Jobs for the boys, and girls

Written By: - Date published: 12:06 pm, November 10th, 2011 - 37 comments
Categories: jobs, national - Tags:

In a logical world, when there are a quarter of a million jobless Kiwis and 59,000 more unemployed under National, Don Brash would not be getting paid a few hundred grand to write a report no-one bothers to read, Christine Rankin would not be employed full stop, and Paula Bennett would make sure she had the right (in her case, Right) Peter Saunders before signing the contract.

But this isn’t that world.

h/t someone else for the image

37 comments on “Jobs for the boys, and girls”

  1. ianmac 1

    As always cover over Key’s face except for the eyes. The eyes have it.

  2. Tom Gould 2

    On the subject of jobs for Tory mates, any guesses on which of the press gallery pack will turn up in Ministers’ offices after the election with high-paying media jobs? Just asking. Not the ones with side deal contracts with mates of mates, the overt ones.

    • Hami Shearlie 2.1

      Yes, just wondering where Guyon’s going – he says he’s staying with TVNZ? Maybe Duncan Garner could be JK’s new podiatrist?

    • garner is leaving tv3 after the election

    • “Bruno” Garner has my vote. Last Friday’s comment from the gallery was vicious and totally uncalled for. Employment interview?
      Either that or he was pissed – or both.
      Is it ethical for someone who is leaving (and possibly going to work for a party) to continue to report on their future employer?
      3News has a question to answer.

      • igivesup 2.3.1

        It’s a very sick relationship between the media and pollies in NZ – the amount of ‘reporters’ and ‘journalists’ who end up troughing for either the Nats or Labour is nausea inducing.

    • Nick C 2.4

      You know what would be even more suspicious than Garner getting a cozy press sec job? Giving him a safe seat in the next by-election.

    • insider 2.5

      Only the most senior jobs are anything like high paying. Parliamentary jobs are similar rates to ministry jobs, only the hours are worse, the environment more toxic and the security minimal. I suspect most work their for the thrill or their egos not for the money.

  3. tsmithfield 3

    So which of Labour’s wonderful policies are going to create jobs?

    Maybe increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour? Maybe forcing employers to pay 7% contribution to compulsory kiwisaver funds? Maybe the capital gains tax forced on businesses? Maybe the scrapping of the 90 day trial bill?

    Its all well to criticize. But if your own party is sponsoring bills that are likely to further diminish employment prospects in NZ then the left should STFU.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      Maybe if the right stop with their la-la land economics NZ wouldn’t be bleeding at a faster rate than other OECD countries.

      yes, even France and the UK.

    • KJT 3.2

      Increasing the wages at the low end creates jobs.

      As you should well know when the opposite happened under Ruthanasia.

      • Rob 3.2.1

        How does increasing wages at the low end create jobs? 

        • The Voice of Reason

          By putting more money in circulation. For example, the increased spend keeps retail shops’ tills ringing, which increases the likelihood of more staff being employed.

          • felix

            A pity you need to spell it out like that TVoR, but it seems there are some here who don’t understand that people on low wages usually spend every cent they earn back into the economy just to survive.

            This disconnect probably explains much of the rhetoric from the right about “poor choices” etc.

            • The Voice of Reason

              I thought I’d keep it simple, felix. Most of the righties heckling at the candidates’ meetings I’ve been to keep braying about Economics 101, so I thought I’d better keep it at a level they are used to.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3

      TSmithfield if you do a Google Scholar search for evidence on the effect of minimum wage increases on employment prospects you might find some evidence to support your assertions. I’ve seen evidence on both sides, but the most up to date thinking I can find tends to the hypothesis that the effects are minimal (positive or negative) in the short term, but positive in the long term as overall incomes increase, discretionary spending (at the low income end of the market) increases etc.

      Why hasn’t the continued increase in productivity created parallel increases in wages? Two words: social contract (it’s time some of the more fortunate held onto their end of the piano).

      Oh, and every time Labour put the minimum wage up unemployment went down 😀

    • fender 3.4

      Maybe those that couldn’t possibly survive on min. wage should just be shot for their failure to budget properly. tsmellfield will pull the trigger being a heartless fukwit who should really take his own advice i.e. STFU

    • McFlock 3.5

      TS – didn’t you read the answers when you asked almost exactly the same question here? It was only two days ago.
      Maybe the words in the answers were too long?
      Let’s make it simple:
      Labour gets in and unemployment falls.
      Labour makes jobs.
      National gets in.
      Sees jobs.
      Run jobs Run.
      “Where’s Wally?” “In Australia.”
      The happy little elves go to make shoes for the old shoemaker, but the shoe factory got closed down.
      The grinch short-sold Christmas.
      Horton heard fuck-all because all the Hoos had moved to Australia.
      But then Labour gets in again.
      Everyone lives happily ever after until National return.

  4. Ianupnorth 4

    Remember Mervyn English – didn’t see that job actually being advertised, and I really wonder what health experience he has to draw on. Still, Bill can give $400K per annum jobs out to his little bro….

  5. Don’t forget the Shipley’s appointment:

    Official documents published on the No Right Turn website reveal that Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee successfully sought approval from State Services Minister Tony Ryall to inflate the pay of the panel members, because “it will not be possible to secure their services under the current fees range” of $360 to $655 a day for the chair and $270 to $415 for other members.
    Chair Sir John Hansen, a former senior High Court judge, gets $1400 a day, while Shipley, Anake Goodall and Murray Sherwin earn $1000 a day. – stuff article

    Several times the remuneration set in cabinet rules and Gerry lying saying Shipley wouldn’t work for anything less. Apparently she wasn’t even asked!

    I wonder if he still plans to erect a statue to himself in the CBD. Probably the only erection he gets these days – except when you mention the word “Bulldozer” 😉

    • igivesup 5.1

      And Bolger and Cullen and there’ll be a whole lot more no doubt after this election ………… it just goes on and on and on vote Labour and National out !

  6. hoom 6

    Pretty sure Shipley got at least 3 jobs from just this one term.
    She’ll have to auction off spares on Trademe by the time a 2nd Nact term is finished 🙄

  7. Tigger 7

    Prenderghastly is on a bunch of boards, 9 from memory.

  8. One of the Masses 8

    So my employees, already on $20/hour have already said they will want their wages to go up at the same 11% ($13.50 to $15 per hour). Is that OK? In our case it will probably mean less hours for each employee to keep our wage bill, which is our biggest overhead, at about the same level. And remember at the small business level the owner/operator gets paid last (from the company’s net profit).

    • Eddie 8.1

      The current minimum wage is $13 an hour.

      And above the minimum wage, wages are a matter for bargaining between workers and employers

    • fender 8.2

      Maybe you need to inform them that since they are not on either the existing min. wage or a proposed increase to min. wage any change to min. wage does not affect them. I’m sure a 11% pay rise would be nice but unrealistic at present, an increase of min wage is a effort to pay those affected enough to live on, not an excuse for across the board 11% rise. Simple really.

      • insider 8.2.1

        Relativity is the issue though. Skilled people may see their relative value diminished by a (unearned?) wage increase for the unskilled, and want to claw that back.

        • McFlock

          And that would affect the wage supply/demand curve for their skillsets how?

        • Adele

          Low wage does not necessarily infer unskilled. While some jobs require a low entry point in terms of qualifications they may require a skill set that others wouldn’t be able to achieve because they are either too weak, too slow, too un-coordinated, too un-physical, too inflexible.

          An increase in the minimum is hardly an ‘unearned’ entitlement, moreso it is a correction to being ‘underpaid’ for work that is outrageously undervalued.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts