Open mike 24/12/2010

67 comments on “Open mike 24/12/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robert Atack 1

   24 December 2010 at 7:14 am

   This story is why I can’t wait for our ugly species to go extinct … the shame is ‘we’ will do a shit load worst as we depart this rock.

   Mother dog finds her puppies drowned

   A mother dog howled all night after she fished her six dead puppies out of a Tauranga estuary, where they were dumped in a shopping bag early Saturday morning.

   “Yesterday is the first time she’s stopped howling, other than that we’ve all been listening to her at the office here. It’s been quite upsetting really,” Tauranga SPCA inspector Jason Blair said.

   The dog was seen by the public running up and down the road with her dead two-day-old puppies in her mouth, and with the shopping bag they were drowned in at Welcome Bay, Tauranga.

   She was first heard by a member of the public howling about 1am, and at about 5.30am a young man got out of bed to see if he could help her because he thought she must have been stuck in the mangroves, Mr Blair said.

   Another dog, thought to be the father, was also seen with the puppies.

   Mr Blair said he knew where the dogs came from and had been speaking with the residents, but they denied knowing how the puppies drowned.

   It was unlikely a stranger would have killed them, he said.

   “They’re only two days old so somebody’s made the choice to get rid of them.”

   Mr Blair appealed for witnesses who may have seen anyone walking on Waitaha Rd or Welcome Bay Rd carrying a red, reusable shopping bag on Friday night or early on Saturday morning to contact the SPCA.

   He hoped to take those responsible to court.

   The mother, an American pitbull-cross, remained in the care of Tauranga SPCA.

   Meanwhile, the reward money leading to a prosection against those who cut off pitbull puppy Trooper’s ears has climbed to $1700 following an outpouring of public support.

   Mr Blair said he had a tip-off on the case but did not yet have enough evidence to prosecute.
   • Tigger 1.1

     24 December 2010 at 11:44 am

     Father-in-law. Was moving from Wellington to Auckland six years ago. Family cat – had for 10 years. Sister-in-law goes around to his place to discover him trying to drown the cat in a sack in the bath. He decided it was too much bother to move and decided he would kill it. Still can barely stand being the same room with him.
     • Bored 1.1.1

       24 December 2010 at 3:28 pm

       I have a rule about eating what you kill. I would make an exception for your father-in-law, shoot the bastard anyway.
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   24 December 2010 at 8:04 am

   According to the Oil Price Monitor on my Desktop oil is now US$91.38/barrel up 90 cents from yesterday. According to the gadget on oil-price.net it’s been sitting at over US$88/barrel for the better part of a month. With winter in the northern hemisphere where most power for heating comes from oil that price level isn’t likely to come down any time soon and certainly not in the next quarter where it’s actually more likely to increase.

   Jeff Ruben seems to have got it right.

   If we know anything about watching the global economy in the last 40 years, we know this: feed it cheap oil, and it runs very smoothly. All of the sudden, give it expensive oil, and it stops in its tracks.

   We’re seemingly heading into the area of expensive oil again. It won’t be sudden this time so the economy won’t “stop in its tracks” but it also won’t be going into recovery either. This will be especially true of countries that have an overwhelming level of debt and limited local oil supplies such as the US and NZ.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     24 December 2010 at 8:46 am

     The US produces 40% of it’s own domestic consumption, a damn-sight more than NZ does.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       24 December 2010 at 9:05 am

       That could mean that they won’t be as hard hit as us but, then, they also use a hell of a lot more oil to generate electricity than we do.
       • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

         24 December 2010 at 9:30 am

         Very little oil is actually burnt directly for electricity anywhere in the world, because it’s too expensive (except some middle-east countries where they use low-grade diesel that isn’t good for much else).

         If you mean they use a lot of oil to dig up coal, transport it and burn that, then yes.

         But they also have a huge amount of slack that they can cut in domestic use – lot of low-hanging fruit. NZ does too, but probably not quite as much as the US does.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2

         24 December 2010 at 11:52 am

         The thing with the US is that their social and transport systems are extremely brittle.

         Large parts of their towns and cities don’t even have footpaths for gawddssakes.

         If you estimate a 21M/day consumption rate for the US, a 10% drop in available oil for use would be economically and socially disastrous. It would certainly precipitate another further collapse of their “real” economy. (Although I am sure the speculators will make another bundle from the pain – but thats a different story).
         • Lanthanide 2.1.1.2.1

           24 December 2010 at 12:19 pm

           I’m not so sure. Sure, in the short-term they have no footpaths and things are far away from each other. This is a direct result of them having very cheap fuel due to low taxes, as well as a penchant for gas-guzzling cars (because congress enacted tariffs against imported cars, so Detroit had no real competition).

           In the medium to long term with high oil prices, especially if they rise gradually, the US will adapt and become more efficient. It will definitely be painful, but eventually they will manage to change and restructure themselves in the face of the new reality. The choice, after all, is change or die.
           • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1.1

             24 December 2010 at 12:59 pm

             The choice, after all, is change or die.

             Looking at what has been happening to the US over the last 20 years, and the political deadlock in Congress today, some real fundamentals will have to change to allow successful adaptation.

             The way they have pursued offshoring of jobs literally destroying whole towns and cities – its like they set off economic A-bombs over themselves.

             I heard someone talking about the US’ $1.7T (USD) core infrastructure deficit. That’s what they need to spend in order to bring existing basic infrastructure up to scratch – not even anything forward looking.

             The richest country in the world has amazingly allowed this to happen. The story went that when you take the train into Shanghai airport fly to Newark and then take the train into New York, its like you are in the first world in China (shiny, bright, all mod cons, clean) and the third world in New York (run down, out of the 1970’s).

             The other thing the US really needed to do in the last 12 months was massive reform of their financial regulation system – and the people within. Nothing. After destroying trillions of global wealth. Naught more than a slap with a wet bus ticket.

             Don’t get me wrong, the US is a massive economic, technological and military superpower. But one whose Govt is approaching $14T in debt and growing.
           • Zorr 2.1.1.2.1.2

             24 December 2010 at 3:48 pm

             The way the US is atm, they are unable to change. So, in using your two choices there, with one eliminated, the only option is to die. This may not result in actual deaths per se, but potentially the death of the “United” part of their name.
       • Bright Red 2.1.1.3

         24 December 2010 at 12:01 pm

         “That could mean that they won’t be as hard hit as us”

         nope – world price. domestic production doesn’t make oil cheaper. even in the middle east where its subsidised the country is picking up the tab eventually.

         and, because the price of oil is in USD, they can’t be insulated by the exchange rate like we are being at the moment.
         • Lanthanide 2.1.1.3.1

           24 December 2010 at 12:21 pm

           Yes, it is a world price, but that’s only because countries choose to sell their oil on the world market. No one is forcing them to. In the case of extreme shortage, having 40% of your usage produced locally is good – if you suddenly can’t import those 2m extra barrels that you wanted, at least you’re not going to grind to a complete halt, unlike New Zealand. Similarly that means they can resist price-gouging – if they don’t want to pay what the exporter is asking, they can refuse, because they always have their domestic supply to fall back on.

           As for the price being in USD, they might not be insulated by the exchange rate, but they can print money fairly easily. Whether other countries will put up with that remains to be seen, however so far it seems to be working for them.
     • Bored 2.1.2

       24 December 2010 at 3:30 pm

       Lan, I think you might want to check the amount of oil NZ produces, you might be surprised by the total (saw it a few years ago and was very surprised).
     • Bored 2.1.3

       24 December 2010 at 3:33 pm

       Here you go Lan, we are a hell of a lot better than you state (from a Wiki search)…In 2008, New Zealand’s self sufficiency in oil (production divided by consumption) was 47%, i.e. the country imports over half its petroleum product needs (though actual imports are higher, as some of the local product is also exported)
       • Lanthanide 2.1.3.1

         24 December 2010 at 6:34 pm

         I believe we import a fair bit of final product however, which still makes us vulnerable.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   24 December 2010 at 9:12 am

   The ECB as the Lender of Last Resort

   A completely different situation is that of an insolvency crisis. Here, financial institutions are bankrupt because of lending to borrowers who cannot repay, or buying assets that turn out to be non-performing to a large extent. The policy conclusions of these two cases, as you might already understand, are not the same: whereas in a liquidity crisis LOLR is the right policy, it is not in an insolvency crisis. Bankrupt financial institutions should be allowed to fail in order to distribute the losses to those responsible.

   And what happened around the world during the present GFC was that insolvent banks were bailed out by the public rather than the risk of those failed investments falling on the people making the investments.
   • jcuknz 3.1

     24 December 2010 at 7:47 pm

     Except in New Zealand numerous financial outfits have been crashing with the savings of many disappearing … and it has been said that we are the wild west of the financial world … really?
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   24 December 2010 at 9:18 am

   Will we be seeing Gerry Brownlee exiting parliament before the election?
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     24 December 2010 at 9:35 am

     While I think Brownlee clearly did mislead, I don’t think the case is strong enough to turf someone like Brownlee out of parliament. I think the worst he’ll get is a censure, if that.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       24 December 2010 at 11:18 am

       Misleading parliament is about the worst offence you can do as a minister and all the evidence shows that’s what he did. If found against then the only real option is for him to leave – either by resigning or by being pushed.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         24 December 2010 at 11:53 am

         Quite sure Pete Hodgson needs a fresh New Year project.
       • Lanthanide 4.1.1.2

         24 December 2010 at 12:25 pm

         And yet Bill English is still there, after twisting stats repeatedly and defrauding money out of the public over his housing rort.

         Brownlee’s offence doesn’t rate compared to that; although in his case there might be a little more concrete evidence, but the crime isn’t as egregious and can be waived away without too many people being bothered.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2.1

           24 December 2010 at 1:53 pm

           There’s actual evidence that Brownlee lied and misled parliament while there isn’t for Blinglish (who shouldn’t have survived his, technically legal but morally wrong, housing rort but there ya go).
           • Bored 4.1.1.2.1.1

             24 December 2010 at 3:20 pm

             For as long as the polls dont reflect any adverse reaction these corrupt fekkers will thumb their noses at us. Regardless of whether you are left or right, if you are honest you would have to call the current mob the most corrupt we have had for a very long time.
             • Lanthanide …

               24 December 2010 at 3:22 pm

               People on the right said exactly the same thing about the last government, too. And Taito was put in jail for it, so they do have (somewhat of) a case.

               captcha: version
             • the pink postman …

               24 December 2010 at 3:59 pm

               Which goes to show just how many friends they have in influencial and official places. The press and most of the news media are controlled by the Right (National) . There is plenty of evidence pointing toward influence from the Republican Party USA. How we on the Left win any elections beats me . The Nats coffers are bulging with money whilst the Left have to try and fight elections on a very limited budget. This is certainly not democracy . The recent scandals the Nats have been involved in are buried and ignored yet Carter, Philip Field, and Benson Pope are hounded out of office.,Something is very wrong in Aotearoa .
               • Vicky32 …

                 24 December 2010 at 9:52 pm

                 Also, plonkers like Te Radar and Irene Pink on Nat Rad have a love fest for NACT every Friday morning – this one being no exception – and once again, the whinge about Jonathan Hunt and his taxi chits was raised again! (Quite leaving out of course the *reason* for the taxi chits, and the fact that his use of them was well within the rules.)
5. Brian McGee 5

   24 December 2010 at 10:48 am

   Good on John Key for asking MP’s wages to be frozen. It’s a pity a website that claims to have standards, hasnt mention this.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     24 December 2010 at 3:42 pm

     Yeah credit where credit is due.

     Funny how that bit of news got out eh.
     • jcuknz 5.1.1

       24 December 2010 at 7:50 pm

       When he is reported not to be available for comment on other issues …..
   • the pink postman 5.2

     24 December 2010 at 4:05 pm

     I would be able to ask for a freeze if I had 5o million. What needs go be aked is why he can afford a freeze. How has he made 50 million. plus.
     How has obtained so many high valued houses ,sorry mansions . I cannot believe one makes this type of money through hard work. As Oscar Wilde said if one is working they have no time to make money.
6. joe90 6

   24 December 2010 at 12:25 pm

   Assange tweets, Bank of America responds by buying domain names.

   The company has been aggressively registering domain names including its Board of Directors’ and senior executives’ names followed by “sucks” and “blows”.

   For example, the company registered a number of domains for CEO Brian Moynihan: BrianMoynihanBlows.com, BrianMoynihanSucks.com, BrianTMoynihanBlows.com, and BrianTMoynihanSucks.com. Just to be sure, it also picked up the .net version of these names and some .orgs as well.
   • Vicky32 6.1

     24 December 2010 at 3:15 pm

     That’s comedy gold! 😀
     Deb
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   24 December 2010 at 4:09 pm

   This has got to be some of the most depressing reading of the antics of this government I’ve read yet.

   1. Paying for Peter. As indicated below, even the most successful, cutting edge entrepreneurs in the private sector seem to be still dependent on government handouts to pay for their research and development.

   Weta Digital also indirectly benefits from the Government’s Large Budget Screen Production Grant…..[in addition] The 24,500 square foot ‘Kong’ sound stage, New Zealand’s biggest purpose built sound stage, was built in 2004 with the assistance of a $2 million grant under the Major Regional Initiatives programme.

   So, Peter Jackson is massively subsidised by the taxpayer already and we just, indirectly, handed him even more.

   2. Alien vs Predator ? No, its Treasury vs MED. Just as disturbingly, the relevant government departments can’t seem to get their act together. Judging by the OIA papers, Treasury and MED remain totally at odds over whether taxpayer support for the film industry is justified, does contribute to jobs and upskilling in the film industry, or adds value to the wider New Zealand economy.

   The two governments set up to monitor an ensure that the economy works don’t agree with each others proposals.

   3. Don’t Do It, Maurice. You and I elect governments to make decisions on our behalf. We do so assuming that they will have at their fingertips the best possible basis for making those decisions. The OIA papers are really disturbing on this point. What they reveal is the impact of the government’s public service funding cutbacks on its ability to plan, rationally.

   So faced with all that, what does Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson plan to do ? As a cost saving exercise, he decides to scrap the department’s film industry survey, the only reliable source of statistical information about the film industry. Poor Gerry.

   Oh and by the way, could Williamson also back off his plans to scrap other crucial data sources as well? Like, there is a recession going on. Informed decisions have to be made. Did anyone tell Williamson ?

   And the data that those two departments rely upon is in the cost cutting firing line…

   4. Hey, Lets Build Them More Sound Stages Too.

   There is a lack of sound studio space here, the papers suggest (see MED paper, 17 July 2009) that is creating a bottleneck in New Zealand’s ability to attract major film products here.

   Would the private sector be willing to take the risk involved and build such facilities, allegedly so necessary? Are you out of your mind?

   The report states the unpredictability of demand in the industry and need for capacity to allow growth to occur, means that the private sector does not fund all of the necessary infrastructure As such, private-public partnerships, and to a lesser extent, wholly government funded studios, are common.

   And then we happen to be so rich and well off (despite having to “tighten our belts” according to Blinglish) that we are looking at building the foreign film companies, who will make billions out this investment, more infrastructure.

   So much for the risk taking private sector. It looks far more like private interests troughing at the taxpayers expense.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     24 December 2010 at 5:10 pm

     The National government doesn’t support the NZ Film Industry any more. Instead it supports Peter Jackson’s film industry.
     • Jim Nald 7.1.1

       24 December 2010 at 7:50 pm

       and with our taxpayers’ money
8. RedLogix 8

   24 December 2010 at 4:27 pm

   RNZ this afternoon played the 10 most nominated “Best Song(s) Ever Written” for 2010.

   Was struck by the fact that the top 4-5 were all incurably melacholic… #1 Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” FFS.

   Methinks lots of folk know the game is up.
   • Vicky32 8.1

     24 December 2010 at 10:06 pm

     I wish I had heard that! (The prog I mean..)
     Good point! I have always theorised that ‘our’ sporting colour is black, because of a melancholic stripe to the New Zealand personality. I mean, black, why?
9. joe90 9

   24 December 2010 at 4:34 pm

   The Hazards of Nerd Supremacy: The Case of WikiLeaks

   Openness in itself, as the prime driver of events, doesn’t lead to achievement or creativity.

   One problem is that information in oceanic magnitudes can confuse and confound as easily as it can clarify and empower, even when the information is correct. There is vastly more financial data set down in the world’s computers than there ever has been before, including publically accessible data, and yet the economy is a mess. How can this be, if information is the solution?

   A sufficiently copious flood of data creates an illusion of omniscience, and that illusion can make you stupid. Another way to put this is that a lot of information made available over the internet encourages players to think as if they had a God’s eye view, looking down on the whole system.

   A financier, for instance, might not be able to resist the temptations of access to seemingly endless data. If you can really look down on the whole market from on high, then you ought to be able to just pluck money out of it without risk, which leads to the notion of a highly computerized, data intensive, brobdingnagian hedge fund. This is fine, for a while, until other people start similar funds and the whole market becomes distorted.

   The interesting similarity between Mr. Assange and a typical financier who overdid it is that both attempted to align themselves with a perceived God-like perspective and method made possible by the flow of vast information on the Internet, while both actually got crazy and absurd. Wikileaks and similar efforts could do for politics approximately what access to a lot of data did for finance in the run up to the recession.

   Jaron Lanier
10. Colonial Viper 10

    24 December 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Now I’m pissed off, a good friend of mine who normally works Mon-Fri is expected to be on call tomorrow – Christmas day – due to emergency circumstances. He’s been told that if he actually gets called out, then he’s not getting any penalty rates. Why? Because Christmas day falls on a Sat and is not counted as a stat day simply because he doesn’t normally work weekends.

    Can this be right???

    PS the workers at the local Countdown are having to work until 10pm tonight. Sucks to be them, to bad if they have families and a Christmas day to get ready for.
    • Carol 10.1

      24 December 2010 at 6:27 pm

      It might depend if he also normally works Mondays. If so, that will be paid as his public holiday, I think.

      http://www.unite.org.nz/2010-2011_xmas_holidays

      http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/holidays_act_2003/public_holidays.html

      However, it looks to me that anyone working on Xmas Day should get paid extra.
      • Lanthanide 10.1.1

        24 December 2010 at 6:38 pm

        Nope, working on Xmas or Boxing day, or New Years and New Years Holiday, if you do not normally work on those days you do not get paid extra this year.

        Now, if you didn’t normally work Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday, but did work on Monday or Tuesday, then you would get paid extra (but no extra for working Sat or Sunday). It gets more confusing if you normally work Sunday and then also choose to work on Monday, though.

        They tried to make the law consistent, but frankly I think it’s a bit of a dog, and pretty confusing. I ran into this when I worked at the Warehouse – they asked me to work on 1st of Jan, which was a Saturday, which I was happy to do if they’d pay me time and a half, but they legally couldn’t so I didn’t. They had a lot of trouble finding people to work that day, because regular daily pay + big sale with lots of customers isn’t worth it if you also wanted to have a night out on new years eve (whereas time and a half was more attractive).

        Edit: the table from Unite indicates that if you work on the weekend, you should get 1 1/2.
        • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1

          24 December 2010 at 6:55 pm

          I think the Unite table is wrong, here’s the actual act:
          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0129/latest/DLM237121.html#DLM237121

          5 Transfer of public holidays over Christmas and New Year
          (1) For the purposes of this subpart, if any of the public holidays listed in section 44(1)(a) to (d)—
          (a) falls on a Saturday and the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on that day:
          (b) falls on a Saturday and the day would not otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on the following Monday:
          (c) falls on a Sunday and the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on that day:
          (d) falls on a Sunday and the day would not otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on the following Tuesday.
          (2) To avoid doubt, this section does not entitle an employee to more than 4 public holidays for the days listed in section 44(1)(a) to (d).

          Seems pretty clear that they fall under b, so the holiday would be treated as the Monday.

          This means that he gets Monday the 27th as his Xmas day, and Sat 25th is treated as a regular day, so no time and a half. If he were to get Sat 25th at time and a half, and have 27th also treated as a holiday (as in, you get paid without having to work), then he would have a total of 5 days holiday and the act specifically limits you to 4 at maximum.
          • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1.1

            24 December 2010 at 7:12 pm

            I’ve thought of a straightforward way to lay this out, based on 5 (2) above which shows that if he got paid time and a half on Saturday, he’d actually be losing out!

            The relevant days involved here, are:
            Sat 25th: Working, but normally don’t
            Mon 27th: Not working, but normally do
            Tue 28th: Not working, but normally do
            Mon 3rd: Not working, but normally do
            Tues 4th: Not working, but normally do

            Now you’re allowed to chose 4 and only 4 of those days to recognise as public holidays. When you recognise a public holiday, you get:
            1. If you work: time and a half
            2: If you normally work and do: day in lieu
            3. If you normally work and don’t: normal pay

            Sat 25th only meets criteria 1, because he does not normally work on that day.

            Suppose he was allowed to choose Saturday as his holiday instead of Monday. In that case Monday becomes just a regular working day, so it would wash out like this:
            Sat 25th: elected holiday, do not normally work: time and a half only (1)
            Mon 27th: regular day, expected to work at normal rate, or take paid leave

            Saturday wages = 1.5, Monday wages = 0 (annual leave) or 1.
            Total = 1.5 or 2.5

            Suppose he keeps Monday as his celebrated holiday, but works Saturday. In that case:
            Sat 25th: Normal days pay as it is not a holiday
            Mon 27th: holiday, if not working normal pay (3), if working then time and a half + day in lieu (1, 2)

            Saturday wages = 1, Monday wages = 1 or 1.5 +1 (lieu day, effectively extra annual leave).
            Total = 2 or 3.5

            If he works both days, he is better off keeping Monday as his holiday, as he gets 3.5 in wages instead of only 2.5 if he used Saturday as his holiday.

            If he works only Saturday and not Monday, if he elects Sat as his holiday he gets 1.5 wages, but if he elects Monday he gets 1 from saturday and 1 from Monday, for a total of 2.
            • Carol 10.1.1.1.1.1

              24 December 2010 at 7:24 pm

              Are workers allowed to choose which day they have as the public holiday? Firstly, it depends on the day the person normally works.

              So, if, say, a person normally works Saturdays & Mondays, then this year, the Saturday is their public holiday, because that is Xmas Day. There’s no choose there. As I have understood it, they can’t choose for it to be Monday.

              But, I guess if a worker gets a paid holiday on Monday, then working the Saturday as extra, means they still get paid for more than usual in relation to hours worked – even without time & a half as you indicate.
              • Lanthanide …

                24 December 2010 at 7:31 pm

                As I understand, generally employees aren’t allowed to choose when a public holiday is celebrated. The section of the act I copied certainly doesn’t indicate that you have any choice in the matter, although point 2 does imply that you can do what you want as long as you don’t get more than 4 days (eg 25th to 28th could be holidays, as long as 1st through 4th are not).

                But I think that if an employee and employer both agreed to as to when a public holiday was to be celebrated, then they could probably do that. Such an agreement would probably have to be part of a contract or a clause allowing such negotiations in the future, I would expect. Also as I’ve outlined above, it is in this person’s best interests to keep Monday as their celebrated day. Initially it sounds like a good idea to make your day be Saturday, but doing the calculations shows to be otherwise, so I expect an employer that made such an unusual arrangement would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit for bad faith or being misleading.
        • Carol 10.1.1.2

          24 December 2010 at 6:57 pm

          I do know from my weekend job, that a person gets either Saturday/Sunday or Monday/Tuesday as a paid public holiday. It depends on which days a person normally works. But you aren’t entitiled all 4 days as paid public holidays – only 2.

          So, in the case of CV’s mate, I’m not sure which rule is the stronger one: ie that a person should get time & a half on Xmas Day,
          or,
          that an individual only gets the Saturday or the Monday as their Xmas Day public holiday…. which MIGHT mean, regular a Monday worker who works extra tomorrow is not working on his/her public holiday.
          • Zorr 10.1.1.2.1

            24 December 2010 at 7:35 pm

            It is the case that he normally works Mon/Tues so therefore he gets those as his stat days. If he ends up working Christmas however, over and above that, he is entitled to time and a half and a day in lieu. Employer can’t change the fact that it is Christmas Day and that they are asking the employee to work a day they normally wouldn’t
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.2

        24 December 2010 at 6:45 pm

        Thanks all. I wonder if Hotchins will be in the office on Christmas day.
        • Carol 10.1.2.1

          24 December 2010 at 7:06 pm

          Hotchins…. bet he can choose for himself!

          I think many employers actually pay their workers for more days off than the 2 statutory days at Christmas. It used to be like that in my job. But in the last couple of years they’ve been sending letters to people working on the weekend and Monday/Tuesday, pretty much saying they are sticking to the letter of the law & people must take some days as annual leave or flexi-time, and only get 2 paid public holidays. Ditto for New Year. Tough times, I guess.
    • Zorr 10.2

      24 December 2010 at 7:14 pm

      Your friend is being shafted.

      Relevant legislation as follows:
      section 46 – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0129/latest/DLM237123.html?search=ts_act_holidays_resel&p=1#DLM237123

      section 48 – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0129/latest/DLM237125.html?search=ts_act_holidays_resel&p=1#DLM237125

      section 50 – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0129/latest/DLM237128.html?search=ts_act_holidays_resel&p=1#DLM237128

      All together this spells out that he is due not only the Mon/Tues off that he normally works BUT if he gets called out he is due, at a minimum, time and a half + alternative leave (day in lieu time in other words). This is all unless he has something else in his contract that has been negotiated specifically for these situations. However, at that point, it must have been negotiated in good faith.

      Also, more fun stuff here. No matter how many hours he works he would be entitled to a full day of alternative time off.
      section 57 – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0129/latest/DLM237145.html?search=ts_act_holidays_resel&p=1#DLM237145
      • Zorr 10.2.1

        24 December 2010 at 7:15 pm

        (and yes, I am a legislation monkey who loves that website because it gives me the opportunity to do what I do best – sift through random scribblings of morons)
      • Lanthanide 10.2.2

        24 December 2010 at 7:22 pm

        See my post 10.1.1.1 above.
        • Zorr 10.2.2.1

          24 December 2010 at 7:32 pm

          If he works part of Saturday, he still gets Mon/Tues off and a day in lieu as well as time and a half. The fact that it is Christmas Day is recognized and whether or not he ends up working it the fact that it is a public holiday isn’t changed.

          Anything less than him getting Mon/Tues off + time and a half and day in lieu if he works Christmas is him being screwed in this case.
          • Lanthanide 10.2.2.1.1

            24 December 2010 at 7:35 pm

            I think you’re missing the point of the section I quoted there.

            It is saying what days constitute public holidays, eg when they are to be celebrated. If you DON’T normally work Saturday, then your public holiday is celebrated on Monday, eg Monday is a public holiday and Saturday is not.

            The fact that we culturally treat the 25th of December as a ‘holiday’ doesn’t make it a public holiday as far as the act is concerned.

            Also your interpretation falls foul of point 2 in the section I quoted, as you would effectively now be receiving the benefits of 5 public holidays (Sat time and half, 27th, 28th, 3rd, 4th as paid day off), and the act restricts you to a maximum of 4 across this period.
            • Zorr 10.2.2.1.1.1

              24 December 2010 at 7:46 pm

              You do appear to be correct there Lanth. In this situation I would tell the employer to go fuck themselves. If you’re not required to be working that day as per your employment agreement then fuck ’em, it’s Christmas.
              • Colonial Viper …

                25 December 2010 at 12:56 am

                Yeah folks, thanks for your input. Solidarity, gentlemen.
                • Zorr …

                  25 December 2010 at 1:10 am

                  Honestly, it is a shitty thing to do to expect someone to be on call Christmas Day and offer zero recompense. Have no sympathy for his shitty employer if they get told “go screw”.
    • M 10.3

      25 December 2010 at 1:32 am

      CV

      The DOL site has a neat diagram and information on this:

      http://ers.govt.nz/holidays_act_2003/christmas/christmas1.html

      He can also call the Department on the 0800 number if he has queries on employment and pay stuff – I’ve always found them to be pretty good.
11. RedLogix 11

    24 December 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Merry Christmas Everyone.
    • Anne 11.1

      24 December 2010 at 8:53 pm

      For operatic buffs – and others – there’s a lovely rendering of Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” over at Brian Edwards media site. In a shopping mall would you believe.
      • Anne 11.1.1

        24 December 2010 at 9:08 pm

        Oh dear, tried to link but can’t get the hang of it. Bunji, I’ll be calling on your assistance in the New Year. 🙁
12. Deadly_NZ 12

    24 December 2010 at 8:41 pm

    And at the end of the day if the boss wants to play fast and loose with the act, then they deserve all they get, or staff they do not get. It would be better if the bosses were not so scrooge and Bah humbug like, and just paid the extra. The advantages of this are 1 A willingness of the staff to put in the extra hours. 2 The next time you get in a jam and if you have treated your staff like shit then you deserve ALL you get or dont get . And i have had to get staff to work Xmas day and the fact of double time and a day in lieu even if they did not warrant it meant I had an EXCESS of staff wanting Xmas or any other stat hol. It’s all in the way you treat your staff. or in the case of the Nats the way you treat your VOTERS!

    Treat people like shit and the DO remember!
13. SPC 13

    24 December 2010 at 8:55 pm

    Urewera 18 refused a jury trial.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/12/unsuppressed-urewera-18-to-be-denied.html#links

    The issuing of supression orders is covered by the Criminal Justice Act 1985, Section 138 (part 2) –

    \”Where a court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality, or of the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence or offence of extortion, or of the security or defence of New Zealand so require…\”

    One can only guess the argument is that the security or defence of New Zealand means no jury trial. So we\’re adopting the war against terrorism standard of justice, for the 18 – including 5 for planning anti-road building protests (on the grounds of some gun offences unrelated to the activism – so any political activist with a gun licence offence is a security threat to the realm if they\’re progressive – oh ffs …). This ls like the Cold War era reprised.

    This speaks to the issue of the Americans (WikiLeaks) offering New Zealand the opportunity to regard Maori activists as persons of interest in the war against terrorism (that is provide us with help – Echelon etc). Our SIS said our police dealt with that and no thanks. I suppose this is evidence that those were not idle words … . That should please the foreign power the unelected estates seem so beholden to – no wonder the people who keep the no nuke policy in place are not allowed access to the court process.
    • SPC 13.1

      24 December 2010 at 11:34 pm

      Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 June 2010), Public Act

      Part 12 Procedure

      361D Judge may order trial without jury in certain cases that are likely to be long and complex

      · (1) This section applies only to a person (the accused person) who is committed for trial for an offence that is not—

      o (a) an offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 14 years or more; or
      o (b) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit, or of being a party to the commission of, or of being an accessory after the fact to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

      (2) The Judge may, on a written application for the purpose made by the prosecutor to the Judge and served on the accused person before the accused person is given in charge to the jury, order that the accused person be tried for the offence before the Judge without a jury.

      (3) However, the Judge may make an order under subsection (2) only if the prosecution and the accused person have been given an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application, and following such hearing, the Judge is satisfied—

      o (a) that all reasonable procedural orders (if any), and all other reasonable arrangements (if any), to facilitate the shortening of the trial, have been made, but the duration of the trial still seems likely to exceed 20 days; and
      o (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, the accused person’s right to trial by jury is outweighed by the likelihood that potential jurors will not be able to perform their duties effectively.

      (4) In considering, for the purposes of subsection (3)(b), the circumstances of the case, the Judge must take into account the following matters:

      o (a) the number and nature of the offences with which the accused person is charged:
      o (b) the nature of the issues likely to be involved:
      o (c) the volume of evidence likely to be presented:
      o (d) the imposition on potential jurors of sitting for the likely duration of the trial:
      o (e) any other matters the Judge considers relevant.

      (5) If the accused person is one of 2 or more persons to be tried together, all of them must be tried before a Judge with a jury unless an order under subsection (2) for all of them to be tried by a Judge without a jury is applied for and made.

      (6) This section does not limit section 361B or 361C or 361E.

      Section 361D: inserted, on 25 December 2008, by section 4(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) 2008 (2008 No 37).

      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM1782100.html#DLM1782100

      So the “legal” reason there is no jury trial is not apparently defence and security related, BUT one can guess many legal issues (such as the admissability of evidence) will be a factor in the trial – and so will the need to keep sources protected (keep secret the means and methods of evidence gathering secret from the public).

      So one wonders how much of the case will be reported in the media – during or afterwards?

      And one suspects it’s a case of getting people for whatever they can be charged with – however unrelated to the methods used to acquire the evidence. Which is why this is so very much a test run for the legal process in these cases – and those on charge are the unwilling subjects of this power play. No wonder control of public information about the case is going to be so carefully managed.
14. millsy 14

    25 December 2010 at 12:30 am

    Merry Christmas all….

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS