National makes work rights the defining issue

32 comments on “National makes work rights the defining issue ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stephen 1

   21 April 2008 at 1:47 pm

   On minimum wage…

   “In a move to distance himself from the views of Dr Brash and shift National’s policy away from the hard right, Mr Key said: “I’m not one of the hardcore, hard right wingers who says ‘get rid of the minimum wage; you don’t need it.’ Some people take that view, I personally think it has a place and I don’t have problems with it rising.””

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0609/S00307.htm
2. Monty 2

   21 April 2008 at 1:51 pm

   National will not go and repeal entirely the current employment legislation, and they have no good reason to (unlike in 1990 when the economy was well in recession thanks to the outgoing Labour Government) but certainly some tinkering around the edges will help make NZmore competitive and take away the trap that employers find themselves in when employing the wrong person for a variety of reasons.

   It is well accepted by the elecrotate that labour will introduce very employee friendly labour law, and national will re-balance that when they get the reigns of power.

   Always remember that no one is forced to work for a bad employer – they can always go and get works elsewhere if the employee does not like it.

   The electorate does understand this, and yet most people are not threatened by it. That is because in most cases employee and employer get on well and each is economically rewarded for their input.
3. Tane 3

   21 April 2008 at 1:54 pm

   Stephen:

   National Party labour and industrial relations spokeswoman Kate Wilkinson said National did not oppose the minimum wage but preferred tax cuts.

   “Our policy will be on a broader scale and looking at the bigger picture rather than just relying on this artificial solution of having an arbitrary level of what some people think is a fair wage and some people think is not.’

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/4329930a10.html

   Sounds to me like National plans to use tax cuts as a substitute for higher wages – effectively using public money to subsidise employers who pay low wages.

   See their record on raising the minimum wage here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=906
4. Stephen 4

   21 April 2008 at 1:54 pm

   On “working for a bad employer”, is that so easy to do in ‘bad times’?
5. Robinsod 5

   21 April 2008 at 1:56 pm

   Yep – that’s why he voted against youth rates being abolished. Just like he’s voted against every other piece of pro-worker legislation. He’s just lucky minimum wage rises are not voted on otherwise there would be another clear example of him saying one thing and doing another.
6. Tane 6

   21 April 2008 at 1:56 pm

   It is well accepted by the elecrotate that labour will introduce very employee friendly labour law, and national will re-balance that when they get the reigns of power.

   Rebalance? Ha! New Zealand has some of the most right-wing labour law in the industrialised world.
7. Steve Pierson 7

   21 April 2008 at 1:58 pm

   Key did question whether the minimum wage be as high as $12 an hour. doesn’t seem like he’ll be gung ho about raising it if he is PM.

   “It is well accepted by the elecrotate that labour will introduce very employee friendly labour law, and national will re-balance that when they get the reigns of power.” – why is ‘re-balancing’ needed? Why would any working new zealander vote for a ‘rebalancing’ of power away from themselves to the bosses?
8. Scribe 8

   21 April 2008 at 2:10 pm

   Tane,

   Sounds to me like National plans to use tax cuts as a substitute for higher wages – effectively using public money subsidise employers who pay low wages.

   See, that’s where the Left and the Right differ on taxation. Cutting tax is not using public money to subsidise employers who pay low wages; it’s allowing New Zealanders to keep their OWN money that they’ve worked hard for.

   The Left see wages as something that they can take a (growing) cut from; the Right see wages as something that people should get to keep the vast majority of, with the Government only taking what’s needed to run a country.
9. Steve Pierson 9

   21 April 2008 at 2:14 pm

   Scribe. How is a tax cut that lifts after tax wages by 5% (eg a $25 a week cut on an $500 a week net pay packet) going to close the wage gap with Australia? It’s not, but we can’t afford tax cuts larger than than both fiscally and because of inflationary impact. Only rising wages can close the gap.

   And remember, tax cuts aren’t free. any substantial cut has to come out of spending.
10. Tane 10

    21 April 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Scribe, you’re misrepresenting my statement and making a rather simplistic conclusion.

    I’m simply interpreting Wilkinson’s words – that instead of requiring employers to pay their workers decently by lifting the minimum wage, National would allow employers to keep paying poverty wages and cut taxes to relieve that wage pressure.

    The removal of regular minimum wage increases and its substitution with tax cuts would have the effect of the taxpayer subsidising employers who pay poverty wages. It’s also unsustainable – once you’ve got low income workers paying 0% tax how do you go about raising their incomes?

    Of course, I’m not against cutting taxes for low income workers, but the minimum wage should rise too – the two things are not the same. One is the amount of money a worker gets for his or her labour; the other is the amount the worker contributes to society for public services.
11. mike 11

    21 April 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Bad timing for Labour to start strenthening Empolyment conditions. With the economy tanking Employers will need all the help they can get just to hold on to their staff.
    I think Labour will leave the unions to do their dirty work here.
12. infused 12

    21 April 2008 at 2:26 pm

    “Only rising wages can close the gap.”

    Yes, but forcing them up isn’t the way to do it.
13. Tane 13

    21 April 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Ideally you’d raise them through intervening in the labour market – that’s what unions are about – and use industry agreements to stop firms competing on wage levels and get them investing in productivity.

    At the lower end though you do need minimum wage legislation to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation.
14. mawgxxxxiv 14

    21 April 2008 at 2:33 pm

    So if Labour is doing such a good job of keeping workers happy, why have the numbers heading off to Australia consistently increased during the term of the Labour led government ?

    http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/04/21/video-net-migration-to-australia-accelerating/

    [interest.co.nz is a joke. the guy was attributing the drop in unemployment in NZ to emigration to Australia the other day, as if there wasn’t emigration to Australia in the past and as if we don’t take in more workers through immgration every year than we lose through emigration. SP]
15. Tane 15

    21 April 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Because migration to Australia is cyclical.
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1255
16. Scribe 16

    21 April 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Steve,

    And remember, tax cuts aren’t free. any substantial cut has to come out of spending.

    That’s true IF the country doesn’t have multi-billion dollar surpluses, which we’ve had over the past several years. In that case, a government can do both.

    IMHO, there should be a tax-free window at the bottom end so that all workers benefit and then work done to avoid bracket creep.

    Tane,

    Kate Wilkinson said “Our policy will be on a broader scale and looking at the bigger picture rather than just relying on this artificial solution of having an arbitrary level of what some people think is a fair wage and some people think is not.”(emphasis mine)

    Sounds to me like a “both/and” solution rather than an “either/or” one.
17. Tane 17

    21 April 2008 at 2:43 pm

    There’s also the issue of wages – in many industries you can cross the ditch and get a 30-50% pay rise. I’d like to see a plan from both parties showing how they’d close that wage gap – all we’ve seen from National is promises to cut taxes.
18. Tane 18

    21 April 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Sounds to me like a “both/and’ solution rather than an “either/or’ one.

    Scribe, that may be the case – it’s hard to get any concrete policy out of National. What we do know is that for low income workers wages will rise slower under National than they did under Labour.

    And if the 1990s is anything to go by, those on or close to the minimum wage may even see their pay cut in real terms.
19. mawgxxxxiv 19

    21 April 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Tane looking at the post & chart you linked to I notice you only have one (1) complete so-called “cycle” shown. How does that prove that migration is cyclical ?
20. Scribe 20

    21 April 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Tane,

    You’re right that it’s hard to get any concrete policy out of National, but history suggests that such a situation is not unusual six or seven months out from an election. Not saying that’s the right thing to do, just saying it’s not something National is the sole offender on (and not saying you’re suggesting that).

    You’re right (again — this is getting boring) that some industries lag way behind Aussie in terms of wages. To use your 2.57pm comment as a model, we can say that “what we do know” is that things have got worse in the last 8.5 years under Labour, so any policy it unveils now would beg the question: “If that’s going to fix the problem, why has it taken eight-and-a-half years to propose it?”

    In fact, that’s a problem Labour (and any third-term government) has on just about any issue of substance.
21. Steve Pierson 21

    21 April 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Scribe. it is unusual to have no idea where a party and its leader stand ideologically – specific polices, yes, you can wait for those – but the objection is that National will not even give hints of where it stands on some issues,a nd considering it’s lurched from right to centre to right in the past decade New Zealanders can’t even get a general fix on what the party stands for anymore.
22. Robinsod 22

    21 April 2008 at 3:43 pm

    So very boring maw – you’re not here to do anything but offer increasingly desperate challenges are you. How about you get off you fat lazy arse and get your own stats. Then you can make your own graph and if it doesn’t show cyclical migration you can have a well won gloat.

    In the meantime your habit of expecting other people to do the heavy lifting while you snipe at the sidelines is making you look like an intellectual bludger. Have you sense of personal responsibility. Have you no shame?

    If this was my blog I’d’ve kicked you off days ago for being nothing but trolling deadweight…
23. Tane 23

    21 April 2008 at 3:48 pm

    mawgxxxxiv: Sorry to be a bit vague on you, but I heard an interview on Radio NZ’s focus on politics a month or so back where a professor basically said the same thing – apparently it’s cyclical going back decades. Feel free to do your own research.

    Scribe: I’ll agree Labour could have done more – they’re a timid bunch if nothing else. That’s why I think we need some concrete policy out of both parties – Labour can’t rest on its laurels, and National shouldn’t be able to get away with soundbites and spin.

    The wage gap has stopped growing though, so I can’t agree that things have got worse, even if they could be done better.
24. Scribe 24

    21 April 2008 at 3:59 pm

    The wage gap has stopped growing though, so I can’t agree that things have got worse, even if they could be done better.

    I don’t have evidence to the contrary, but people keep leaving for Australia at a higher rate than ever before.

    Please don’t employ the Dr Cullen “join ’em” retort, Tane 😉
25. Tane 25

    21 April 2008 at 4:05 pm

    These stats show a levelling off of the wage gap over the last decade:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1522

    National has put out an alternative one using after-tax wages, but that opens up a whole new can of worms.

    Agreed though, like many of Cullen’s retorts the “join em” one was poorly judged.
26. Steve Pierson 26

    21 April 2008 at 4:07 pm

    scribe. it’s not higher than ever before, therein lies the error.
27. Scribe 27

    21 April 2008 at 4:45 pm

    SP,

    Stats from today show that emigration to Oz was 29,900; the highest (recently at least) was 30,000. So you’re correct that it’s not higher than ever before.

    However, the last comparative numbers from Stats NZ say this: “The net outflow to Australia was 29,600 in 2008, compared with 22,200 in the previous year.”

    That’s quite a jump.
28. K Douglas 28

    21 April 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Monty

    “Always remember that no one is forced to work for a bad employer – they can always go and get works elsewhere if the employee does not like it.”

    What about the employee already working for that employer-can he/she just up sticks and go? What happens if that is the only employer in the town that, that employee has the skills to work for? Do you think that employers only turn bad when employment legislation changes?

    Why should employment terms and conditions be reduced when a government changes? As we have seen most of the productivity increases during the 90’s was off the back of workers. Is this fair? I don’t think so. Productivity should come from changes in work processes and technology introduced into workplaces. What is the Nats and even Labours policy on Productivity?
29. Steve Pierson 29

    21 April 2008 at 4:47 pm

    I refer you to my new post. As you can see the numbers do jump around
30. leftie 30

    21 April 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Any Party can promise to keep putting the minimum wage up, but by how much?
    It can be argued that National put it up in the 90’s, but it’s a fact they put it up a very small amount over a long time.
    Us workers are just starting to get some balance after National’s last “rebalancing” act which saw people lose penal rates and other conditions at work from 1990. What good was National’s tax cut to us then?
    Is this history repeating itself?
31. mawgxxxxiv 31

    22 April 2008 at 9:05 am

    Tane thanks for the clarification, excuse my pendantry 🙂

Links to post

1. What would National do?: Emigration at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 22 April 2008 at 12:05 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS