Workers’ rights under attack

85 comments on “Workers’ rights under attack ”

• Comments are now closed

1. James 1

   14 June 2013 at 10:18 am

   I think this is a great change and strongly support it. No more will companies be held hostage to unions.

   I believe it will work better for all for reasoned debate between the union and the employer as opposed to all the power being held by one party.

   Hope that this passes quickly.

   Note – no conflict here – not a single union member on my staff.
   • Winston Smith 1.1

     14 June 2013 at 10:21 am

     I agree and its good the battle lines are being drawn up, left-wing v right-wing…not center v center
     • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1.1

       14 June 2013 at 10:25 am

       The 2% versus New Zealand.
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.2

       14 June 2013 at 10:25 am

       Fuck that mate it’s the 80% against the 20%

       Left wing/right wing a bygone analogy.
       • James 1.1.2.1

         14 June 2013 at 10:33 am

         I would say you are right it is 80 vs 20.

         But I think you will find that its the 80% that support this.

         I know that many on this forum are so very pro union and cannot see the other side of the coin – and you will think this will be a disaster for the government – after all if it pissed off 80% of people right?

         But I think you will be sadly disappointed that the general man on the street finds this a good thing.

         Still I guess we will see who is right after we see the poll results right.
         • James N 1.1.2.1.1

           14 June 2013 at 10:53 am

           The “general man (sic) on the street” is probably looking for a job after being laid off under the 90 day rule.
           • James 1.1.2.1.1.1

             14 June 2013 at 11:09 am

             yeah … nah.
             • Colonial Viper …

               14 June 2013 at 1:16 pm

               If 80% of people support your right wing position – then you have nothing to worry about.
               • Winston Smith …

                 14 June 2013 at 2:26 pm

                 Well the last two elections they didn’t get 80% but that got enough
                 • McFlock …

                   14 June 2013 at 2:37 pm

                   37% or something, wasn’t it?
                   Nothing to worry about for your guys there…
             • travellerev …

               14 June 2013 at 9:38 pm

               Yep actually. And you will find James that you actually just might have someone being a union member but not telling you. Wages you are paying are based on what unions have been able to battle for. If you bid half of that your employees would soon have something to complain about and you know what? that one secret union member might just be able to help them!
         • Paul 1.1.2.1.2

           14 June 2013 at 8:22 pm

           But only the 2% benefit.
         • asd 1.1.2.1.3

           15 June 2013 at 11:51 pm

           You sound like a real sanctimonious arshole to work for.
   • tracey 1.2

     14 June 2013 at 11:41 am

     James that is fine for those with integrity and fairness such as you, but this is a response to the POA issue, and in that case we know there would be no reasoned discussion, just a reduced contract pushed across the table to the workforce and a glib comment that if they dont like it they will hire people who do.

     Jamie lee Ross says this will balance the employment relationship. I am not sure how. With only 25% of the workforce in unions, it seems that in 75% of the workplaces, what he wants already exists. Perhaps 75/25 just isnt enough “balance” of power for this government.

     Remember when balanced was 50/50.

     If a workforce cannot reasonably withdraw their labour tell me, what leverage do they have in those employment relationships which are not dealt with by a fair and integrity-filled employer?
   • aspasia 1.3

     14 June 2013 at 11:17 pm

     The Court of Appeal has clearly set out the basic employment rights which s97 protects. In the case New Zealand Dairy Workers’ Union Incorporated v Open Country Cheese Company [2011] NZCA 56, three Justices of the Court of Appeal say:

     [24]Part 8 confers on organised workers the right to strike. As the authors of Mazengarb’s Employment Law have observed:
     “The right to strike has long been regarded as a fundamental protection for workers. The reason is obvious. In the absence of a right to strike workers have no protection against the inherently unequal bargaining power of employers.”

     [25]Anti-strike breaking provisions are thus necessary to preserve the bargaining power of striking workers. In Air Nelson Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc the majority of the Supreme Court stated:
     “… s 97 is intended to be prohibitory… It is clear that the section intentionally tilts the balance in favour of striking or locked out workers. It is a firm anti-strike breaking mechanism. It confers employment-related rights on employees and constrains the bargaining power of the employer for the benefit of striking or locked out employees.”

     [26] Striking is effective because it inflicts economic hardship on the employer by depriving it of the productivity of its employees.Its effect is negated, however, if the employer is able to avoid that detriment by substituting other workers.
   • QoT 1.4

     15 June 2013 at 11:46 am

     I believe it will work better for all for reasoned debate between the union and the employer as opposed to all the power being held by one party.

     Your version of reality must be really fun to live in. For the 1%.
   • xtasy 1.5

     16 June 2013 at 12:05 am

     If it was “serious” but your PM is letting you down on this RWNut!
2. Mary 2

   14 June 2013 at 10:33 am

   The name of the bill sums up perfectly the way the right-wing view workers: as units of labour that must remain continuous, there to serve them and to ensure bottom lines are maintained regardless of how low wages and conditions go.
   • James 2.1

     14 June 2013 at 10:47 am

     You forget that many “right wing” people offer some of the very best working conditions in NZ.

     My staff all have complete flexi time to suit families, get regular bonuses, have meals put on (not all the time but fairly regularly), have movie nights out provided every couple of months for all staff (gold Class), have exceptional working condition’s – including time out areas to relax and have nice coffees (good coffee machine provided – free of charge of course), we have free fresh fruit for staff, nibbles, and soft drinks.

     But Im a right winger – so I must be a bad bastard huh.
     • James 2.1.1

       14 June 2013 at 10:50 am

       oh and as for a “Living Wage” – even my “lower end” staff are paid well over the minumum wage.

       If Im successful they are successful. and despite what you may think – most of my friends who also own companies think like this also.

       Problem with “you lot” is that you think piss poor employers are the noem – but you are wrong – most employers want to do the right thing and have a great working enviornment
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1

         14 June 2013 at 11:25 am

         …and for the employers who don’t want to do the right thing, the National Party just legalised their wet-dreams.

         Nice of you to confirm their existence.
         • James 2.1.1.1.1

           14 June 2013 at 11:36 am

           Using your (poor) logic I will also say that there are very bad unions that use their power under the current law to strong arm ridiculous requirements from good employers thus stuffing their businesses, and stopping them grow – preventing them from hiring new staff etc.

           I take it that you will take this as confirmation of their existence also.

           or are you so one eyed and bitter that you refuse to accept that?
           • framu 2.1.1.1.1.1

             14 June 2013 at 12:37 pm

             your forgetting three major things here

             1) what you do personally isnt the benchmark for developing industrial legislation. Youve already confirmed that the conditions you set are well out side those that are seen in the usual strike situations

             2) a union is a democratic organisation – it cant live long if it doesnt represent the wishes of its members

             3) industrial action is very very low and reducing – its only the really bad employers who seem to end up facing a strike – if its such a non-problem (and it is) why are we considering laws that enable the crap employers? (good employers dont have these problems remember)
           • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1.1.2

             14 June 2013 at 1:05 pm

             James, the fact of the bad employers you cite is confirmed by employment court decisions; but have you any basis for your unsupported assertions about union behaviour? You certainly can’t take anything I’ve written as confirming your smears.
           • saarbo 2.1.1.1.1.3

             14 June 2013 at 9:29 pm

             James, I get the impression that you have probably inherited daddy’s company. It doesn’t make sense that you are so pro this legislation when you “don’t have union staff”…either that or you are a troll. If none of that is correct, then one thing I am sure about is that you are a wanker.
       • framu 2.1.1.2

         14 June 2013 at 12:38 pm

         “even my “lower end” staff are paid well over the minumum wage. ”

         yeah but many arent – so whats your point?
         • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1

           14 June 2013 at 12:46 pm

           James is advocating for a significant minimum wage increase, good on him, he knows what a living wage is and is prepared to pay it.

           In addition, we shouldn’t give his competitors an unfair advantage by letting them pay their workers less than he does, so lets ramp up that minimum wage so he is not disadvantaged in the market place.

           Good on you James!
       • Richard Down South 2.1.1.3

         14 June 2013 at 12:50 pm

         Lets say youre right, and youre a good employer… should we scrap the minimum wage, minimum work breaks, minimum rules for terminating employment as well? how about minimum safety levels too?

         Just because YOU are a good employer, (if you are, just because you say something, doesn’t mean its true, i could say i won lotto on Tuesday, doesn’t mean its true now does it), it doesnt mean we should scrap or weaken laws which are designed to give a minimum set of boundaries for employers and employees.

         While there are some businesses out there who do want to negotiate changes to contract, Ports of Auckland, surely must be a prime example, of how not to go about it.

         With a recent article on Stuff showing some workers in Auckland were being paid $4 an hour, I say we need changes, which better protect workers AND employers. The key points laid out with the proposed changes, completely moves power to the employer. They can say ‘heres what were offering, take it, or lump it’, as there’s no need to keep negotiations going… heck, you dont even have to turn up
       • travellerev 2.1.1.4

         14 June 2013 at 9:41 pm

         Most employees want to do the right thing too but while you may need more employees to make your company work it only takes one shite employer to make many employees miserable
       • xtasy 2.1.1.5

         16 June 2013 at 12:07 am

         James, since you are such a “genuine” and “good” employer, I am sure you serve as a total “role model” of sorts, that should certainly justify and even help your cause to publish your and your companies’ name, as it is such a great model to follow.

         Enlighten us, perhaps, to follow you and join you, if that is all true, that you tell us, so we can share for the whole of NZ the “economic success”, thank you!
         • xtasy 2.1.1.5.1

           17 June 2013 at 2:11 am

           Ahem, I am still waiting, “James”, for you to name your so harmonious and happy company and staff!!!

           Or was it all just made up to serve as hidden attacks on those not agreeing with you?

           The more silence from you, the more I feel my latter presumption proved correct.
     • tracey 2.1.2

       14 June 2013 at 11:45 am

       You must understand that legislation is always aimed at the lowest common denominator? Ergo, workplaces such as yours dont really need legislation because you already operate fairly and with integrity. For example I don’t need a law against murder to stop me murdering. I wouldn’t do it whether there was a law or not. BUT I suspect it’s not me they are legislating for int hat regard.
     • halfcrown 2.1.3

       14 June 2013 at 6:42 pm

       “But Im a right winger – so I must be a bad bastard huh.”

       No you are not James and if we believe what you say, and I do, you are far from it. I was fortunate that I worked for THE best employer in NZ, but unfortunately him and you are in the minority and the only bargaining chip labour has (that is workers labour) is to organise themselves into unions, which are no different than the likes of the Manufacturers Association, The Society of Accountants etc etc ie bosses unions, and withdraw his or her labour. You seem to be a reasonable fellow with a sense of responsibility to society. I am sure you would not like to see NZ return to the days of Massey’s Cossacks. Relationships between employer and employee James, as you have discovered is a two edge sword. The company I worked for we were all treated well with respect, and because of this, I cannot recall any time when a staff member would not go that extra mile for the benefit of the boss or the company.
       If the National government pass that bill, after three decades of the Neo Liberal crap, we have suffered, the miniscule respect remaining between employer and employee will be nonexistent, the anarchy we are starting to see will increase. Then no one wins.
     • asd 2.1.4

       15 June 2013 at 11:55 pm

       You’ve bought everyone off on your terms instead of having an independent workers organisation looking after the workers interests. More (all) power to you.
3. Curtis 3

   14 June 2013 at 12:20 pm

   I worked at Pak n Save for 6 years. We had no union. I watched as we started with at least 30 staff dwindle down to about 15. I watched as our productivity increased. (There originally was a lot of part timers throwing the fruit around so I was happy we got rid of them). Our quality of fruit and veges were terrible. We turned the shop around and made sure our shelves only had quality products on it. So it was clear our part of shop was doing very well. Cost’s were at an all time low and we were selling more and more produce. However did the workers doing all this hard work see the benefits? No After 6years of getting up at 4am every morning from Sunday-Friday I was only getting a dollar more than minimum wage. Other workers who had worked there since it opened 15 years ago were on the same rate. It was Countdown’s starting rate! They of course had a union and when I went into their shop their produce department was empty apart from bruised and rotten produce and always had no customers compared to our continually packed store. I would personally prefer democracy in the work place as opposed to unions but this is what I have seen between a unionized job to one that is not.
   • xtasy 3.1

     16 June 2013 at 12:09 am

     Curtis – RESPECT this is one honest comment, thanks!
     • asd 3.1.1

       16 June 2013 at 12:32 am

       +1
   • xtasy 3.2

     16 June 2013 at 12:18 am

     Curtis – I shop at Pak’n Save in Royal Oak in Auckland. I have spoken to some staff members and heard that as of recent management is turning up the pressure, they want more performance, more flexible working hours and possibly re-introduce youth rates, which will mean replacing the more adult workers with new starters, paid less.

     Some are furious, but they feel powerless. I know that First Union is involved, and they are possibly still negotiating to get a fair deal for the workers. I know that there was a protest a month ago, outside that supermarket.

     I am concerned, angry also, and I do not want to shop at a supermarket that does not pay a decent, ideally a living wage, and that treats staff like crap.

     Talk to your union delegate, if you can, whether member or not, otherwise consider joining. It cannot be allowed that workers get intimidated, underpaid and treated with such contempt.

     I do not accept your criticism of Countdown though, who are still largely unionised, but they also still have better standards as I see every week. But they are under attack also! The competition of workers between employers will not help as you do in the end still all face the same challenges.

     Keep up the spirit and the fight, if you can, thanks,

     X
     • Curtis 3.2.1

       16 June 2013 at 9:26 pm

       Thanks mate don’t worry I’ve left there to study at uni. However a lot of my mates are still slaving away. Unfortunately Invercargill is full of apathy. No one votes apart from the conservatives and no one leaves their comfort zone. It took me 6 years to build up the courage to go to uni now I’m trying to encourage others to get out of their comfort zone.
4. Yes 4

   14 June 2013 at 12:55 pm

   I still cant see the issue. 94% of employees in the private sector do not belong to a union. They are happy with what they are doing.

   Why is the PSA jumping up and down – they have the most protected and highest wages in the land.

   If I was part of the 6% I would be asking – what are we are we doing that the government (past and present) have to keep on legislating for the minority (6%).

   No one has yet answered my question from a few days back. If everyone should be in a union – and that became law – then why cant cleaners have the same pay rate as doctors?
   • Te Reo Putake 4.1

     14 June 2013 at 1:25 pm

     Nobody has answered because they are too busy laughing at the stupidity of the question. Your 6% figure is still wrong, btw.
     • Yes 4.1.1

       14 June 2013 at 1:55 pm

       my figures are very accurate by the way. (check analysis by NBR, WOBH, Kiwiblog and on here in past posts)

       its not a stupid question – not attempting to answer and using a criticism is stupid.

       under union theory of wage rates etc – why its it that the doctors union can get 6 figure wage rates and yet the first union can only get say $13.50 an hour.

       Yet the the parity between what doctors pay in union fees and say cleaners pay in union fees dont equate to the same value for money.
       • Daveo 4.1.1.1

         14 June 2013 at 2:14 pm

         check analysis by NBR, WOBH, Kiwiblog

         lolz

         Also, the minimum wage is $13.75. You’re a joke mate.
         • Yes 4.1.1.1.1

           14 June 2013 at 4:05 pm

           read my comment properly “say” $13.50 -never linked to the minimum wage.

           all those sites have provided official union stats as per DOL…is the DOL now corrupt?
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1

             14 June 2013 at 4:17 pm

             You;re a fucking idiot.

             Oh I guess to avoid a ban, I should add because not all unions are equal.
       • karol 4.1.1.2

         14 June 2013 at 2:14 pm

         Yes, you are surely a comedian? 🙄

         First you say this:

         Why is the PSA jumping up and down – they have the most protected and highest wages in the land.

         Sounds to me like a very good reason to belong to a union.

         Then you compare two totally different occupations in terms of power, and ability to demand wages. Try comparing like with like. Doctors already have a lot of clout, even without the support of a union.

         Cleaners have little clout, and the union goes somewhat to redress the balance. But given the attacks on unions over the last couple of decades, that is limited.
         • Daveo 4.1.1.2.1

           14 June 2013 at 2:59 pm

           Doctors do have a union, the ASMS.
         • karol 4.1.1.2.2

           14 June 2013 at 3:50 pm

           I never said doctors didn’t have a union. But they are still nowhere near equivalent in clout to cleaners.
       • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.3

         14 June 2013 at 2:15 pm

         (check analysis by NBR, WOBH, Kiwiblog and on here in past posts)

         🙄
       • McFlock 4.1.1.4

         14 June 2013 at 2:26 pm

         under union theory of wage rates etc

         lolwhut?

         Links to prove the “union theory of wage rates etc” exists, pls.
       • framu 4.1.1.5

         14 June 2013 at 2:40 pm

         “my figures are very accurate by the way”

         no – they arent
         • Yes 4.1.1.5.1

           15 June 2013 at 11:17 am

           Yes they are….the vast and a very high per cent age of people don’t belong to a union and don’t want too. Unions are a minority
       • framu 4.1.1.6

         14 June 2013 at 4:38 pm

         Its a question of staggering idiocy – you do realise that doctors get paid more than cleaners because of skill level, investment in training and level of responsibility?

         or put it another way – does a cleaner cut you open while your still alive and wave a scalpel around your insides?
       • xtasy 4.1.1.7

         16 June 2013 at 12:31 am

         Yes – you are “anal-ysing” not analysing!
   • framu 4.2

     14 June 2013 at 2:36 pm

     “Why is the PSA jumping up and down”

     because they rightly see this as an attack on workers and probably give a shit about other workers.

     “they have the most protected and highest wages in the land”

     bullshit – their wages are only protected due to their union membership and the bargaining power that brings – they dont get special priviledges.
     Also – most of the high paid public servants arent in the PSA – its all the low level workers – who earn significantly less than the same work in the private sector

     “then why cant cleaners have the same pay rate as doctors”

     the stupidity of that statement could explain why no-ones bothered to point out the answer to you
   • xtasy 4.3

     16 June 2013 at 12:28 am

     Yes Man –

     Are you somehow a bit “slow” or “thick”, if I may ask, reading this once again:
     “I still cant see the issue. 94% of employees in the private sector do not belong to a union. They are happy with what they are doing.”

     Since the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 unions have had zilch power, workers were having NO support of significance, they were the prey of employers and taken to the bloody cleaners.

     Labour did a half hearted job to reverse some labour law provisions by bringing in the Employment Relations Act in 2000 I think it was.

     Luckily I was overseas, not faced with all this inhumane and anti worker shit that the governments in this underdeveloped country imposed on workers.

     Anyway, so it went, and after the ECA unions were slashed, and punished, they lost immense numbers. You know it, and your attitute is just provocative shit stirring.

     We have about 20 per cent unionisation in NZ, because workers under present law face intimidation by employers and prospective employers if they even ever mention a thought about joining a union. They get intimidated, and in some cases sacked right away, so the employer can rule as he or she wants.

     That is the bloody truth, mate, and stop lying to us and readers here, as you are exactly part of the gang that wants things like this, you are a shit-stirring trouble maker yourself.

     Workers deserve a fair deal, fair conditons, and it is countries like in Scandinavia, where union membership is still high, where better wages, incomes., conditions and fairer systems prevail. I am sure you want none of this, and rather divide, and rule, to treat many like servants and idiots, to enable you and your likes to live off the backs of others.
5. Tiger Mountain 5

   14 June 2013 at 1:32 pm

   90 day right to sack, no legislative compulsion for bosses to bargain in good faith.

   Now that scabbery is about to become legal and encouraged even, in a high unemployment environment what is left for the torys and corporates to inflict upon the remaining workers in this country? Chain us to our workstations? Fire exits locked?

   Because that is where this kind of thing leads–look at the non union southern states of the USA, Bangladesh and Aisa. Workers (union or non union) rights are human rights and disregard of them drags everyone down and even kills people.

   So wake up you smug torys above, it is a bigger world out there than your allegedly comfy little paternalistic businesses. “I treat my serfs ok but it is quite ok to put the slipper into all the other serfs”.
6. Ed 6

   14 June 2013 at 1:47 pm

   “The EPMU has criticised the Bill as follows:
   . . .
   “John Key has assured the New Zealand public that this legislation will not go ahead and we expect him to stick to his word,” said EPMU national secretary Bill Newson. ”

   Does anyone have a cite for John Key’s assurance? It is possible of course that he was lying, but such a statement could save a lot of time if he doesn’t want to reinforce his growing reputation as a person whose word cannot be trusted . . .
   • karol 6.1

     14 June 2013 at 1:57 pm

     Good question. I actually think the EPMU statement on that is a bit of a stretch. their press release links to this article, (27 May) which says:

     No hope for strike-busting legislation, says Key

     National’s backing for a law change to allow employers to take on temporary workers when permanent staff are on strike or locked out won’t make it into law any time soon. The remit – mirrored in a member’s bill from National’s Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross – won support at the party’s northern regional conference. But Prime Minister John Key said that although the party faithful called for it at times, it was not on the Government’s agenda.
7. Winston Smith 7

   14 June 2013 at 2:31 pm

   Workers rights yeah right, more like union workers rights of which about 14-15% of the workforce is in a union and about half of that are government employees
   • framu 7.1

     14 June 2013 at 2:39 pm

     so what?

     ever thought that unionised workers care about all workers?
     • farmboy 7.1.1

       14 June 2013 at 3:30 pm

       no they dont they care about themselves and that is it dont talk shit mate
       • McFlock 7.1.1.1

         14 June 2013 at 4:01 pm

         If they only cared about themselves, they’d freeload off concessions gained by unions without paying the dues. And be scabs during strikes.

         But they pay their dues every week, so keep the workers as a class stronger against the employers.
         • Rob 7.1.1.1.1

           14 June 2013 at 4:56 pm

           I dont agree with this bill as I do think employed labour does need to be able to protect itself and its conditions. I have seen too many Chinese factories that have shocking & dangerous work practicies and environements that should not exist in the modern world.

           However I can understand why unions in NZ have a bad rap with a lot of employed people. Actual workplace union activities on the factory floor back in the late 70’s up to the early 90’s were pretty average and protected a lot of scams and very unproductive and unhealthy behaviour. The environments that existed in some factory units were diabolical and almost a dictatorship run by the union foreman often for their monetary benefit. There were large levels of bullying on the floor and initmidation. I think what we have seen is a redress in balance and those old agreesive litle union dictators being pushed out and bad corrupt practice being cleaned up. This is also a reason for low union membership , because when it became voluntary, a lot of workers did not want to be associated with those behaviours any longer.
           • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1

             14 June 2013 at 5:54 pm

             I can’t figure out why unions have a bad rap, but employers don’t.

             Unions strike during the slaughtering season? Tragic.

             Some employers fire people for no good reason, or send new workers out alone with minimal instruction. Others create and tolerate workloads and procedures that kill over a dozen employees in the workplace every year.
             • Rob …

               14 June 2013 at 8:18 pm

               Union foremen getting back handers so that their mates can spend the day at the pub whilst the rest of the shift had to cover for them . Union foreman controlling scrap metal reselling from company waste etc . Union foreman putting the heat on the crew to vote in particular ways in seemingly democratic elections , yeah I agree Mcflock I have no idea why unions have a bad rap either.
               • McFlock …

                 14 June 2013 at 10:04 pm

                 Person I know was fired for nothing. Had to go through the tribunal, still waiting for the payout.

                 Workers sexually harassed.
                 Bullied and belittled with literal standover tactics.
                 Impossible work expectations set, then employer fires worker when a third party catches them breaking procedure.

                 My point was why don’t employers also have a bad rap?
               • asd …

                 16 June 2013 at 12:25 am

                 That same old shit is happening these days by all the employers and their brown nosing political cohorts, carefully tucked away behind closed doors and spun when in public view. Those behaviours are common in types of people with too much power and within systems that are both leftist and righteous and there is no exclusivity to unions in this argument. Bend the argument in your own favour of course as this is all the right ever has. Keep demonising an institution long enough and often enough as the right does, and the people will believe.
           • asd 7.1.1.1.1.2

             16 June 2013 at 12:10 am

             This isn’t true: “This is also a reason for low union membership , because when it became voluntary, a lot of workers did not want to be associated with those behaviours any longer.”
             The real reason for the decimation of the Trade Unions was the Employment Contracts Act which disposed unions of their sole right to negotiate sector based employment agreements on behalf of workers via the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1896.. “Take it or leave it” employment contracts were then offered and if you refused, the door was shown to you.
             Get your bloody facts right. Right wingers are all so full of shit.
             • asd …

               16 June 2013 at 12:12 am

               IC&A Act was 1894 not 1896.
       • framu 7.1.1.2

         14 June 2013 at 4:35 pm

         Is punctuation uncool with the kids these days or something?

         Im guessing you know less than nothing about unionised workers
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   14 June 2013 at 3:03 pm

   Employers And Manufacturers Association reckons yeah nah on this one righties.

   Looks like the Nats have let their ideological horse bolt ahead of their common damn sense, assuming they ever had any.

   “New Zealand communities place a high value on fairness and the Bill could have consequences that would be considered unfair.

   “In spite of several high profile cases we have had 10 to 15 years of harmonious workplace relations and don’t want to jeopardise that.

   “We need to look carefully at the implications of industrial action on essential industries such as the ports and hospitals, as well as on small businesses.

   “Also employers don’t want to see the law changed every time there is a change of government and we can foresee law based on this Bill may not last.”

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1306/S00496/balloted-bill-possibly-a-bridge-too-far.htm

   That’s code for “U mad?”
   • felix 8.1

     15 June 2013 at 7:13 pm

     The E.M.A. are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals and a well known communist front group.

     “Englists and Marxists Association” they’re known as.

     etc.
     • McFlock 8.1.1

       15 June 2013 at 7:29 pm

       lol
9. red rattler 9

   14 June 2013 at 3:13 pm

   This idea that workers and employers should be balanced for ‘fairness’ is bullshit. There is nothing fair about capitalism.
   Bosses employ workers to extract their labour and claim it is due to the employers enterprise.
   No, that’s made up like Starship Enterprise. Labour is the active ingredient not enterprise.
   Robinson Crusoe lived off Man Friday and claimed he was born to rule.
   British settler Mr Peel went to the Swan River in Australia in the 1830s with some migrants to work his land but when they took off to work their own land he lost all his enterprise and ended up as a land agent (a fence).
   Bosses only exist because the state gives them a helping hand with stolen land, subsidies, cheap roads and tax breaks, and workers who don’t have their stolen land or state credit and are forced to work for a boss to survive.
   The thing that bosses fear most is their redundancy when workers wake up to the fact that they can run the economy without bosses.
   That’s why bosses do all they can to divide and rule, worker against worker, men against women, youth against older, scab against unionist, and buy off the Labour Party with cocktails.
   Labour laws that have been won through struggle need defending but you can’t rely on laws to stop scabs or lockouts. That requires working class unity, solidarity and mass pickets.
10. Penny Bright 10

    14 June 2013 at 3:29 pm

    High time for ‘war (as it were 🙂 on the undeserving rich’ on corporate welfare?

    Penny Bright
11. big bruv 11

    14 June 2013 at 7:02 pm

    I detest Jami-Lee Ross, he is the type of career politician that the left normally specialise in.

    However, with this bill he has show the rest of the National party the direction that they should be going in.

    No longer will honest business people be subject to the thuggish behaviour of the union bosses, no longer will honest business people be forced to deal with unreasonable demands from unions.

    Once this bill has passed the Nat’s should pass legislation that forces unions to send a bill to their members for their union dues instead of having that money deducted from their wage packet. Perhaps then the morons who allow themselves to be bullied into joining a union will see that they are wasting their money.
    • You_Fool 11.1

      14 June 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Do you have any recent links to such behaviour by union bosses? I am reasonably sure that hasn’t happened in about 20 years or more….

      Or should I just go on about how owners of companies are selfish pricks? I mean if we are jsut parroting cliches and slogans from 25 years ago….
      • fender 11.1.1

        14 June 2013 at 11:10 pm

        Don’t be too hard on “big bruv”, if it’s not Slater it’s one of his pupils. The textbook they use dates back to when he was a 15 y/o.
      • big bruv 11.1.2

        15 June 2013 at 6:58 pm

        I could easily come up with the example of the well known union leader who wants higher taxes for those he considers rich yet that same union leader still owes the tax man a considerable sum.

        I could provide a link to the disgusting behaviour of the vermin who led the union during the recent POA strike.

        Would that be enough for you?
12. One concerned citizen 12

    14 June 2013 at 8:36 pm

    Whats more important , 4 mps going to watch a rugby game or an attack of very far fought gains in employment law ?
    Call it what it is , Scab labour legitimised .
    Right time to bring up the Dancing Cossacks and we have ourselves an election strategy…..
13. xtasy 13

    15 June 2013 at 11:20 pm

    Excuse me dear folks, you have all fallen left, right and sinker for this nonsense “bill”. It is a have, a total provocative act to just stir up debate, nothing else, even Key does not really want to push it! The Nats are testing the territory to see how far they can go, nothing else. That is what this is all about.

    Jami-Lee Ross is an immature wannabe MP and idiot, and he got you all shit scared right away now, has he not? He is not himself so bloody serious about this bill, as he put totally NO effort into it, not even suggested what may replace section 97. Are you such fools to fall for this crap?

    See for yourselves:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/1/3/6/00DBHOH_BILL12251_1-Employment-Relations-Continuity-of-Labour-Amendment.htm

    http://www.legislation.co.nz/bill/member/2013/0129/3.0/DLM4942209.html

    This is shit a child would dream up, not a mature MP!

    That Neanderthal man, also presenting as modern “Botany Man” is a fake, a bull shit artist, a tester of policies and he is there doing it for one Simon Lusk, recently discussed here. Do your damned homework, Standardistas, this is a joke, a sick joke, it is one Key does not even take seriously, as it is a stunt exercise, to do exactly what is happening here, to stir up the left and unions, to make them afraid.

    Shove the shit up that man’s ar*e and put a d*ck of plastic in his mouth, to shut him up, that is what needs doing. Get on and ignore such overrated idiots, thanks!
14. xtasy 14

    15 June 2013 at 11:33 pm

    Dear Standardistas –

    This is what you should be highly worried about right now, not that Jami Lee Ross wet dream of a 4-page immature, not even thought out “Bill”!

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/BillsDigests/5/d/c/50PLLaw20451-Employment-Relations-Amendment-Bill-2013-Bills-Digest.htm

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/34F62C8D-B935-4139-9B26-8B2D12BE50C4/270152/2045EmploymentRelations1.pdf

    The Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 is going to seek to abolish the 30 day period for new employees joining a collective agreement employment site, so that they will not enjoy minimum union and collectively agreed conditions from day one!

    It will also bring in over-flexible conditions that employers can abuse the granting of deserved breakfast and afternoon, possibly also lunch breaks, so they can insist on having staff not take them when needed, but force them to take them on other days or weeks, maybe “never”!

    Also the whole collective bargaining situation is going to be totally undermined, by allowing employers to get off good faith required efforts to come to an agreement with worker’s negotiation parties (i.e. unions) and delay this, and not follow this up, for months, possibly endlessly!

    This is very serious stuff, affecting all workers, also those on individual contracts. So this must be spread, emphasized, pushed and more, as we will in New Zealand become a country where working conditions are heading to be the WORST in the whole OECD!

    So wake up, folks, this is a ruthless attack on basic worker’s rights, that must be fought with all means, right now!

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch Friday 14 June « The Daily Blog: posted on 16 June 2013 at 5:45 am
2. Strike breaking Bill in trouble - The Standard: posted on 18 June 2013 at 3:24 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS