anybody flip-flopping around like he does between parties is a bit suspect. But that has nothing to do with his job competence.
The problem for both you, and Jafa, and the EPMU for that matter, is Little’s repeated politically charged statements about Act’s policies being against the interests of EPMU members.
The fact is there are quite likely to be other EPMU members who support the Act party, or for that matter the National Party or Winston First or even the Libertarianz… this is likely to be the case for every union in New Zealand due to the monopoly powers granted by the Employement Relations Act.
That such statements have been made, which are entirely and obviously political, and which are not based on factuality (a percentage of EPMU members, however small, more than likely are supporters of right wing parties), point to the fact that this matter is entirely about the politics of his decision.
That the EPMU has a contractural clause cannot not take away his right to freedom from political discrimination. If the EPMU chooses to pursue this matter, a lot more people will probably question their supposed third-party status than have up to now.