DL Wellington – Andrew Little

Written By: - Date published: 10:15 am, March 18th, 2009 - 16 comments
Categories: activism - Tags:

Patrick’s sure got DL Wellington humming along. Next Wednesday at the Southern Cross they’ve got Andrew Little, national sec of the EPMU and the new Labour Party president along to talk about mobilising the labour movement. Should be plenty to discuss and debate.

Here’s the email:

dl-logo1The next Drinking Liberally Wellington is featuring newly elected Labour Party President, Andrew Little.

Andrew serves concurrently as the national secretary of the largest private-sector union, the EPMU, democratically representing fifty thousand workers.

Andrew will speak on the greater labour movement and how it can mobilise and lobby against the current National Government. We will also be hearing about the wider campaign against the 90 day bill, what roles the EMPU and the Labour Party can play in this area, and of course, where Andrew sees the future of the left going under the current government.

We’ll start at 5:30pm, Thursday March 26th, and Andrew will speak from 6pm – stick around afterwards for a drink and a chat.

16 comments on “DL Wellington – Andrew Little ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Redbaiter 1
    18 March 2009 at 10:26 am

    Maybe someone could ask him why he thinks the best interest of the workers are always served by the Labour government, when its clear from NZ’s present state, that is not so.

    No contribution of union fees collected from members to political parties unless said member specifies the destination of the donation.

    • Bill 1.1
      18 March 2009 at 10:43 am

      Ah yes. So glad those nice pro worker Nats are in power now. Maybe workers will begin to realise that the best interests of workers can only be served by themselves and nobody else?

      Meanwhile, within the framework of SD I’d agree that union dues should have an identifiable political party levy that the individual member can either designate to a party of their choice or opt out of altogether.

      • Morgan 1.1.1
        18 March 2009 at 10:55 am

        It’s an idea but that’s for the membership to decide themselves on a democratic basis.

        Would you argue that companies should be required to get the consent of their customers before making political donations? That’s an even stronger argument given union members are able to influence union policy through the democratic structures.

        • Ianmac 1.1.1.1
          18 March 2009 at 11:00 am

          Good point Morgan. Given the size of some of the donations from some companies, a very good point!!

    • sally 1.2
      18 March 2009 at 11:02 am

      No contribution of union fees collected from members to political parties unless said member specifies the destination of the donation.

      The EMPU is hardly quiet about it’s affiliation to the Labour Party – if members don’t like it, they have the democratic levers to change the union’s affiliations. Or they don’t have to join.

      I love it how the right are always trying to dictate how an independent incorporated society operates.

  2. Redbaiter 2
    18 March 2009 at 10:50 am

    “Meanwhile, within the framework of SD I’d agree that union dues should have an identifiable political party levy that the individual member can either designate to a party of their choice or opt out of altogether.”

    Hell, that’s surprisingly magnanimous Bill. Well said.

    (I’ve actually got no real objection to unions, other than the idea that they be automatically identified with the Labour party. [or the left])

  3. lprent 3
    18 March 2009 at 11:07 am

    RB: A lot of unions these days are not affiliates. So surely in these days of a deregulated and non-compulsory union system, that is a matter of market choice?

    If you don’t want to be affiliated with the NZLP, join a different union. If your members start leaving then unions deaffiliate to retain members.

    The reason that some unions affiliate with the NZLP is obviously because their members approve. The reason that they are affiliated is that they consider as a union that they get a benefit for their members. Otherwise they would have left or their members would have left.

    Essentially you are arguing against individual choice. That seems to be quite a change from your usual philosophy. 😈

    Basically you are are arguing bullshit again

    • Bill 3.1
      18 March 2009 at 11:26 am

      “The reason that unions affiliate with the NZLP is obviously because their members approve.”

      Or it could be that seizable minorities do not agree, but when they weigh up the pros and cons of withdrawing from whichever union and being on an IEA, they go with the pragmatic option.

      There are definitely members of unions who vote Nat or Green or who don’t vote at all and have no interest in any political party.

      Rather than workers dividing along party political lines as you suggest, why not leave personal politics to individuals and have, in respect to parliamentary parties, apolitical unions?

      Surely there exists a temptation with affiliation to pull your punches when ‘your’ party assumes power. Not good for unionism.

  4. Bill 4
    18 March 2009 at 11:58 am

    Apolitical unions do exist. The most famous example is the IWW.

  5. Redbaiter 5
    18 March 2009 at 1:05 pm

    “I love it how the right are always trying to dictate how an independent incorporated society operates.”

    Yeah, and I’ll bet you also love how the left is always so desperately afraid of providing anyone with the opportunity to make an individual choice.

    • sally 5.1
      18 March 2009 at 2:47 pm

      Yeah, and I’ll bet you also love how the left is always so desperately afraid of providing anyone with the opportunity to make an individual choice.

      I don’t quite get what you’re saying – you do know unions aren’t compulsary anymore, right? Don’t like it, don’t join, or join another union if that floats your boat.

      How the EPMU operates is none of my business as I’m not a member (I’m assuming you’re not either, RB?). They could affiliate to the National Front for all I care.

  6. Redbaiter 6
    18 March 2009 at 1:24 pm

    “Would you argue that companies should be required to get the consent of their customers before making political donations?”

    This a completely baseless analogy. That you would try to make it demonstrates such a lack of intelligence that I would hesitate to waste my time (as precious as it is) in arguing the point with you. Just think about it again for chrissakes, and maybe, if by some chance I’m mistaken about your intelligence, you’ll save me that time.

    Here’s something else for you to chew on. Should matters involving the transfer of money be subjected to vote? Policy, yes. Money, perhaps not.

  7. randal 7
    18 March 2009 at 1:37 pm

    ho hum
    what I want to know is why nationals hacks all look so shifty on teevee

  8. lenore 8
    19 March 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Where abouts will it be held?

  9. Eddie 9
    19 March 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Good point. They’re at the Southern Cross in Abel Smith Street. I’ve updated the post.