Nats want to cut wages

25 comments on “Nats want to cut wages ”

• Comments are now closed

1. alex 1

   28 October 2011 at 8:53 am

   Please Labour, this is your bread and butter. Speaking as someone who isn’t a Labourite, but is sympathetic to your traditional goals, if you guys fuck up opposition to this policy I will never consider Labour ever again. Get out there and get the youth enrolled so they can oppose earning lower wages for the same job.
   • Carol 1.1

     28 October 2011 at 8:58 am

     I thought that the last day for enrolling to vote was a couple of days ago? Yep 26 October…
     http://www.elections.org.nz/enrolment/2011-enrolment-drive-now-on.html

     So the focus now is on getting people who are enrolled to vote.
     • Blighty 1.1.1

       28 October 2011 at 9:01 am

       you can enrol as late as the day before election day but you have to cast a special declaration vote because your name won’t be on the physical rolls.
     • Akldnut 1.1.2

       28 October 2011 at 9:05 am

       http://www.elections.org.nz/enrolment/enrol-faqs/enrolling-detailed-faq.html

       When must I be enrolled by?
       You must be enrolled to vote if you are eligible.

       In election year, if you enrol by a month before the election you will receive an EasyVote information pack in the mail. The pack includes useful information about voting including an EasyVote card. You can vote without the EasyVote card but it will take longer.

       The last possible date you can enrol is the day before election day. (My highlighting)

       (Edit – Damn it Blighty you beat me to it lol)
       • Carol 1.1.2.1

         28 October 2011 at 9:56 am

         OK. Thanks, Akldnut and Blighty – good to know this.
     • Peter 1.1.3

       28 October 2011 at 9:12 am

       That will be the last day for appearing on the printed roll. You can still enrol up to the day before the election I believe, and cast a special vote (on the unprinted roll)
   • Ed Aotearoa 1.2

     28 October 2011 at 9:12 am

     Alex – I’m like you, sympathetic though not a Labourite, but at times like this it’s all hands to the pump so do your bit to enroll any young people you know and let them know about these policies – probably easiest for them to enroll online at – http://www.elections.org.nz/ – or you can ring/email from numbers at that address and get the forms
   • queenstfarmer 1.3

     28 October 2011 at 9:16 am

     so they can oppose earning lower wages for the same job

     Assuming they want to. Perhaps they may prefer to have a job for slightly less, than no job.
     • millsy 1.3.1

       28 October 2011 at 9:23 am

       Do you own rental property? If yes, did you raise your rent this year? If so, then why do you think that your tenants should have to pay more rent, but their bosses shouldnt have to pay them more in wages?
       • queenstfarmer 1.3.1.1

         28 October 2011 at 10:57 am

         What has this got to do with my comment? My comment addresses giving young people more of an option of having a job, versus no job.

         Your comment seems to be suggesting tying rents to income. I am not aware of that being any party’s policy (interested to know if it is, though). If tenants get a pay rise, then should their rent automatically go up? If tenants take a lesser paying job, should their rent automatically be reduced?
     • Blighty 1.3.2

       28 October 2011 at 9:24 am

       are you claiming the NE creates jobs? Evidence?

       Or are you just saying that workers on the NE displace workers who wouldn’t be, thereby reducing the total pool of wages for the same work donw?
       • Bazar 1.3.2.1

         28 October 2011 at 10:04 am

         “Or are you just saying that workers on the NE displace workers who wouldn’t be, thereby reducing the total pool of wages for the same work donw?”

         Meanwhile, while we argue, lets ignore the crushingly high unemployment for youth that NZ has, and the long lasting detrimental effect it has on work ethic when youth have no jobs and are forced into welfare for subsistence.

         Oh that’s right, I forgot
         left-wingers think all businesses want to employ unskilled, no experience workers just as much as anyone else, the shockingly high youth unemployment is just a statistical anomaly or something.
         • millsy 1.3.2.1.1

           28 October 2011 at 10:08 am

           Do you want a high wage economy or not? Holding down wages is only supported by mean spirited pricks like you who begrudge EACH AND EVERY CENT that poor people get.
       • Deadly_NZ 1.3.2.2

         28 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

         Yeah and whats to stop the unethical bosses from just hiring someone at $10.45 and when they are due to go up to $13.00 are fired and replaced with another cheap worker. because as well as the low wages the unions are not allowed on business premises with out permission. ?Yep typical NAT underhandedness.
         • KJT 1.3.2.2.1

           28 October 2011 at 2:52 pm

           They already do that. I.e. When a certain burger flipping company was paid $6000 per head, to permanently employ people off the dole, they sacked or cut their shifts, after they had paid them $6000 in wages, until they left and they could get another one.
           Or people who get endless gophers on work experience without any intention of employing them.
         • queenstfarmer 1.3.2.2.2

           28 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

           Yeah and whats to stop the unethical bosses from just hiring someone at $10.45 and when they are due to go up to $13.00 are fired and replaced with another cheap worker

           The trial period remains at 90 days. So after 90 days, the standard rules apply.

           If your argument is that evil bosses will fire & re-hire within that time period anyway, that is the same ridiculous argument that Labour & the unions (and friends) used to scaremonger when the 90 day law was introduced (and put NZ into line with virtually all OECD countries). Their dire predictions came to nothing.
           • McFlock 1.3.2.2.2.1

             28 October 2011 at 3:38 pm

             Their dire predictions came to nothing.

             cf with Akldnut on 12 Oct:

             “I’m really pissed off with these pricks right now – two daughters fired in three weeks, in both cases the companies had written the fire at will be into their employment contracts because they had so many employees.”

             Typical tory: repercussions on individuals mean nothing.
           • Vicky32 1.3.2.2.2.2

             28 October 2011 at 11:40 pm

             Their dire predictions came to nothing.

             No, they didn’t!
2. deservingpoor 2

   28 October 2011 at 9:13 am

   $20 says labour can and will fuck up opposition to this in spectacular fashion. They already seem to be MIA on the issue. They’re too busy with the debate on super and don’t seem to be able to tackle more than one issue at a time, which doesn’t bode well for a multi issue election plan.
   This has been Labour for the last 3 years, National announces something jaw dropping (like wholesale public service job losses in provincial communities) and Labour responds with deafening silence.
   Hence why so many people are reluctant to vote for them on grounds that they are perceived as being no different to National, except by NACT supporters who think everyone is still scared by the word socialist.
3. toad 3

   28 October 2011 at 9:19 am

   …the NE will start again if they change jobs.

   Sit that alongside 90 day fire@will and it is very ugly indeed.
   • Tiger Mountain 3.1

     28 October 2011 at 10:02 am

     Plus allow employers to opt out of MECAs (multi employer collective agreements), it is a full on attack on workers and union rights. Labour reps do need to speak out publicly on this. And the beneficiary bash is still to come from the dirty filthy nats.
4. prism 4

   28 October 2011 at 10:13 am

   So to encourage business and increase employment and revenue the NACTs want to cut back further on wages and conditions for young workers. There has been discussion on nzradio have been talking this morning on how helping and guiding the young is the essential thing for driving our future so it doesn’t disappear down the plughole..

   Let’s bring in a minimum living wage based on that paid to ordinary workers for politicians and then with extras such as bonuses paid annually for meeting certain criteria of the people. These would include good decision making and policies introduced, maintenance of regulation and effective scrutiny on important weak points where personal injury or injury to environment can be governed etc. At present once elected they wander off into a psychiatric fugue, too many just attractive talking faces, and they become alert only shortly before the election so they can campaign to hold their comfortable seats.
5. infused 5

   28 October 2011 at 11:25 am

   Don’t see what the problem is. I was hired on the youth rate way back in 2002 working at bk. Yeah it’s less money, but it was a first job. I was there for a year and left. Never been on it since, and I’m still in New Zealand running a business employing people.

   Also before I left, I negotiated a higher wage as I was going to a $20/hr job. I was only on it for 3 weeks but you can still do it, no matter how big the business is.

   yeah youth rates are such shit…
   • prism 5.1

     28 October 2011 at 12:13 pm

     Don’t know what you are infused with? You didn’t say when you were working if you were on the tishoo policy – one sneeze and you can be thrown away. The employer doesn’t need to give a reason, and the worker has no status to take to the next employer. You sound like many small employers infused, only half-aware of how the rest of society is getting on, and only interested in your own little niche in the wall.

     This latest move is continuing a trend that is really worrying. It is a downward trend. Good on you for getting your own business going, but bad on you for sounding like David Brent.
6. \Craig 6

   28 October 2011 at 4:08 pm

   Oh great, the Nats are providing us with more incentives to move abroad through perpetuating a low wage/low skill economy. If their ninety day fire at will bill has failed to ‘stimulate’ the economy, why should a six monthly fire at will bill?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS