National’s plan to screw workers some more

89 comments on “National’s plan to screw workers some more ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Blighty 1

   28 October 2011 at 8:55 am

   fuckers.

   Cutting wages, cutting our ability to bargain for higher wages.

   Making work less attractive for people on benefits
   • thejackal 1.1

     28 October 2011 at 9:07 am

     Why would any worker in their right mind vote for National? You would have to be stark raving made to support a policy that has increased the divide with Australia. So much for closing the gaps… National wants to make New Zealand a nation of slaves. John Key is a lying bastard!
     • KJT 1.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 1:55 pm

       Any, New Zealander would have to be stark raving mad, or seriously misinformed, to vote National.

       Unfortunately we seem to be mushrooms. “Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit”.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2

       28 October 2011 at 2:55 pm

       National wants to make New Zealand a nation of slaves.

       Those of us who understand the authoritarian mindset already knew that. It’s obvious from their actions and policies that NAct think that everyone else should work to support them in the comfort and debauchery that they think they deserve.
   • Bazar 1.2

     28 October 2011 at 10:14 am

     “Making work less attractive for people on benefits”

     I love how you make that sound like work is optional, and that remaining on benefits is a valid lifestyle.
     • Uturn 1.2.1

       28 October 2011 at 11:07 am

       I don’t love how the claim that remaining on benefits is a not valid lifestyle has become an endorsement for slavery.

       “Any job is a good job”, without qualification of “any” is a thin slogan.
   • aerobubble 1.3

     28 October 2011 at 3:08 pm

     National think we’ll grow! Any growth will be at inflation. Now is
     this their strategy? To talk up prospects and give themselves more
     movement, justifaction for austerity come they are prven wrong?
     But why then attack workers? Haven’t they seen the news, all
     over the world citizenz are gettin snarlly. This is more like
     68 than 86.

     So what drugs are National taking, don’t they know neo-liberals
     had an exit strategy, don’t they know it??? What complete
     plonkers.
2. queenstfarmer 2

   28 October 2011 at 9:14 am

   All good things.

   Union critics don’t have much, if any, credibility on these matters any more (assuming they ever did), given their completely inaccurate end-of-the-world predictions about the 90 day trial period.
   • millsy 2.1

     28 October 2011 at 9:21 am

     So you want a low wage economy with unions placed in a legal straitjacket? and workers unable to bargain collectively and join unions as is their ILO right.

     Filthy rich farmers like you dont need to worry about this, though it will help because you will have a supply of cheap labour to treat like dirt and sack if you get sick of them, because lets face it, workers are expendable to people like you.

     Those on low pay and those who a vulnerable are going to be hit hard by this with lower wages and less conditions.

     Why do you begrudge unions and workers getting a decent wage. Why do you have to think that people in low wage jobs should have more money taken off them, and be barred from joining a union?
     • queenstfarmer 2.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 10:46 am

       So you want a low wage economy

       No.

       with unions placed in a legal straitjacket

       Everyone is in the “straitjacket” of the law. It’s about striking (no pun intended) an appropriate environment.

       lets face it, workers are expendable to people like you.

       You couldn’t be more wrong. I run my own small business (and have run/sold others). I desparately need my staff, and have always paid them well.

       Why do you begrudge unions and workers getting a decent wage

       I don’t begrudge workers anything (except the bad ones). Unions aren’t the problem, militant unionism is.
       • (NOT) queenstfarmer_20 years_from_now 2.1.1.1

         28 October 2011 at 11:14 am

         These days, all employers use leg-irons as provided by the law. It is about striking (pun intended) an appropriate environment.

         You couldn’t be more wrong. I run my own small business (and have run/sold others). I desparately need my staff, and have I never beaten them.

         I don’t begrudge workers anything. I am a good employer. Unlike most, I don’t enforce my seigneurial right to de-flower their virgin daughters.

         [lprent: I disapprove of identity hijacking on the basis that it is a pain in the arse for moderation.

         But you did pick a different handle, it is amusing, and qsf hasn’t objected too much so I’ll leave it in this once. I have enhanced the handle to make it clear who it isn’t.

         However if I see repeats or copycats, then I’m afraid the perpetrators are for a ban until after the election. Decide if you want to be locked out of the discussion. ]
         • queenstfarmer 2.1.1.1.1

           28 October 2011 at 11:27 am

           🙂

           Totally wrong, but funny.
         • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.2

           28 October 2011 at 4:19 pm

           I don’t know that anyone would confuse these or think it was an identity hijack.

           Having said that, it’d probably better to retain your usual name and simply put the future persona in the comment content.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2

         28 October 2011 at 11:21 am

         Militant corporatocracy is the problem. Where you have Government working for bg business and not for the people.
         • aerobubble 2.1.1.2.1

           28 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

           Not sure National are smart enough to keep up with the
           needs of the militrary industrial complex who
           desperately want more energy alternatives so they
           can maintain a energy advantage after peak oil.
           Sorry, but National serve property speculators
           an they earn thier money selling off Nz and
           borrowing from foreigners using NZ as collateral
       • Jum 2.1.1.3

         28 October 2011 at 11:24 am

         queenstfarmer,

         ‘I desparately need my staff,’ Would that be ‘disparately’ as in divide (and rule) staff or ‘desperately’ as in needing staff and willing to pay them a humane wage.

         ‘disparity’ = inequality or difference, as in age, rank, wages, etc.’ Collins.

         ‘ don’t enforce my seigneurial right to de-flower their virgin daughters’ = another clue to your deluded ‘right to rule’ character.
         • Maggie May 2.1.1.3.1

           28 October 2011 at 11:28 am

           Very good Jum
         • queenstfarmer 2.1.1.3.2

           28 October 2011 at 11:36 am

           Would that be ‘disparately’ as in divide (and rule) staff or ‘desperately’ as in needing staff and willing to pay them a humane wage.

           The latter, ie desperately (excuse my previous spelling). I need staff and have always paid far-above average, given the industry (IT). My businesses have never paid anyone anything near minimum wage (though I have been on it myself – youth rates – when I started out), and nor would it be possible.

           BTW, when I was on youth rates – while I was at school, working for a big retail chain store – I very easily negotiated with the manager to get onto the adult (minimum) wage. I was a good reliable worker (my reputation in that regard was significantly helped by some appalling co-workers!) and he was happy to pay a couple of dollars an hour extra to keep me on.
           • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.3.2.1

             28 October 2011 at 11:42 am

             Who gives a shit about your autobiography, qstf.

             When you were on youth rates, our country hadn’t been hollowed out by 30 years of neoliberalism, unions representing workers hadn’t been picked apart, and active wage and employment suppression wasn’t in play.

             In other words you’re just another middle aged born to rule prick who lived the good life in NZ growing up, and are now taking improved terms and conditions away from the youth of today.
             • queenstfarmer …

               28 October 2011 at 12:08 pm

               Who gives a shit about your autobiography, qstf

               Well I notice you’ve been drawn to comment on it.

               Actually this was in the late 90’s, during the ECA. The union had withered into irrelevance by then, and was missed by no-one.

               our country hadn’t been hollowed out by 30 years of neoliberalism

               I presume you are including Labour’s 9 years in power as part of this process.

               and are now taking improved terms and conditions away from the youth of today

               Interesting point, I’m not sure if there were any terms and conditions, or rights, that I had then (late 90s) but not now. Can you name any?
             • aerobubble …

               28 October 2011 at 3:19 pm

               Neoliberals are old farts who claim the growth was down to their
               genious but who squandered the oil bonaza buying off the majority
               of voters with cheap shrill politics. The growth is not there
               any more, oil has peaked, they can’t buy an election and have
               left even Epsom voters with huge unmaintainable debts.
               Will nZ back more stupid or seize on a likely one time
               opportunity to redirect growth inward rather than outward
               to foreigners?labour are moderate now, that won’t last if they lose.
           • Vicky32 2.1.1.3.2.2

             29 October 2011 at 12:01 am

             I very easily negotiated with the manager to get onto the adult (minimum) wage. I was a good reliable worker (my reputation in that regard was significantly helped by some appalling co-workers!) and he was happy to pay a couple of dollars an hour extra to keep me on.

             You were simply lucky, QSF! I’m sure it helped that you were not a girl… 🙂
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.4

         28 October 2011 at 2:59 pm

         I desparately need my staff, and have always paid them well.

         Do you show them the books and how much they’re worth before deciding how much you should pay them? If not then it’s just you making dictatorial decisions and forcing them on others. In other words, slavery.
       • Vicky32 2.1.1.5

         28 October 2011 at 11:58 pm

         Unions aren’t the problem, militant unionism is.

         Militant unionism has not existed for decades, if ever!
       • fmacskasy 2.1.1.6

         29 October 2011 at 10:47 am

         I don’t begrudge workers anything (except the bad ones). Unions aren’t the problem, militant unionism is.

         Interesting…

         What constitutes a “militant union” and a non-militant (tame?) Union?

         Hark back to the 1980s; the Solidarity Free Trade Union movement was militant. It opposed the Soviet-puppet regime that ruled Poland. Workers flocked to Solidarity because itr looked after their interests.

         By contrasts, the state-sanctioned Unions were non-militant. So much so that, in reality, they were simply extensions of the ruling Polish communist party.

         Solidarity’s existence was part of the slow disintergration of the communist, one-party rule in Eastern Europe.

         Damn those “militant” unions, eh?

         Just a bit of history…
   • framu 2.2

     28 October 2011 at 9:23 am

     why do you hate long established traditions of justice?

     you know “the right to face my accuser”
   • vto 2.3

     28 October 2011 at 9:49 am

     Do you have any understanding of unions and their history queenst?

     If your sentiment is right then you clearly see the pre-union era as a good era. You should go back and live in them times. Would you be living in the mansion on the hill or in the hovels in the swamp below?
     • fmacskasy 2.3.1

       29 October 2011 at 2:43 pm

       Kind of like this, Vto… http://abcnews.go.com/Business/GadgetGuide/story?id=4150486&page=1
   • KJT 2.4

     28 October 2011 at 10:21 am

     Median wages down $85 under National. Sounds like Union predictions were all too accurate.
3. tsmithfield 3

   28 October 2011 at 9:30 am

   National’s policies make things better for employers, meaning they are more available to expand, pay workers more, and employ more people.

   This is in stark contrast to Labour’s policies of increasing the minimum wage, stealing 7% from employers to stick into Kiwisaver accounts, and kicking them in the head with a capital gains tax. Thus, employers will be much poorer under Labour, meaning that workers will most likely not get the wage rises they otherwise would have.
   • KJT 3.1

     28 October 2011 at 9:47 am

     Despite the fact that business has done much better under Labour, the first ACT Government excepted, I still hear the delusion at chamber meetings, that “National is the party for business”.

     May be for fast food businesses, drug peddlers (legal and illegal) and multinationals.

     Ordinary entrepreneurial Kiwi’s have lost out under Neo-Liberal policies.

     People who can barely pay for food , transport and shelter do not buy much local business products.

     “Your low paid workers are my lost customers”.

     Why should we subsidise businesses who want to employ labour at less than cost.

     Key. “We want to catch up to Australia” Yeah, by doing the opposite of everything Australia does??
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

       Key. “We want to catch up to Australia”

       He was lying. The only time he told the truth was when he said he wanted wages to drop which is why all NAct policies since they got elected have been to ensure that they have.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2

     28 October 2011 at 9:51 am

     Have a Tui. National’s policies fail workers, and they fail business owners, and that’s why GDP is always higher under Labour: because they are better economic managers than National.
     I challenge you (or any other witless right wing dupe) to cite a single piece of evidence that suggests otherwise.
     • higherstandard 3.2.1

       28 October 2011 at 10:02 am

       http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp
       • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1

         28 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

         http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/10/18/graph-of-the-day-1-gdp/
     • Bazar 3.2.2

       28 October 2011 at 10:24 am

       How about the fucking massive deficit Labour left NZ as they exited.
       No really, how about that?

       Oh i guess we can overlook that, after all they had higher gdp (not that that’s hard when you spend everything you have and then some)
       • KJT 3.2.2.1

         28 October 2011 at 10:29 am

         What deficit?.

         Are you getting confused with Nationals billions in deficit. Rising steeply as their planned austerity measures, wages and tax and benefit cuts have their inevitable effect on business and tax receipts.

         How much is National borrowing for election bribes, again!?
         • queenstfarmer 3.2.2.1.1

           28 October 2011 at 10:39 am

           How much is National borrowing for election bribes, again!?

           I am aware that Labour is borrowing to pay for new tax cuts. What are National’s election bribes?
         • Bazar 3.2.2.1.2

           28 October 2011 at 10:57 am

           Selective memory much?

           Allow me to refresh your memory

           http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/media/14oct09

           30 June 2009, we had a $10.5 billion deficit.

           Who the hell do you think we have to blame for such a bastard deficit?
           And if you even think of suggesting national had a hand in it, since it landed in their freshly elected term, i’ll go into the facts and slam labour for their incompetence 1 fact at a time.
           • Blighty 3.2.2.1.2.1

             28 October 2011 at 11:14 am

             The deficit was less than $4 billion in the year to June 30, 2009 (OBEGAL is the measure that everyone uses – it excludes gains and losses on existing financial assets)

             Last year, the OBEGAL was $18.5 billion

             I seem to remember National introduced large tax cuts in th2 2009 fiscal year…
             • Bazar …

               28 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

               http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2008/13.htm

               So you’re using a measure that doesn’t take into account profit and loss, and telling me that its a better measure to use, in a discussion about national deficits….

               Right….

               I’m also not sure where you get the $4 billion figure from, but at least you’ve made a concession that labour left us with $4 billion debt end of its term.
       • lprent 3.2.2.2

         28 October 2011 at 1:00 pm

         What deficit? The current account was fine.

         There was a projected government deficit in the PREFU because of the future tax cuts because of changed economic circumstances. Any responsible government would have cancelled the tax cuts as being unaffordable in view of the changed circumstances.

         But as we know, National are irresponsible. They increased the taxcuts so they could pay off their wealthy donors. To pay for that bribe they started borrowing heavily.

         But I guess you’ll just overlook all that because as far as I can see you prefer fairy tales to reality. Idiot child.
         • Bazar 3.2.2.2.1

           28 October 2011 at 5:13 pm

           “I can see you prefer fairy tales to reality. Idiot child.”

           I dont’ even care, show me what measurement where the current account “was fine”, when labour exited and national took over in 2009.

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/economy/2468285/Deficit-better-than-April-forecast

           That only shows a nice 1.8 billion deficit, using OBEGAL which i don’t believe takes labour’s ACC spending 4billion+ blowout into account.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.3

         28 October 2011 at 3:18 pm

         How about the fucking massive deficit Labour left NZ as they exited.
         No really, how about that?

         I’m just going to point you at r0bs’ excellent reply and call you a fucken moron trying to rewrite reality.
         • Bazar 3.2.2.3.1

           28 October 2011 at 5:18 pm

           The only thing of value in that is the “Labour left office with zero net government debt”

           Which he backs up with nothing substantial, it might as well be an opinion.
           You could of said it with as much authority.

           Instead you hide behind his post, and call me a moron.
           I’ll call you a coward in return, and take it to his post instead.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.3.1.1

             28 October 2011 at 6:37 pm

             http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/sustainable_development/sustainable-development/economic-resilience.aspx

             As I said, you’re a fucken moron.
             • seeker …

               28 October 2011 at 7:35 pm

               Satisfied now Bazar? Your ability to deny the truth is astounding. Bizarre people like you are a real threat to the future of New Zealand.
             • Bazar …

               31 October 2011 at 12:16 pm

               From your link, you seem to be using as a crutch:

               Gross debt, described as gross sovereign issued debt, includes core Crown debt only (eg, Treasury bills, Government Bonds, Kiwi Bonds, and settlement cash deposits with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand). IT DOES NOT INCLUDE DEBT OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES, CROWN ENTITIES (EG, ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION OR EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION), OR OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Net debt is gross debt less financial assets (investment).

               I guess if its nor a core crown debt, it doesn’t count huh.
               The charts also stop at march, which isn’t when labour left office.
   • Maggie May 3.3

     28 October 2011 at 11:32 am

     Bullshit, Bullshit and Bullshit again. National has no plans to increase wages, they want them down permanently. They really do not care about the lives of workers in this country.

     Their long time view has been if you are a worker then you are there to keep the country working other than that we don’t care and will continue to prove it with our policies.
   • Jum 3.4

     28 October 2011 at 11:35 am

     tsmithfield,

     ‘pay workers more’ you know you are lying about that. English – a ‘low wage economy is good for investment’.

     Be honest and also state who gets more money.

     You use the word ‘workers’ dishonestly, meaning you only consider the ceo types to be the workers, not the policy of low wage forced on most New Zealand workers trying to survive on the current minimum wage.

     That’s as bad as NAct saying in 2009 tax cuts for the hard working people of New Zealand, when you/they meant tax cuts for those that didn’t need them and insulting those people who are often working 3 jobs to make ends meet on minimum wage as not hard working because you have given them so much less.

     Shame on you and your arrogant greedy selfish philososophy.
4. randal 4

   28 October 2011 at 9:38 am

   what a lot of rot.
   any business will expand if they have something to sell that other people want.
   trying to make a go of it by underpaying workers makes it less of a business and more a peculium that is being run for thepsychological satisfaction of the proprietor.
   national is supposed to be the party of businesess so where are the jobs?
   • Uturn 4.1

     28 October 2011 at 10:16 am

     National’s policy release is curious reading. It says that higher paid jobs are its goal, but neglects to state that higher paid jobs doesn’t mean more higher paid jobs. What the policy does is take from the employees on the shop floor in order to give more to the executive/managerial workers. There are the higher paid jobs: higher salaries for existing positions without any new job creation.

     The implied philosophy is that workers must subsidise the ruling class, or as you say, the business stops being a business and begins to be an anachronistic tribute to bygone years of pre-industrial British social class system. National can’t make the moral distinction between workers wanting the rights to make enough to survive and ruling classes wanting the right to do as they please with any money they can get their hands on. It seems that, in their minds, the need for a gold plated toothbrush is as necessary as a plate of food. They haven’t even started in on beneficiaries.

     Exactly where they are going with the adjustments to flexible workplaces is unsure. Their own press release states that 76% of workplaces have no problem with the current system and that it has no effect on business costs. Yet the reason they give is to reduce costs to businesses. If Labour or anyone else fixed a problem on those stats they’d be accused of tinkering at the edges instead of making serious savings. But once you add up the removal of 30 day collective contract coverage with the 90 day probation period, the direction is clear and both laughable and terrifying. They seriously want a starving unhealthy peasant labour pool. Are they merely sniffing the fumes of nostalgia for times they only read about in books – complete with dreams of hunting dogs, King, Country and portraits of proud fat men on horseback in gold braid and red military uniforms – or are they really seriously pathological?

     Someone here summed it up a few days ago: If you believe the problem is that the rich aren’t rich enough, then National is for you.
     • KJT 4.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 10:32 am

       Get it right.

       The goal is higher paid jobs, in Australia!
5. millsy 5

   28 October 2011 at 9:39 am

   Blow it out your ass smithfield, bosses want to pay their workers as less as possible. This policy will push wages DOWN DOWN DOWN. I honestly belive that National will ban unions and strip us of all sick leave and holidays soon.

   Why do you think its OK for workers to be treated like shit by their employers? Especially single mothers?
6. Afewknowthetruth 6

   28 October 2011 at 9:44 am

   ‘We’re at a time in history in which unfettered business has brought our economy to a standstill.’

   There’s hyperbole and there’s HYPERBOLE.

   ‘a standstill’ means no activity. Nothing happening. That could hardly be further from the truth.

   The decline in energy availability assiciated with Peak Oil WILL bring present economic arrangements to a standstill, but probably not for another decade.

   Before that happens we will almost certainly pass through a period of overt fascism in which a larger protion of the wealth flows to the tiny minority at the top. That is what the uninformed masses are almost certain to vote for.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     28 October 2011 at 9:49 am

     What, you’re almost certain that the sky is going to fall on our heads? Again?
   • Lanthanide 6.2

     28 October 2011 at 9:57 am

     “The decline in energy availability assiciated with Peak Oil WILL bring present economic arrangements to a standstill, but probably not for another decade.”

     Yes. My boyfriend pointed out that talking about the “collapse” of a society, such as Rome, is somewhat of a misnomer. It is relevant in some cases such as Easter Island where they really did kill themselves off, but usually societies don’t really “collapse”, they simply change, sometimes with really large wholescale changes in short amounts of time, but change none-the-less.
     • pollywog 6.2.1

       28 October 2011 at 11:43 am

       ahh yes Rapanui (Easter Island)…

       …where idols were built to false foreign gods by the ruling elite using slave labour and all the islands natural resources such that the underclass/native population rose up, slew them all then cannibalised what was left over until they were rescued by their relatives only to spread their dark religion over the rest of Pasifika.

       i think there’s a lesson in that for everyone.
7. Tiger Mountain 7

   28 October 2011 at 9:52 am

   Queen St and Smithy what f***ers you two really are.
   • ‘trickle down’ just does not happen anywhere in the known world
   • people oppressed by 90 day fire at will are not likely to go public due to high unemployment and precarious employment (secret accusers don’t belong in New Zealand, or maybe they do given we are getting perilously closer to a true surveillence state)

   An old mate of mine had a saying… “all bosses are bastards until they prove otherwise, and not too many have proved otherwise”. How true still today.
   • Bazar 7.1

     28 October 2011 at 10:38 am

     “people oppressed by 90 day fire at will”

     If there is a person being oppressed by that 90 day law, i suggest he look at himself, rather then blame the law.

     As for people being oppressed, research suggested that it had a net increase in the number of steady jobs created.
     • Bill 7.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 11:11 am

       Is the NZIER (the institute that did that particular research) a right wing think tank, or not?
     • Bill 7.1.2

       28 October 2011 at 11:46 am

       Em On that 13 000 new jobs malarky. Here’s what the NZIER actually reported (couched in glowing terms that fly in the face of their own qualifiers)

       …we suggest that the policy could be assessed with more in-depth analysis. For example, data for a longer time period would allow better analysis of the policy’s impact. In addition, it is difficult to separate the impact of the policy from wider economic conditions. If economic conditions from April 2009 to September 2009 were different for SMEs than for larger firms, then the policy impacts reported here may be over- or understated. It may also be possible to assess the impact of the policy on individuals’ willingness to change jobs.

       and

       The chart on page 3 shows the overall impact for 2009 Q3: hirings by employers with 1 to 19 employees fell by much less than hirings by larger employers.

       So small businesses hiring fewer people = a succesful policy?!

       I guess somebody in National did some strange extrapolating to get to the 13 000 jobs claim. NZIER certainly don’t mention any such number in their report (available here) http://nzier.org.nz/publications/90-day-trial-periods-appear-successful-nzier-insight-25
       • Bazar 7.1.2.1

         28 October 2011 at 5:40 pm

         So your three complaints are thusly

         1. Its a rightwing think tank so it can’t be trusted.
         2. Its not perfectly accurately so it can’t be trusted.
         3. Because small businesses hired fewer people, the policy isn’t successful

         So lets start with the first point.

         Think what you will, i’m going to call you an idiot. Unless you can cite some other information or studies, you’re just living in denial.

         Secondly, yes its not accurate, its never going to be easy to tell just how successful it is, but the data we do have suggests that its an IMPROVEMENT on employment. That can only be a good thing.

         The final point, and the point i’m enjoying most, proves you don’t understand a thing at all.

         In a quarter where businesses were shedding jobs, those businesses which were able to use fire at will, had the least reductions in jobs.

         I believe there was even a survey of business owners, which again suggested, but not proved, that businesses were taking greater risks in hiring due to the law making it more forgiving in hiring.

         So at the end, there’s evidence that suggests the law is beneficial to finding and holding employment long term, as well as making hiring easier for businesses.
         • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1.1

           28 October 2011 at 6:39 pm

           Secondly, yes its not accurate, its never going to be easy to tell just how successful it is, but the data we do have suggests that its an IMPROVEMENT on employment.

           Actually, if you go read the paper you’ll find that’s not what it said at all. The people who wrote the report tried to make it look like it said that but the figures were well within the margin of error – in other words, they couldn’t actually tell anything at all from the data they collected.
     • Vicky32 7.1.3

       29 October 2011 at 12:20 am

       If there is a person being oppressed by that 90 day law, i suggest he look at himself, rather then blame the law.

       Generic he. how old fashioned! But it is not quaint, it’s nauseating…

       As for people being oppressed, research suggested that it had a net increase in the number of steady jobs created.

       What research would that be then?
8. Lanthanide 8

   28 October 2011 at 9:55 am

   How does the youth wage proposal stack up against the current situation?

   Don’t we have a youth rate for the first 200 hours of work, for 16-17 year olds? National’s proposal is to extend this to 16-19 year olds for 6 months.

   If you’re working 10 hours a week, 200 hours works out to 20 weeks or roughly 5 months already anyway. Of course the more you work over that, the longer you’re going to be disadvantaged under National’s plan.

   I think what would more fairly balance the rights of workers and businesses, particularly with the 90 day fire-at-will period, is if the initial youth rate period became “200 hours or 90 days, whatever is the longer”. This would ensure all new youth hires were on a reduced rate for their 90 days regardless of how many hours they work in a week and I don’t see that as particularly unreasonable.

   Edit: Reading Zet’s post I get the impression that the current law is already 200 hours or 3 months, whatever is the longer. In which case I don’t think there’s any change necessary. Can someone confirm?
   • Bazar 8.1

     28 October 2011 at 10:42 am

     “In which case I don’t think there’s any change necessary. Can someone confirm?”

     So you’re simply going to look at the law, say its good, and ignore the fact that we STILL have a massive youth unemployment issue?

     http://diyfail.com/fail-pics/21729-that-ought-to-do-it
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 11:30 am

       And we will still have a massive youth unemployment issue after National’s slave labour scheme, as well as a massive youth underpaid in employment issue.
   • Bill 8.2

     28 October 2011 at 11:06 am

     Yes Lanth. They are extending the opportunity to work for less pay to 18 and 19 year olds. And they reckon it’s such a good opportunity that if you change employer within the six month period, you get to do the whole 6 months on less pay from scratch.
9. vto 9

   28 October 2011 at 9:55 am

   Try this question on for size … Take a million from a substantial business’s revenue / profits … now, which of these options would generate more economic activity? Putting that million into the hands of the business’s workers? Or putting that million into the hands of the business owner?

   Henry Ford, one of the world’s most successful businessmen ever, knew the right answer …

   John Key has no idea.
10. Tombstone 10

    28 October 2011 at 10:40 am

    John Key is a slime ball and a fucking liar and I am sick to death of pricks with all the power and money bullying everyone else into a corner and attacking even our most basic working rights so as to pathe the way for slave economies. Enough is enough! We are the 99% – it’s time we fought back for our sake and the sake of future generations. We have nothing left to lose anymore and everything to gain.
    • Maggie May 10.1

      28 October 2011 at 11:25 am

      Right on Tombstone. Enough is enough, time for the people who caused this recession to start paying some of the cost unless of course they really are psychopaths, then in which case they would not even see what was wrong with their policies. Psychopaths find it impossible to understand the effects of their actions on others.
      • burt 10.1.1

        28 October 2011 at 1:02 pm

        time for the people who caused this recession to start paying some of the cost unless of course they really are psychopaths, then in which case they would not even see what was wrong with their policies.

        In the context of the recession in NZ – these people will never be held to account. Actually their supporters still don’t believe they did anything wrong and they will vote them back in again to have another go at it. You are right – they don’t see what is wrong with their policies. Treasury do and I guess that’s why Treasury get such a bashing from Labour supporters.
        • KJT 10.1.1.1

          28 October 2011 at 1:42 pm

          Treasury, like you, are so blinkered by Neo-Lib religious mania that they have NFI.

          When was the last time they actually got something right.
          http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2011/03/voodoo-economics.html

          Still waiting for the brighter future for all of us if only we put up with the pain from 1984 and 1990.

          40% real wage drop for most people. = Brighter future?

          From level pegging with Australia to 35% less wages. = Brighter future?
    • Rob 10.2

      28 October 2011 at 2:02 pm

      You are wrong, you are actually not the 99%, nor representative of it.  Too many of the 99% are actually at work and do not have to time to sit on their arse and engagaing in mind numbing boring debate on useless blog sites.
11. Bill 11

    28 October 2011 at 10:55 am

    Just read the policy.

    Something you missed Irish is that they will remove the requirement to conclude Collective Bargaining.

    Looking through the rest of it, reads like a jangle of shit.

    They rely on analysis from a private entity, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) to claim that the 90 Day Bill created 13000 jobs in small businesses.

    They suggests that Department of Labour research found that abolishing Youth Rates led to 9000 jobs being lost. (DoL research surely either concluded ‘a’ or ‘b’ and didn’t suggest anything!)

    They intend to “allow flexible working agreements without invoking a formal process” while also reviewing the grounds for constructive dismissal. (Join the dots). Silent on whether employers will be able to impose (sorry, request) flexible working arrangements. I reckon the ‘no formal process’ is a hint though, eh?

    And claim that being covered by the terms of a CEA for 30 days means that a new emloyee cannot negotiate above those terms (eg higher rate of pay). Which is utter bullshit. CEA’s are minimum term documents and any worker can negotiate for superior terms. They (bizarrely) claim that the existence of a CEA reduces a worker’s bargaining position after 30 days if they choose to proceed on the basis of an Individual Employment Agreement. Coz, like, an new employee will be in a fantastic bargaining position insofar as they will have no bloody idea of the minimum terms contained in the CEA!
    • KJT 11.1

      28 October 2011 at 1:51 pm

      Back to the 1880’s.
12. Maggie May 12

    28 October 2011 at 11:17 am

    I’m a millionaire and I’m okay
    Don’t have to think of anyone else
    I sleep all night
    I’m PM by day
    and Crosby and Textor tells me what to say.

    Just last year we introduced
    Government blockers on the Internet
    They are only there to stop the porn
    so you can trust me when I say
    we won’t use it for anything else

    If we push those wages down again
    and arm the police for their protest
    we can indenture Kiwi Labour for years and years

    I’m a millionaire so I’m okay
    Don’t have to think about anyone else
    I sleep all night and PM by day
    and Crosby and Textor tells me what to say.
    • Rijab 12.1

      28 October 2011 at 3:15 pm

      nice!
13. Tom Gould 13

    28 October 2011 at 11:30 am

    Key road tested this stuff with the Hobbit scam, and it worked. So picking a fight with unions is a no brainer. These Tories have been doing this for years and years. I hope the union people will, for once in their lives, play Key at his own game in the media and in public rather than rush to ‘man the barricades’ and behave to type. I’m not holding my breath, but one can hope. It is actually now a test of them, not Key.
14. travellerev 14

    28 October 2011 at 11:38 am

    Funny how the same is happing in England eh? Back to the good old Victorian days. Could that be one of the subjects talked about with Lordy lord Ashcroft?
    • Maggie May 14.1

      28 October 2011 at 1:29 pm

      Lord Ashcroft has dedicated his life and fortune to putting in place the’ One World Government’.

      His ideals is that only a few families own all wealth and therefore businesses in the world and a large gap between the ruling class and the workers.

      He was in NZ to speak with Key before the last election he was back after the election to pump money into our police force, and he is here again to support Keys attempt to achieve a winning election which will be one step closer to his objective.
15. Peter Monteith 15

    28 October 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Looks like the Return of the Employment Contracts Act!
    • Maggie May 15.1

      28 October 2011 at 1:43 pm

      worse than that, remember the original employment contract act was written and introduced in Chile by General Pinochet’s labour minister Pene Pinada.

      Both Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas regarded Pepe as a good friends. Ruth Richardson brought the employment contracts act to NZ from Chile, it was watered down to be introduced here but Key was quick to strengthen it again with introducing the 90 day, youth rates and now wants to reduce everyone’s wages so he and his favoured few can have more and we have less.

      This Pene Pinada was also invited to NZ more than once by the Business Round Table during Nationals last reign. You can see where National is going with this, Lord Ashcroft has armed our police with riot gear, all the laws passed under urgency allows them to do introduce more draconian laws if they win the election.

      New Zealand as we have know it will be gone. The key regime will be in place and dissidents will be throw in jail or punished in other ways.

      Pepe is dead now and it is his son who is President of Chile.
16. Dave Kennedy 16

    28 October 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Another kick in the face for our already struggling youth!
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/10/nationals-employment-policy-is-back-to.html
    • seeker 16.1

      28 October 2011 at 7:48 pm

      Exactly Dave. Another national policy to diminish and demoralise our youth. It’s just the way to grow a countries’ economy and develop our most precious asset, not.What a shortsighted group of ‘elders’ we have in our small minded,’scrooge’ mentality business sector. How dare they influence the government of this country to our detriment, simply to line their pockets. Treacherous.
17. Muzza 17

    28 October 2011 at 8:17 pm

    What don’t you people get. The left right , red , blue things is there to fool you all. Looks like its still working nicely.
    We are all losing here in Nz , the vast majority at least. So where do you think it’s all leading, and why not break out of the 2 d thinking and wake the fuck up !
    • Dave Kennedy 17.1

      28 October 2011 at 11:00 pm

      Have you seen National’s ad with the Labour workman and the National workman? I wonder what subliminal message is intended by National having a Green sign….?
18. fmacskasy 18

    28 October 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Interesting comments here on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5867853/Nats-starting-out-youth-wage-plan? – and most seem to be wildly opposed to National’s crazy policy.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS