Key’s desperate spin

Written By: - Date published: 3:10 pm, July 18th, 2010 - 70 comments
Categories: spin, workers' rights - Tags:

With the reaction to laws attacking workers John Key has tried to misdirect by claiming unions have no example of abuse of the 90 day law.

A couple of points John:

1) It’s up to you to provide evidence the law needs to be changed, that’s kinda how governing works, however;
2) Off the top of my head I can think of three examples:

After refusing to spend her entire part-time pay on shoes sold by her employer Amy Jewitt was told she was:

on a three month probation period and by not wearing the shoes she was not committed to the job.

Florence Cohen was sacked from her job at Take Note, in her last week of the fire at will period without being told why.

And on Marae this morning (right across the end of the first clip and the start of the second) Matt McCarten told of a case where a young woman told her boss she wasn’t comfortable answering his personal questions and got the sack the next day.

And these are just the cases that have been brought to the attention of the media. It’s the tip of the iceberg because most cases vulnerable workers will just suck up abuse and move on.

Key knows that, he’s just desperate to push the issue into some other frame and figures he’ll try a bit of union bashing.

It’s a cowardly misdirection but what else would you expect from a man pushing a law attacking workers like Jewitt and Cohen?

70 comments on “Key’s desperate spin ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. omar 1
    18 July 2010 at 3:30 pm

    TV3 had a Unite member called Lisa on the news on Friday who was sacked for last year for no reason.
    http://www.unite.org.nz/node/715

  2. marsman 2
    18 July 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Key and his cabinet of creeps are taking the country back to those dark days that the odious Shipley left us with.

  3. Santi 3
    18 July 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Is Farrar involved?

  4. mickysavage 4
    18 July 2010 at 4:27 pm

    I have an example. A young man that I know works part time in a butcher’s shop. The ownership changed recently and the new boss inserted 90 day trial clauses in the new contracts. He then proceeded to fire 4 of the 5 workers for reasons that were ridiculous.

    Being young and not part of the union each of the workers went off and most have found alternative work. It took a while though for each of them and they suffered hardship. They each think more poorly of the capitalist system because of their experience.

    We do not hear of their cases in the media but if each of us knows of 4 or 5 cases then the total must number in the thousands.

    What really pisses me off is that Key continuously talks about “responsible employers” and how they will not act aggressively or unreasonably.

    Of course they will not but the law is not needed for them, it is needed for the others who will act unilaterally and irresponsibly.

    • nilats 4.1
      18 July 2010 at 11:39 pm

      Name the butchery MS so we do not buy meat from there? Dirty capitalist scum.
      Or are you afraid of defamation?
      I thought when business are sold terms & conditions of employment stay the same or have I missed something?

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        19 July 2010 at 12:40 pm

        I’m not sure on the legality, but it is pretty common for new owners to ‘restructure’ the business and review roles after it’s been bought out. It seems that the 90-day fire policy basically makes this a hell of a lot easier – instead of going through the formal restructuring process, you can just sack them and they have no right of reply.

    • Connie Mist 4.2
      19 July 2010 at 8:55 pm

      My niece works at a butcher shop – she was told she was being paid less than minimum wage because she was on a 3 month trial – no sign of a contract; she knows it’s illegal but she is grateful for the job…

      Mad, it’s MAD!

  5. Aug 5
    18 July 2010 at 5:23 pm

    I just finished reading the Department of Labour research on the 90 day trials and in that document the unions talk about a couple of instances of abuse. Section 2.2.8.is called Reported misuse of trial periods.

  6. Peter 6
    18 July 2010 at 5:30 pm

    The problem is Mickey is that even if you can point to 4-5 cases where there may have been issues the policy as a whole seems to be working.

    I had lunch with a couple of ex workmates from Work and Income a few weeks ago and both were saying how much easier it has become to convince employers to give clients who have been on benefits long term a chance. Some of them fail to get permanent jobs but from what the two told me said most are getting full time jobs.

    The whole policy seems to have made employers much more willing to take a risk and give people a chance where before most would simply play it safe.

    • Inventory2 6.1
      18 July 2010 at 5:38 pm

      Careful Peter; if you speak too much common-sense like that, you’ll be moderated outa here! It’s not what they want to hear, even if it is the truth.

      • Bill 6.1.1
        18 July 2010 at 6:05 pm

        See, here’s just a wee part of the problem with the way you right wing chappies are portraying matters.

        The guy who’s the boss is looking for help to increase the profitability of the business. And he is viewing the people whose help he seeks as dodgy at best and downright dangerous at worst.

        Given that mind set…and it’s one you chappies on the right keep repeating and punting as normal…it would appear patently obvious that workers need protection from the unfounded hate, fear and paranoia of employers.

        But you all want to give the hate, fear and paranoia of the boss of your perspective free range.

        • Inventory2 6.1.1.1
          18 July 2010 at 6:20 pm

          Bill; I can only speak from my own experience, but Mrs Inventory and I don’t hire people, then invest significant time, effort and money in training them just so that we can move them on after 89 days. To do that would be, for our business, economic and management suicide.

          We want staff who will be with us for the long haul, and we invest heavily in them. But sometimes we make mistakes in recruitment. The applicant may not be who they appeared to be at interview, or the realities of the job might not match their expectations. We will certainly give serious consideration to implementing this policy down the track.

          • IrishBill 6.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2010 at 6:28 pm

            We’ve already had this discussion:

            “It sounds like a matter that could be very easily dealt with a performance management framework. If there are measurables then all you need to do is make them performance indicators and review them regularly.

            Rather than having to go through the hiring process again and again until you find a fit for the job you may find that reviewing the reasons your employee isn’t achieving their targets gives you the chance for them to find ways to deal with those reasons either by giving them ways to fix their problems that have been derived from your experience and the experience of your other employees or by highlighting problems with your work structure that could be fixed.

            If you performance review properly you’ll often find structural problems that you can fix and often fixing these problems increases productivity across all staff even those who are already performing.

            Of course you could just keep churning through staff until you find enough people that can deal with your sub-optimal systems. But that costs them and it costs you as well.”

            • Inventory2 6.1.1.1.1.1
              18 July 2010 at 7:03 pm

              IB – appreciate your suggestions, but we already have a good appraisal system, we consult extensively with our staff, we survey them regularly and respond to concerns when they are raised. We outsource when we do not have the necessary expertise.

              We have had few “bad hires”, but those we have had have caused a lot of angst. There’s nothing worse than having an employee who clearly doesn’t want to be there.

              • Bill …
                18 July 2010 at 7:47 pm

                If there is nothing worse than “having an employee who clearly doesn’t want to be there”, then what is the point of introducing a massive disincentive for said employee to jump to a different employer? ‘Cause that’s what the 90 days is.

            • AngryTory 6.1.1.1.1.2
              18 July 2010 at 8:15 pm

              More crazy leftist “process” – just like Hellen.

              haven’t you guys worked out NZ doesn’t want that any more?

              Look if you work for me and youre got at it and I like you – you’ve got a job.

              If you’re not – you’re fired. It really is that simple. 9 days or 90 days or 9 months or 9 years – doesn’t matter. I’m the boss. You’re the “employee” for just as long as I want you.

              Get it? or get out!

              • Puddleglum …
                18 July 2010 at 8:43 pm

                “Look if you work for me and youre got at it and I like you you’ve got a job.”

                So AngryTory, there’s three conditions to you hiring and keeping someone:

                1. ‘You work for me’ – fair enough, it’s hard to fire someone who doesn’t work for you.
                2. ‘youre got at it’ [‘You’re good at it’??] – fair enough, performance at the job is expected.
                3. ‘and I like you’ … What? You have to ‘like’ them? How much? To invite back to your place for dinner? To have a beer with after work? If they agree with your every opinion on any and everything (e.g., about this government)?

                AngryTory, with a third condition like that would you see yourself as one of John Key’s ‘responsible’ employers or as just the kind of employer that would justify a government NOT allowing a 90 day fire at will clause in employment agreements?

                You sound like the second kind yet I suspect you see yourself as the first kind. This is the problem with this kind of law – people (employers) who think they are ‘common sense’, ‘decent’ NZers but who actually act with disregard to natural justice or any sense of fairness. People who are mesmerised by their own importance as “the boss” to the point where they can’t distinguish between their personal prejudices (which should have no bearing on employment prospects) and their judgment as an employer.

        • Alexandra 6.1.1.2
          18 July 2010 at 7:27 pm

          The trick is an employer reluctant to employ the “risky” workers will do so because of the substantial govt subsidy. What I would like to know from Peters friends in the know, is were the blessed chosen ones employed after the 90 days probation?

          • Peter 6.1.1.2.1
            18 July 2010 at 10:22 pm

            Alexandra, I don’t know.

            I do know however when I was working for Work and Income around 2004 that as a case manager there were a number of subsidies available to us to encourage employers to take a chance.on staff members.

            What I found was that these may virtually zero impact to an employer weighing up hiring a person they deemed risky as the potential impact to their business was of a bad hire was simply to great.

    • Craig Glen Eden 6.2
      18 July 2010 at 6:33 pm

      The trouble with what you have said Peter is the old legislation already had a trial period.

      So the new legislation has probably done nothing because those people would have got employed any way. Six weeks a go I employed a new employee not because I was taking a risk or a gamble but because I needed them and they are the right person. As a business owner I don’t take gambles when employing people, who would? Why would an employer be so bloody stupid?

      If the employer knows what they are doing and have got their processes right then they have nothing to fear. The only thing I am concerned about is how badly this Government is doing with the economy. So much for catching up with Australia. fat chance!

      • comedy 6.2.1
        18 July 2010 at 6:42 pm

        I’d be interested to know what processes you’re using we’ve employed a couple of people over the last couple of years who interviewed brilliantly, psych tested OK and had good references and frankly after about a month I would have traded them for a battery hen.

      • Peter 6.2.2
        18 July 2010 at 10:38 pm

        I disagree Craig that all these people would have been hired anyhow and would ask when was the last time you hired a person who hadn’t worked for 5 years, 10 years or even 15 years?

        I know from having dealt with these people that it was virtually impossible to find employers who would hire them. They would take one look at a persons cv (or lack of it) and that was it. However listening to my ex colleagues what they are finding now is that more employers are taking that opportunity to give them a go.

        • loota 6.2.2.1
          18 July 2010 at 10:57 pm

          No, I don’t understand the scenario you raise here. You are saying that most employers would choose someone with 5-10-15 years worth of work experience as being most suitable for a given job.

          How does this legislation make someone with ZERO (or near zero) work experience suddenly most suitable for that same job?

          Or is it because the employer now thinks that they can now risk an inexperienced person in the position, with an underlying motivation to cut the pay for the position? I mean, you wouldn’t pay a new school leaver the same as a thirty year old with a proven track record of working with others, would you?

          So, in effect, this displaces someone more experienced out of the job vacancy and out of better pay.

          And…this is better for our workforce? Or just for the employer?

          • Peter 6.2.2.1.1
            18 July 2010 at 11:33 pm

            Actually Loota all I am saying is that this policy is giving opportunities to people who have been unemployed long term who in the past wouldn’t generally be overlooked.

            However I think from my experience what I have generally seen is if an employer wanted to reduce his staffs wages then hiring a large number of low paid/low skilled employees will simply result in either:
            a) the high skill staff training up the low paid/low skilled staff eg on the job training and the low paid staff either 1) asking for a pay increase and 2) looking for a job elsewhere where his newly acquired skills will be properly compensated or

            b) the high skilled high paid staff getting PO’d which having to supervise all these new low paid/low skilled staff which results in him either 1) going to the boss and getting a pay increase to compensate for the additional stress or 2) looking for a job elsewhere where his skills/stress levels will be more appropriately compensated and the employer forced to hire a new similar skilled person (who would be expecting the exact same sort of rates) or b) trying to manage with the low skilled/low paid staff which will generally negatively impact the business to the point he will either have to reform or close.

            • loota 6.2.2.1.1.1
              18 July 2010 at 11:47 pm

              Peter, yes it would be a good thing to give opportunities to people who have been unemployed long term and who may be frequently overlooked.

              But the 90 day right to fire surely can’t be the best way to go about achieving this obejctive can it?

              And if this is one of the major aims of the legislation, where is the rest of the comprehensive Government programme to support these people into jobs and to help them succeed once they have been taking onboard? Is the average employer going to know how to manage someone with such a difficult and sparse employment background compared to their average staffer?

              When you look at it from this point of view, it seems obvious that this policy is not part of any real, genuine effort to give the long term unemployed better chances.

              • Peter …
                19 July 2010 at 7:09 am

                I can’t comment what the Governments objectives were from this policy because I not a member of this government and simply don’t know. What I do know is that the policies that were in place prior to the 90 day bill had little to no impact on this group.

                I would also suggest that many long term unemployed don’t need special treatment/management but rather simply given a go.

    • lprent 6.3
      18 July 2010 at 6:47 pm

      Of course it would help if therewas some place to register grievances. Then we could find out how good or bad the policy has been operating. That would be a way of making responsible policy.

      For some reason NACT didn’t seem to thin was worth doing. In fact they don’t even monitor how many people have been employed under the provisions of the act. They just Tuesdays use questionable anedocotes.

      You’d have to ask if they have any faith that it does what they claim. Doesn’t look like it to me. Just looks like a way to drop wages

      • comedy 6.3.1
        18 July 2010 at 7:01 pm

        If as has been posited that the unions and the opposition knew this was going to be coming I think it’s an unmitigated failure on their part.

        First for not screaming blue murder between the introduction of the law and now and secondly for not at least having their ducks all lined up ready to go rather than a disorganised protest and a few anecdotes to point to the failure of the changes to the employment law to date.

        FFS over at the bog someone’s found that the case study used above is a member of the Labour party – this is the kind of useless shit that let’s the government get away with whatever they want.

        • Pascal's bookie 6.3.1.1
          18 July 2010 at 9:51 pm

          “the case study used above is a member of the Labour party”

          sfw?

    • michaeljsavage 6.4
      18 July 2010 at 7:08 pm

      That becomes a possible lie and rightwing propaganda unless it can be verified. Have you ever looked at the quality of work and income staff (people i deal with have – and i have had to in turn deal with those work and income staff) … many are immigrants – with distinct limits on cultural sensititivity to white nzers let alone brown .. and language difficulties but they are dealing with NZers …(mind you many of the applicants are also immigrants, branding the kiwis on a numerical basis as neer do wells by adding to the stats) have you ever looked at the believability of work and income staff to be quoting this sort of anecdotal evidence.

      Inventory2 is simply a rightwing whore – up for the best item that confirms its viewpoint. A slag – nothing more.

      I also deal with employers … work and income is regarded as a joke – your contacts are therefore questionable. I wont cite name and number either – but then neither can you.

      rubbish …

      • Peter 6.4.1
        18 July 2010 at 10:58 pm

        What a load of crap re the quality/type of people working for Work and Income.

        I found that the people working in Work and Income offices were as diverse as the population of this country. In the group I trained with (about 15 from memory) the male/female ratio was about even, roughly a third held degrees, around 7 were European, 5 Maori/Pacific Island, 2 Pacifc Islanders and 1 Indian.

        As for my contacts believability. Well I worked with them for 2 years, known them for 7 so I am confident that what they are telling me is accurate within the confines of their personal experience. As for your comments around how they are regarded by employers I would agree 100% with them.

        Unfortunately most employers look at Work and Income as having the dregs of the potential offerings when it comes for recruitment and largely its true. If you take a large employment market like Auckland most skilled and motivated candidates will network go to multiple employment agencies and generally find work themselves within 12-16 weeks and as a result Work and Income generally doesn’t even bother with actively pushing them within this time frame.

        Its only after this time frame that generally Work and Income start to take a harder look at things and generally there is a reason why that person hasn’t found work (skills, personal issues, drug/alcohol etc etc). Unfortunately though while Work and Income then tries to address those its more time that person is off the job market which only makes it harder to market them later on.

        In smaller rural environments its generally different again due to a number of factors ranging from generally less alternative recruitment avenues better word of mouth networks etc.

      • TightyRighty 6.4.2
        19 July 2010 at 10:21 am

        Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

        you are the slightly more educated version of PhilU

        • Peter 6.4.2.1
          19 July 2010 at 10:17 pm

          Tighty Righty, I’m okay with your comparison because at least if you spend the time to interpret the fullstops there is generally a point to PhilU’s posts. Yours however seem more like Dad4Justice’s, full of hot angry wind and lacking in any sort of substance.

    • Macro 6.5
      18 July 2010 at 9:30 pm

      So your argument Peter is this:
      “It’s good policy because it is making it easier for business to employ people, and it gets people of unemployment.”
      Fact. Unemployment has increased since the policy was introduced.
      Fact. Good businesses employ people as they need, not because they can fire them at will.
      Fact. Bad businesses employ people and fire them at will because they couldn’t plan their way out of a paper bag and haven’t the faintest idea of good management skills. If you have invested 3 months of training in a new employee… Why waste all that training? And yet 25% of new employees under this law have lost their jobs – what an incredible waste of resource! Now this idiotic administration want to extend this.
      Finally – nothing is politically right which is morally wrong – and this is.

      • Peter 6.5.1
        18 July 2010 at 11:12 pm

        Actually Macro I don’t believe that this is good policy but do I believe from what I am being told by people working with the recruitment of people who have been on benefits long term is that it is making a significant positive impact of these people lives and providing them with opportunities that they would otherwise not be presented with.

        Fact. Unemployment has increased since the policy was introduced
        Fact. The world has just experienced the biggest economic crisis since the great depression of which the experts are out for debate whether it is over yet or not. Unemployment was always going to go up.

        Fact. Good businesses employ people as they need, not because they can fire them at will.
        Fact. Employers will try and minimize their risks as much as possible. This policy gives employers the motivation to take a risk which otherwise they most likely wouldn’t have.

        Fact. Bad businesses employ people and fire them at will because they couldn’t plan their way out of a paper bag and haven’t the faintest idea of good management skills.
        Fact. Good business hire people who prior to this law would have never been given the opportunity keep them because they prove allowing them to build a career.

        Finally nothing is politically right which is morally wrong and this is.
        What is morally wrong about people who have been unemployed long term being hired under this law?

        • Macro 6.5.1.1
          19 July 2010 at 11:04 am

          “What is morally wrong about people who have been unemployed long term being hired under this law?”
          What is morally right about people who are good employees being fired at will because of incompetent management?

          • Peter 6.5.1.1.1
            19 July 2010 at 10:22 pm

            What is morally right about people who are good employees being fired at will because of incompetent management?
            What is morally wrong about people who are risking their own money/reputation running their business in what ever manner they like as long as its lawful?

  7. Fisiani 7
    18 July 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Peter you are so right. For every case that might appear in some way dodgy there are about 90 people who have gained useful and permanent employment with full rights. People who have been unable to find work before are been given a fair go. This policy will encourage employers to take on more and more staff and will be the greatest employment policy ever.

    • IrishBill 7.1
      18 July 2010 at 5:55 pm

      For every case that might appear in some way dodgy there are about 90 people who have gained useful and permanent employment with full rights.

      Y’see that’s exactly the kind of statistic Key needs to put up if he wants this to be seen as anything other than an attack on workers. I presume you have a source?

    • michaeljsavage 7.2
      18 July 2010 at 7:12 pm

      How do you know fisiani – quote some instances.

      Many of us who deal with this type of scenario know this is bullshit.

      The government is encouraging employers to behave like piranha … and they or many of them … will

      • Fisiani 7.2.1
        18 July 2010 at 9:57 pm

        Easy proof IB. It just needs basic maths. A mere 22% of people taken on were let go, many within days. (FACT) Assume dodgy ie outrageous dismissals as high as 5% of these. Highly unlikely of course. More realistic figure might be less than 1.25% (So only 0.3 – 1.1%) of rightly dissatisfied employees. . Level of reported complaints is about this rate.(FACT) All others therefore employed with first employer or able to be achieve employment with another employer. (FACT)
        ie about 1:90 One problem for every 90 satisfied workers.
        The 90 day right to prove and improve yourself is a great advance in work placement opportunity and will be welcomed by any worker looking for a job who has a CV problem.

        • michaeljsavage 7.2.1.1
          18 July 2010 at 10:03 pm

          Presentation skills – zero – reasoning … zero

          likelihood of special needs applications … probably 60 percent

          PI name … PI reasoning.

          Go and apply to NZon air for a hip hop vid … it may well be more lucrative …

          IrishBill: and that’s you banned for a week for racism.

        • IrishBill 7.2.1.2
          18 July 2010 at 10:04 pm

          That’s classic. Now can you use the same technique to prove the moon is actually a clever optical illusion fashioned from a tin of beans and assorted consonants? And then that Abe Lincoln went forward in time to assassinate Kennedy over a long standing space-time feud over an unfinished game of dominoes?

          Because I think you can.

          • Fisiani 7.2.1.2.1
            18 July 2010 at 10:28 pm

            At least I can give and have given a convincing statistical argument rather than resort to hyperbole and clutching at straw man reasoning and ad hominen attack.
            BTW MJS is way wrong about Fisiani being a PI name.

            • Lanthanide 7.2.1.2.1.1
              19 July 2010 at 12:56 pm

              “convincing statistical argument”

              No, not really at all.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                19 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

                So you don’t find ‘assume my conclusion is true’ to be a convincing argument?

                Fucking Elitist.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.3
          18 July 2010 at 10:59 pm

          There’s not a single piece of fact in you’re entire diatribe – only the delusional thinking that is endemic to RWNJs.

        • Macro 7.2.1.4
          18 July 2010 at 10:59 pm

          “A mere 22% of people taken on were let go” – 25% actually and 74% were in full time
          employment

          “Assume dodgy ie outrageous dismissals as high as 5% of these. Highly unlikely of course.”
          – now that IS an outrageous assumption! An assumption for your purpose of statistical whitewash. A far more likely senario is that 100% of them were fired because the management skills of those hiring were hopeless. But let’s not look at management because they are oh so perfect in NZ.

    • Macro 7.3
      18 July 2010 at 9:36 pm

      “For every case that might appear in some way dodgy there are about 90 people who have gained useful and permanent employment with full rights.”

      FACT. 25% of young workers employed have been fired at will so what you say is absolute TOSH!
      It’s only THREE for every ONE. And they would probably have been employed anyway.

  8. Ms X 8
    18 July 2010 at 7:32 pm

    I was under the impression that bosses could always fire people who were performing badly, not at all or behaving extremely badly. How does ‘fire at will’ improve on that? Fair minded bosses will treat workers fairly and those that don’t never will – giving them more ammunition is hardly fair on those with bills to pay.

    • lprent 8.1
      18 July 2010 at 7:40 pm

      The difference with the “fire at will” act is that they don’t have to be fair about it. For instance telling people why they are being fired.

    • AngryTory 8.2
      18 July 2010 at 8:18 pm

      You still don’t get it do you?

      Making me keep paying $$$ for people whom I don’t want, who perhaps don’t really want to work for me but just need the money or something, slackers who insist on holiday pay, who won’t work when I need em – – fuck I work evenings & weekends, I don’t expect anyone to do what I wouldn’t have done when I was their age!

      if they can’t hack it, I should have the right to be shot of ’em.

      but not under Hellen.

      • michaeljsavage 8.2.1
        18 July 2010 at 8:31 pm

        Thaaarnk u moooi looord … jeez your name isnt edmund blackadder is it ….

        Horrible little man – or woman – or reptile …

      • Puddleglum 8.2.2
        18 July 2010 at 9:02 pm

        You still don’t get it do you AngryTory?

        Do you have any idea at all of the massive social engineering that was required, often at the end of a gun, to provide your forerunners with a mass of ‘willing’ employees? Cleared from their land, legally maneuvered out of their customary rights to live off the land, destruction of their villages, enforced ‘migration’???

        Being able to employ someone today is a ‘privilege’ not a right. It’s a privilege based on the deliberate destruction of the ways of life of the mass of people in history. It’s a privilege based on extensive legal, judicial and policing enforcement of institutions, contracts and arrangements all of which were vigorously and often violently resisted from their beginnings by the majority.

        Don’t ever think that it’s some kind of God-given, natural right you have to pay somebody money and to get their labour (and ‘attitude’) for a day. The only reason most put up with this kind of ‘relationship’ is that they’ve lost the resources, knowledge and power over their circumstances to be able to live differently.

  9. michaeljsavage 9
    18 July 2010 at 7:59 pm

    this is the end forever of the illusion of NACT as a benign centrist entity … bullshit extreme … they are the old wolf they ever were and worse.

    Even the Farmers have to beware – whats going to be left when they all sell their farms to the chinese and retire to Wanaka … and ensure their children can continue to go to private school and they can drive their lifestyles over the backs of the rest of working NZ

    Shame on all of them who are old enough to know better. I felt sorry for that pimply little ‘young nat’ profiled on “the nation” (more like the whore to whoever thinks whatever) and on Q and A … the programme run by a nasty little man who looks like the bum end of a frustrated prune … he looked like a privileged little twat and came across that way.

    Im happy to be a pallbearer at the national and act governments funeral next year

    • AngryTory 9.1
      18 July 2010 at 8:20 pm

      Im happy to be a pallbearer at the national and act governments funeral next year

      Geez you & IrishBill will need LOTS of semtex for that to happen.

      Ballot Box & Armalite, Guys? – well you’ll have to stick to the Armalite cos the ballot box ain’t going to elect Labour-Union-Green mates anytime soon – never again if I have anything to do with it!

      IrishBill: just in case you missed it you’re banned for life. Or rather rebanned for life, prophet.

      • michaeljsavage 9.1.1
        18 July 2010 at 8:28 pm

        See you at the funeral boyo … when the dates set ill send you a condolences card …

        Johnny Black and Tan Key is quoite da best advertisement for votin Labour ooive ever seen me lad……

        ceadh ma fielte

        • The Voice of Reason 9.1.1.1
          18 July 2010 at 8:44 pm

          Welly band Ourselves Alone used to do a storming version of this ditty, MJS. I think you’ll know it:

          • michaeljsavage 9.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2010 at 9:06 pm

            Thanks VOR … my great grandfather was virulently anti british and had nothing good to say about the black and tans … my family was both Orange and Green but all lived together here in Godzone.

            My Grand da – sailed a skiff singlehandedly from Awanui in the far north to auckland in the early 1920’s … we come from good irish seafaring stock.

            We should never ever ever forget what and where we come from. The bastards have taken too much already to feed their dark satanic mills as it is….

            Men marched and women and children starved for freedoms … lest we forget …

      • Craig Glen Eden 9.1.2
        18 July 2010 at 8:41 pm

        ” never again if I have anything to do with it” Sad to inform you Angry Tory but little players are not bigger than the game, so on that note I will raise my dead body over your dead body.

  10. big blouse 10
    18 July 2010 at 9:38 pm

    I’m a Union Man and I say I what I think – the company stinks.

  11. James 11
    19 July 2010 at 10:52 am

    Hows about we get the State out of the way and let the bosses,employees and unions reach agreement between themselves without the hairy arm of State force being able to be used by one party against another….hmmmm?

    • mcflock 11.1
      19 July 2010 at 1:10 pm

      Because then the worker is undefended against the green hairy arm of capitalist force.

      It would be nice if everyone could sit down and be nice and reasonable. The trouble is that all it takes is one manager to be incompetent and vindictive – a few have been posting on this thread, methinks.

      If one worker is a jerk, the manager can work through fair process and fire them. If one manager is a jerk, 5 staff have to put up with it.

  12. randal 12
    19 July 2010 at 12:05 pm

    John Keys……tuff guy huh/?

  13. Stephen Franko 13
    19 July 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Let’s be honest with each other. Key doesnt even want government. He wants to abolish it. And good on him. Keep spinning things, John, and get rid of red tape and regulation.

Links to post