Christchurch workers

41 comments on “Christchurch workers ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nick C 1

   6 September 2010 at 10:21 pm

   So, Unite expects businesses to pay workers for work they didnt do on days that business’ couldnt open?
   • mcflock 1.1

     6 September 2010 at 10:48 pm

     Why not? The businesses expect a payout from insurance and the EQC.
     • Nick C 1.1.1

       6 September 2010 at 11:22 pm

       Does the EQC compensate businesses for lost revenue, or just damage to property?
       • mcflock 1.1.1.1

         6 September 2010 at 11:37 pm

         no idea about EQC – but lost revenue can/should be insured against..
         • Nick C 1.1.1.1.1

           6 September 2010 at 11:53 pm

           If businesses should pay to insure against lost revenue then why shouldnt workers pay to insure against lost wages?
           • mcflock 1.1.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2010 at 12:35 am

             because lost revenue of whatever cause is a risk of doing business, whereas in employment agreements the hardship of either party seems to be irrelevant to the agreement. e.g. I signed an employment agreement with redundancy clauses should the employer not require/not be able to afford to employ me to do the job anymore.

             Let me put it this way – why should a worker lose out because the employer was too tight to insure himself?
             • Nick C …

               7 September 2010 at 1:44 am

               Firstly I dont see why you would regard not getting insurance against lost revenue to nessesarily be a bad or ‘tight’ decision. There are lots of legitimate reasons business may choose to not take out insurance against lost revenue in the event of a natural disaster; maybe they are small businesses who struggle to make ends meet in good times, maybe they felt the insurance companies were overcharging.

               Your question could also be reversed; Why should an employer lose out because a worker was too tight to insure himself? I dont get your argument about why losing your pay isnt a legitimate risk of being an employee, try explain better. You may have redundancy clauses but others may not.
               • mcflock …

                 7 September 2010 at 1:26 pm

                 The employer gets rewarded for taking the risk. They can/should choose to mitigate that risk via insurance, but they still risk their capital for the chance of a matching reward. The employee is not being paid to assume the risk of the enterprise. The employee is being paid to do their job, not be an entrepreneur.

                 The employer says they will pay the employee to do a job. The employee makes themselves available to work. If the employee can work, the employer needs to live up to their side of the contract. If the power goes out but the worker is available, they still get paid. If the gas gets cut off, they still get paid. If the worker bails, they don’t get paid and they might well be liable to pay the employer (depending on the contract and circumstances of the abandonment).
               • Vicky32 …

                 7 September 2010 at 5:58 pm

                 “maybe they are small businesses who struggle to make ends meet in good times”
                 If that’s true then maybe they shouldn’t be in business – or they should go back to business school!
                 At the very least, their employees should be warned that the company they work for is hanging by a thread!
                 Deb
         • The Baron 1.1.1.1.2

           7 September 2010 at 11:15 am

           Do you also think that all home owners can/should have their property insured, and that therefore the state shouldn’t be chipping in for those that cheaped out?

           If not, then why do you think they should be treated differently?
           • mcflock 1.1.1.1.2.1

             7 September 2010 at 1:32 pm

             actually, I think that all homeowners, workers and employers should have access to a central fund in the case of widespread disasters such as this. Private insurance for smaller issues (e.g. ooo a truck drove through my wall), but really I’m not sure that the private sector can handle anything much bigger than the current incident.

             Worst case scenario, we get hit by something big enough that it completely overwhelms key private sector insurers and buggers the economy that way. Having a govt administered fund incrementally paid for out of general taxation over many years would provide a national safety net to fund recovery and maintain at least a modicum of monetary circulation.
     • Sideoiler 1.1.2

       7 September 2010 at 10:52 am

       Only because the businesses has paid for the insurance.
   • Marty G 1.2

     6 September 2010 at 11:22 pm

     so you expect families to lose their livelihoods because of events beyond their control. But you are happy for SCF investors to get a pay out for taking a gamble.
     • Nick C 1.2.1

       6 September 2010 at 11:28 pm

       Well firstly im not happy for SCF investors to get a pay out for taking a gamble. Crony capitalism is far more reminisent of socialism than free markets.

       More importantly though the question is, should businesses be obliged to compensate workers for work they didnt do when the businesses themselves are losing a whole lot of money for not being able to open because of circumstances beyond their control? The welfare of the families is a different issue, that should be the states job to cover, not that of the employer.
       • Marty G 1.2.1.1

         6 September 2010 at 11:33 pm

         Your instinct is that businesses come before workers who you see as labour costs first, human beings second.

         Nonetheless, you’ll like my suggestion in tomorrow’s post, Nick C
         • Nick C 1.2.1.1.1

           6 September 2010 at 11:51 pm

           I disagree, because I think you are conflaiting two different issues; one being compensation for work the other being the welfare of the employee. The employee absolutely has a responsibility to provide pay for work done (I believe the union slogan is ‘a fair days pay for a fair days work’). But they dont have any obligations which reach to the employees welfare. I want to show that is absurd for two reasons.

           Firstly how far would you take this obligation? Lets say an employee got scammed $100,000 and was deep in debt. Would the employer then have an obligation to look after their welfare? Here it is neither the employer or the employees fault that they are out of pocket, just like with the earthquake. It seems absurd that the employer is responsible.

           Secondly, does this obligation go the other way (presumably anyone who believes that the employee-employer relationship should be an equal one would think it does)? I.e. if your employers welfare is damaged because the business isnt doing very well (let us presume it is through no fault of their own) should the employee have to work extra hours at lower pay to help the employer? I think not. The point is that the relationship only exists so far as it is a mutually beneficial trade of labour for wages, nothing beyond that.

           And im sure ill like your suggestion tomorrow Marty, I like all your suggestions 😉
           • felix 1.2.1.1.1.1

             7 September 2010 at 12:20 am

             “…should the employee have to work extra hours at lower pay to help the employer? I think not.”

             That’s what’s happened though Nick. Most workers have taken an effective pay cut over the past year (or 2 years?) in real terms.

             This has been instigated and encouraged by the National govt as a response to the recession.

             Then there’s the “9 day fortnight” and similar arrangements where workers, in the interests of the welfare of the company as a whole, make do with less hours and fewer pay.

             Mostly though, I question your underlying assumption that employers have no responsibility for workers beyond paying them for time served. What an utterly barbaric notion.
             • Nick C …

               7 September 2010 at 1:49 am

               Its true that workers have taken effective pay cuts over the past few years. Thats not because of some moral or legal obligation on the workers part to do so though, the labour market has shifted due to a failing economy and wages have gone down across the board. In a situation where the economy was generally doing well but one particular business was failing the workers of that business probably wouldnt be prepared to take the pay cut.

               You may think my argument is utterly barbaric, but I dont see why. I just dont think businesses should double as welfare providers; if you want a welfare provider then the state is better positioned.
               • felix …

                 7 September 2010 at 10:31 pm

                 Like it or not Nick, workers are utterly dependent on their employers. That’s just the way most of the economy is structured.

                 That’s the environment we currently operate in, and workers have to live with it for now.

                 Can’t say I think it’s ideal either, but there it is.
               • prism …

                 8 September 2010 at 9:39 am

                 What a circular argument you make Nick C. Your argument would normally be that the State shouldn’t be propping up workers yet now you say that employers shouldn’t be responsible, and workers should look to the government instead. So I suppose you feel that individuals should be insuring themselves against every emergency both general and individual, This ignores the way that business runs, incorporating costs into their price which is then paid by the customer. Individuals don’t have this opportunity. The need of business to have affordable and attractive prices of course limits how much cost can be incorporated.

                 You say employers shouldn’t feel any responsibility to their staff. That’s a crop harvesting approach where the crop is valued for what it can be sold for, or if the market collapses, left rotting on the ground. It is neither a moral or practical method to treat living beings (humans and animals) and run an economy.
             • Vicky32 …

               7 September 2010 at 6:07 pm

               Felix, whilst I agree with you, and I do, 100% I can’t let this go – “make do with less hours and fewer pay.” (It should be fewer hours and less pay – sorry, my English teacher instincts kicked in.)
               Deb
               BTW, just listening to 3 News bleating on behalf of the bosses, and basically saying “sod the workers, our pity is for the bosses…” As always with 3 News!
               • felix …

                 7 September 2010 at 6:49 pm

                 Hehe, that was a little poke at the Nat’s 2008 “more teachers, less bureaucrats” billboards.
                 • Vicky32 …

                   7 September 2010 at 7:02 pm

                   Sorry Felix, I didn’t realise that! So their mistake – I ought to have known… Sorry!
                   Deb
                 • Vicky32 …

                   7 September 2010 at 7:08 pm

                   Sorry Felix, I didn’t realise that! So their mistake – I ought to have known… Sorry!
                   Deb
                   Joh
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2

         7 September 2010 at 1:16 am

         And yet I’m sure I’ve seen you complaining about the “welfare” state.
2. Matt 2

   6 September 2010 at 11:06 pm

   Key announced today that larger companies should feel obliged to pay workers up to 2 weeks if their properties are damaged.
   • Marty G 2.1

     6 September 2010 at 11:34 pm

     ‘should feel obliged’. really putting himself behind workers with that line.
     • mcflock 2.1.1

       6 September 2010 at 11:40 pm

       that’s him right there – it would be nice if nice things happened, but I won’t get Cabinet to make them happen.
   • hurr 2.2

     6 September 2010 at 11:39 pm

     sounds like the “a reasonable employer will provide a reason for sacking within the 90 days” line
3. Jenny 3

   7 September 2010 at 7:11 am

   The question is, will landlords let workers, who haven’t been paid their wages, off of, paying their rent?

   What about all the other costs that it takes to live?

   Will working people be let off all these bills?

   My guess is no.

   So why are workers (many on minimum wage) with families to support and bills to be paid being asked to go without?

   To subsidise everyone else?

   Is this how it is suppose to work?

   Are subsidies and bailouts and earthquake pay outs only for business owners and other well off folk?

   Wouldn’t many of these sorts of people have savings and funds to tide them over, while workers on low wages barely have any?

   Just like the recession is the real hardship and even privation only to be borne by honest working people and their families?

   Where’s the justice in that?
   • indiana 3.1

     7 September 2010 at 9:12 am

     In times like this, I would like to see the government legislate that those affected by income loss can have access to their Kiwisaver funds and not have to wait until they turn 65.

     For the future, if we are going to have a program like ACC, we can or should also think of a suitable income protection program that is mandatory for all employees.
     • Lanthanide 3.1.1

       7 September 2010 at 10:12 am

       At the moment you can get access to kiwisaver funds if you are in extreme need of them. However it is presently judged on a provider-by-provider basis, there is no government body that makes decisions one way or the other, so depending who you provider is makes it more or less difficult to get to those funds. The bar seems to have been set pretty high to get money out, though.

       The government will probably enact some sort of framework around exactly how it’s supposed to work, as these issues will only become more pressing as kiwisaver matures. It’s very much a work-in-progress area of legislation.
4. TightyRighty 4

   7 September 2010 at 9:40 am

   Grubby.

   the CTU is doing a much better job than this matt jones wanker
   • mcflock 4.1

     7 September 2010 at 10:30 pm

     Interesting: TR prefers the CTU over Unite. Probably because there was no general strike over the ECA.
     • Jenny 4.1.1

       7 September 2010 at 10:58 pm

       Things can change. TR is out of date, the CTU next planned actions against the 90 day bill are to be on the 20th of October in the middle of the working week.
       • mcflock 4.1.1.1

         8 September 2010 at 12:09 am

         and so the workers’ reps have learnt the lessons of the past, but the tories are contuing with their old programme. I hope it’s not too late.
       • TightyRighty 4.1.1.2

         8 September 2010 at 11:51 am

         i was actually referring to the offer from the CTU to work with workers, businesses and government. guess you’re the one a little bit out of touch jenny
5. RedBack 5

   7 September 2010 at 11:29 pm

   Just makes you realize there are some unscrupulous rat bags out there who will use any old excuse to cr@p on their employees. Nil support either from Mr B. English who washed his hands of it by saying it was up to individual businesses to decide what to do. WTF? Any employer who uses the Christchurch quake to as an excuse to financially disadvantage any of their staff needs to be named and shamed. Utterly disgraceful attitude.
   • Murray 5.1

     8 September 2010 at 8:33 am

     Yeah Right 15 m to help out christchurch workers. This Govt sure leaves workers in the crap.
     • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1

       8 September 2010 at 9:15 am

       It’s a subsidy to the employers Murray.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 6 September 2010 at 9:24 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS