Open mike 28/05/2024

77 comments on “Open mike 28/05/2024 ”

• Comment on post

1. bwaghorn 1

   28 May 2024 at 8:17 am

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/517983/rent-stress-as-accommodation-supplement-stagnant

   The rent subsidie needs to be stopped, nothing has ruined the nz housing situation like scewing the the market by allowing landlords to charge more than the market can sustain

   Reply
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1

     28 May 2024 at 8:53 am

     The Accomodation Supplement AKA the landlords benefit

     NZ$2.34 billion to 364,000 renters and mortgage holders.

     https://theconversation.com/364-000-new-zealanders-rely-on-an-accommodation-supplement-but-these-3-flaws-need-fixing-227667

     And of course this jerk…

     Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he will pay back his accommodation allowance.

     He was receiving the payment which is $52,000 over the course of a year to live in his own mortgage-free apartment in Wellington – one of seven properties he owns.

     https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510614/pm-christopher-luxon-says-he-will-pay-back-his-accommodation-allowance

     After much disapproval Luxury Luxon will now not accept his extra Benefit.

     Reply
   • SPC 1.2

     28 May 2024 at 9:31 am

     Capped maximum payments mean recipients depend on their income and not the supplement to cushion rent rises, keeping government spending on the supplement to around 0.5% of the gross domestic product.

     Research from the United Kingdom found reducing housing allowances does not lower rents, but may cause overcrowding.

     Whereas maintaining the supply of accommodation allowances in the United States helps low-income households stay in their homes despite rent increases.

     If one wanted to intervene in the market to do some good

     1. a rent increase freeze (existing property)
     2. link migrant labour inflow with provision of new housing.
     3. restore an inability of the landlord to claim mortgage interest as a cost against rent income for existing housing (to direct property investment towards new supply)
     4. have a 5% stamp duty on houses over $2M to fund emergency housing
     5. maintain a growth model for Kainga Ora

     https://theconversation.com/364-000-new-zealanders-rely-on-an-accommodation-supplement-but-these-3-flaws-need-fixing-227667

     Reply
     • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2.1

       28 May 2024 at 9:53 am

       Your 5 points make sense. (are NActFirst open to sense?!)

       There is this….things getting worse.

       Rents at an all time high, Trade Me index shows

       Properties in the website's rental index have risen by an average of $50 in the last year, bringing the national median rental price to $650.

       https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/515532/rents-at-an-all-time-high-trade-me-index-shows

       $650… thats a big chunk of pay for worker/beneficiary? And the way that NActFirst are tightening things up…its going to be a hard time for renters.

       “Cost of living crisis: Families opt for Kiwisaver cashouts, cut back on food”

       https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/515495/cost-of-living-crisis-families-opt-for-kiwisaver-cashouts-cut-back-on-food

       Reply
       • SPC 1.2.1.1

         28 May 2024 at 10:01 am

         In recent years it has been the rising incomes that have matched rising rents.

         That will not occur, not with MW only increased 25 cents an hour, the migrant labour inflow and rising unemployment.

         Thus without an increase in AS, rent increases will either result in overcrowding (families doubling up etc) or reduced amount left over for food.

         The rnz article linked to above is disturbing, the Minister does not care, it’s all political platitudes.

         How will getting $10 a week in tax cuts and $10 increase in MW afford a $50 a week increase in rent. First year tough, second year and then third year $50 rent increase leads to either homelessness or overcrowding (two families per house/boarders etc).

         Reply
         • Traveller 1.2.1.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 11:43 am

           In recent years it has been the rising incomes that have matched rising rents.

           It's hard to see how that can be the case when between 2018 and 2023, real wage growth was negative (https://thestandard.org.nz/mps-pay-increases/#comment-1998218).

           Reply
           • SPC 1.2.1.1.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 11:58 am

             Many of those getting AS, were those receiving MW or benefit increases.

             Reply
             • SPC …

               28 May 2024 at 12:21 pm

               But van Velden was critical of Labour's moves, saying the minimum wage increases under the Labour government "far outstripped CPI".

               The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recommended in its review that the wage be increased by 4 percent to $23.60, which was expected to impact the earnings of about 164,400 workers, resulting in an economy-wide wage bill increase of $145 million.

               https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/508148/minimum-wage-set-to-increase-to-23-point-15-from-1-april

               At the end of December 2023, there were 378,711 people receiving a main benefit. The majority (189,798) received jobseeker support, followed by supported living (101,502) and sole parent support (76,170) payments

               https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350185546/benefits-and-sanctions-numbers-who-could-be-affected-and-how

               NZ$2.34 billion to 364,000 renters and mortgage holders.

               https://theconversation.com/364-000-new-zealanders-rely-on-an-accommodation-supplement-but-these-3-flaws-need-fixing-227667

               Benefits since 1990, real increases in recent years.

               https://community.scoop.co.nz/2024/04/understanding-the-data-benefits-are-being-cut-in-value-in-real-terms-but-why/

               Reply
             • Traveller …

               28 May 2024 at 1:03 pm

               The minimum wage and any wage and salary income of beneficiaries would be included in the real wage figures I quoted.

               For beneficiaries who have no wage and salary income, would most be living in social housing rather than private housing?

               Reply
               • SPC …

                 28 May 2024 at 1:11 pm

                 Whatever, most workers do not qualify for AS.

                 Most beneficiary in income related rent social housing?

                 You should check how many Kainga Ora houses etc there are.

                 Those on benefits qualify for larger AS amounts than those on MW, to afford private rentals.

                 Reply
                 • Traveller …

                   28 May 2024 at 1:21 pm

                   There are 72,000 properties that fall under KO's control.

                   There are around 600,000 rental properties in NZ in total, including KO managed/owned properties.

                   I'm trying to work out if that helps my argument or not

                   Reply
                   • SPC …

                     28 May 2024 at 1:37 pm

                     Probably about half have a tenant with an AS, (if c60,00 with AS own and are paying mortgage).

                     The last estimate was 663,000 in total

                     But data from StatsNZ shows the estimated number of rented dwellings in the December 2023 quarter was 663,700, according to the dwelling and household estimates, published on January 11

                     https://archive.li/IxVTr#selection-3797.121-3801.185

                     300,000 – say 100,000 on MW (some older workers are on MW but own, others live with parents and or share a tenancy) c200,000 on benefits (some sharing these and or KO ones, others with parents).
                 • Traveller …

                   28 May 2024 at 1:46 pm

                   I'm not sure that's telling us about the number of beneficiaries who "who have no wage and salary income,"?

                   Reply
     • AB 1.2.2

       28 May 2024 at 10:34 am

       NACT will not do any of those 5 things – they are all contrary to the interests of their core supporters. Those 5 things will keep rents down, house prices down and wages up.

       Whereas NACT is intentionally engineering the opposite, wages down, rents up and house prices up. The long-term goal is consolidation of home ownership into fewer and fewer hands.

       In line with this strategy, expect attacks on financially vulnerable retired home-owners in order to make those houses available for purchase by the landlord class, rather than inheritance by the next generation. Skyrocketing Council rates due to central government not funding infrastructure, appears to be the first vector for this attack.

       Be assured, NACT supporters/donors want to own absolutely everything, and believe they deserve to.

       Reply
       • Traveller 1.2.2.1

         28 May 2024 at 11:37 am

         NACT will not do any of those 5 things – they are all contrary to the interests of their core supporters. Those 5 things will keep rents down, house prices down and wages up.

         You might be surprised to know that:

         1. From 2008 through 2017, the median weekly rent in NZ increased by just 4% per year. From 2017 through 2023, the average rise was 6%. https://figure.nz/chart/dnQKC3FHjhAE6Kqw
         2. https://thestandard.org.nz/at-least-chris-bishop-sleeps-in-a-well-made-bed/#comment-1997122. During the last labour government NZ had the largest wealth transfer to property owners in decades.
         3. Real wages grew under the last National led government but fell under the last Labour government. https://thestandard.org.nz/mps-pay-increases/#comment-1998218.

         [You have been a very active and prolific shill here on TS. Some of your comments are bordering on (diversion) trolling. For example, this response of yours does not address the comment by AB about the plans and intentions of the coalition government. It is a diversion.

         Regarding your lazy use of the chart by figure.nz on median rent in NZ based on lodged bonds, I consider this misleading because the numbers inflate [pun intended] the comparison. When using data from Stats NZ (e.g. https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Selected-price-indexes/Selected-price-indexes-April-2024/Download-data/selected-price-indexes-april-2024.csv), the actual rents for housing increased by an average per year of 2.8 and 3.6% over the periods Dec-2008 – Dec-2017 and Dec-2017 – Dec-2023, respectively. These data feed directly into the calculation of the CPI. Calling this ‘surprising’ reflects your rhetoric of a shill.

         I have zero interest in wasting my or anybody else’s time here on discussing (litigating) this with you. My point is that you’re shilling and diversion trolling with loads of data, links, and quotes that make it look genuine when it is not. This is your warning – Incognito]

         Reply
         • SPC 1.2.2.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 12:38 pm

           2.NO.

           1980's $25,000 to 96,000 1st

           1990's $96,000 to 155,000 4th

           2000's $155,000 to 351,000 2nd

           2010's $350,000 to 715,000 3rd

           https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/the-life/looking-back-the-nz-housing-boom-when-and-how-it-all-began

           The 25% gain in 2021 (Orr not restraining buy up by investors by maintaining the deposit criteria when mortgages were cheap and banks were awash with money) is now being wound back with costly finance that will hold down prices despite a housing shortage. Much of the 2020’s gain has already occurred.

           Reply
           • Traveller 1.2.2.1.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 1:13 pm

             Your figures don't reflect my comment at all.

             1. I referred to the period of the last labour government. Your data stops mid-way through that period, and so excludes 2021.

             2. My data was a comparison of house prices to inflation, in other words the real increase in value to property owners.

             3. The data I used has a statistical base line (1992).

             Here is my full comment from https://thestandard.org.nz/at-least-chris-bishop-sleeps-in-a-well-made-bed/#comment-1997122:

             In 2002, median house prices were 23% above the inflation adjusted base (with a base year of 1992). (New Zealand median house prices (in NZ $) (1992=100) (globalpropertyguide.com)). From there the gap began to open. In 2010, median house prices were 50% above the inflation adjusted base. In 2015 the gap was 64%, 2020 76% and in 2023 101%. From 2017 through 2023, median house prices rose by $225,000, when the inflation adjustment was only $60,098.

             Reply
             • SPC …

               28 May 2024 at 1:50 pm

               They place it in context.

               Orr's 2021 policy disaster was an aberration, it is not a reflection of Labour's government.

               All property booms end with high interest rates.

               Reply
               • Traveller …

                 28 May 2024 at 3:27 pm

                 Orrs policy was in part driven by the dual mandate. That absolutely was a reflection on the Labour government.

                 But the other issue is that 2021 was not just a blip. Median house prices rose 53% between the end of 2017 and the end of 2020, which was more than they had risen in the 9 years of the last national government (49%).

                 Reply
                 • SPC …

                   28 May 2024 at 3:42 pm

                   Meh where does the saying house prices double every 10 years come from?

                   We had population growth in the 2000's. Thus subsequent speculation.

                   Then Bollards high OCR and the coming of National.

                   A GFC and earthquake.

                   A recovery given low interest rates was inevitable. As was it becoming speculative.

                   Rinse and repeat – the impact of 2021 on top will be property at 2020 values (when adjusted for inflation) by the end of 202*.

                   And it wont be pretty given rising population demand for property (migrants in, citizens out over to Oz).

                   Then interest rates will fall and property will go up – so by 2030 …

                   Reply
                   • Traveller …

                     28 May 2024 at 3:54 pm

                     House prices rose 53% in just 3 years, when they'd only risen 49% in the previous 9 years! That's not a coincidence. Interest rates were low through much of National's time in government, yet prices were far more stable.
                   • SPC …

                     28 May 2024 at 4:00 pm

                     I give up. Shill away.
         • Incognito 1.2.2.1.2

           28 May 2024 at 9:23 pm

           Mod note

           Reply
           • Traveller 1.2.2.1.2.1

             28 May 2024 at 9:45 pm

             Clearly you didn't follow the response to AB. B said Those 5 things will keep rents down, house prices down and wages up. My response was to directly demonstrate that that claim defies the history of the last national led government. It is not a diversion, it is a direct challenge to what was an unverified assumption.

             As to your claim about the rental data, I note that this is the first time you have engaged with me on this, and you do so as a moderator. Your response links to a spreadsheet containing 53,000 rows of unsorted data. How is that good faith debate? Why not just enter the discussion as a commenter?

             [As I said, I have no intention wasting my time on a fruitless discussion in bad faith, which is your MO. I’m surprised that with all your skills you couldn’t work out the link, which you can find on this webpage: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/selected-price-indexes-april-2024/. Anyway, you clearly didn’t read the Mod note properly or simply don’t care. Take a week off – Incognito]

             Reply
             • Incognito …

               28 May 2024 at 10:54 pm

               Mod note

               Reply
     • bwaghorn 1.2.3

       28 May 2024 at 1:32 pm

       Freezes don't work , no subsidizing, the government should build rent to own , and of course stop pandering to mom and pop landlords , ( fuck ya national)

       Reply
       • SPC 1.2.3.1

         28 May 2024 at 1:54 pm

         Why not?

         Reply
         • Belladonna 1.2.3.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 2:29 pm

           When they come off they result in an immediate hike in rent – as landlords make up for the cost increases they've had to absorb. As we saw after the one instituted by Labour during Covid.

           https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/renting/124052014/rents-soar-after-covid19-freeze-ends

           They also encourage landlords to boot out sitting tenants, do some work on the place (adding value so the rent freeze no longer applies), and then re-rent.

           On their own, rent freezes are a really bad idea. At best a temporary bandaid over an issue.

           The 'better' solution from a socialist perspective is rent control. It also has unintended consequences, but they're not as severe as rent freezes. The biggest issue is landlords removing property from the rental pool – and moving to AirBnB style short term accommodation.

           Of course, the best solution is continuing to build at speed and at scale – to provide more housing, and therefore more choice for tenants. Historically an oversupply (or even near capacity supply) of housing reduces rents.

           We saw this following the Christchurch rebuild – when there was an excess supply of rental properties (both new builds, and families relocating out of ChCh)

           https://www.propertybrokers.co.nz/news/have-rents-ever-gone-down-

           Reply
           • SPC 1.2.3.1.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 3:07 pm

             Unless a government can afford to increase AS, there is little alternative to a rent freeze or rent control (rent fixed to comparative value housing at the time of freeze – where a do up occurs) until market supply is increased.

             Is there any alternative given – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948?

             The issue is how incentivise landlords (only claim mortgage interest as a cost on new builds) to transfer investment to new builds and how to fund funding emergency housing (stamp duty) and a Kainga Ora build up (wealth tax).

             And get employers responsible for housing migrant workers (lest everywhere become become like Queenstown).

             Reply
             • Belladonna …

               28 May 2024 at 9:43 pm

               Well. Labour tried it. And it failed badly.
               I somehow don't think that the coalition will be incentivized to have another go.

               You seem to have forgotten that landlord mortgage costs have increased markedly as well – and seem to be on an upwards trajectory. If they can't afford to keep the rental, they'll turn it into an Air BnB – or sell up. And before you rejoice over the 'sell up' – every house sold to an owner/occupier results in one fewer rental.

               Nor do I think that additional taxes are at all likely under this government – and Labour fought shy of them in the last campaign – so it seems they'd be unlikely under a left(ish) government either.

               Moves to reduce the cost of building – would be a far better move. Incentivizing councils (by letting them keep the GST), reducing the red tape, reducing the cost of building materials, etc. The government could come to the party by allowing private builds on government owned land (government retains ownership of the land – and only the house is owned/onsold).

               Queenstown seems to be an anomaly. Where the high population is pretty much only for catering for tourists. Rules over provision of housing, would result in substantially higher prices in things like restaurants, etc. And mean that it becomes a destination only for the extremely wealthy. I don't know whether or not that's a good idea. Pretty tough on the rest of the ordinary people who live there, though.
               How do you think that would work in something like aged care? Where the care workers are overwhelmingly migrants. They don't want to 'live in' (they have their own families). And adding that cost would likely drive the marginal ones into selling up (it's certainly already happening in Auckland). Leaving the wealthy the only ones able to afford aged care. Again, not exactly the situation we'd want.

               Reply
   • Cricklewood 1.3

     28 May 2024 at 12:42 pm

     Yep, its a massive wealth transfer scheme thats benifited property owners, landlords but most of all the banks.

     Reply
     • SPC 1.3.1

       28 May 2024 at 12:55 pm

       Banking regulation

       https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/the-life/looking-back-the-nz-housing-boom-when-and-how-it-all-began

       Reply
2. newsense 2

   28 May 2024 at 9:40 am

   Labour leader Chris Hipkins says Winston Peters is using his leverage to keep the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat) from the full force of public sector cuts.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350282580/nz-politics-live-chris-hipkins-says-winston-peters-shielded-mfat-job-cuts

   Reply
3. newsense 3

   28 May 2024 at 9:44 am

   Labour leader Chris Hipkins says Winston Peters is using his leverage to keep the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat) from the full force of public sector cuts.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350282580/nz-politics-live-chris-hipkins-says-winston-peters-shielded-mfat-job-cuts

   I mean good, right? This comes across like Hipkins is pursuing Peters for doing a good job and that Hipkins wants to cut MFAT jobs further.

   FFS Chris. Why are you saying this apart from reminding us that only a vote for Winston can protect the public service? The rest of you are a razor gang? That’s the message we’re getting here.

   Reply
4. Adrian 4

   28 May 2024 at 9:54 am

   The point Chippie is making I think is that Winston is the ( most ) rogue element in the CoC and that Luxon knows the whole house of cards and cardsharps is only one small gust away from falling down and he, Luxon, can’t do a thing about it. It’s clever to sow more doubt about the fragility.

   Reply
5. joe90 5

   28 May 2024 at 10:23 am

   Scuttlebutt is forty academy jobs gazetted and no applicants.

   https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/03/05/military-academy-for-youth-offenders-to-be-trialled-from-mid-2024/

   Reply
   • Belladonna 5.1

     28 May 2024 at 11:43 am

     Seriously doubt that people made redundant are going to turn their noses up at a job, just because they don't like the philosophy. Risking losing your home rapidly realigns your priorities.

     Reply
6. SPC 6

   28 May 2024 at 10:39 am

   Audrey Young has been looking at how one Pay Equity case – five year agreement 2017-2022 got neutralised in a period of high pay (entry level back towards the MW) and then when a new agreement was blocked (the old new criteria trick – to save the Health Ministry money*) is now in ruins dependent on the good will of a National Party minister * who says they are for pay equity ….

   The only way pay equity agreements will work, is if the higher pay is structured to continue automatically (such as linked to average or median wage levels).

   https://archive.li/KdVTX#selection-1051.0-1180.7

   Reply
7. SPC 7

   28 May 2024 at 11:00 am

   The Daily Blog got hacked the week of the budget.

   Wonder if it will be like 159 Willis Street in 1984.

   Reply
8. SPC 8

   28 May 2024 at 1:26 pm

   The Israel FM, a fish out of water in Europe.

   First, lack of knowledge of the Moslem to Christian transition of rule in Spain for Jewish people.

   https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240525-israels-fm-ridiculed-accused-of-ignorance-after-attacking-muslim-rule-in-andalusia/

   Second, then trying to guilt a socialist government by mentioning the said Christian Inquisition) era.

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/eu-and-israel-relations-plummet-as-spain-ireland-prepare-to-recognise-a-palestinian-state/IAMQRCPWTNCHRBGGPSLPMOZGKE/

   Reply
9. weka 9

   28 May 2024 at 2:35 pm

   Hoping there is someone here who understands employment law.

   Te Pāti Māori are calling for a day of action on Thurs. On their SM they used the term 'strike'.

   Luxon has said it's illegal. But I can't see how someone taking a day or half day of work is illegal. It might put their job at risk but that's a different thing. If they're not striking in their work place, how is it any different than taking time off to attend SS4C or any other kind of protest?

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/te-pati-maori-protest-plans-to-cause-major-traffic-disruptions-on-thursday/6MCP5V726FGCNFLB53I6PMQBR4/

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/518034/christopher-luxon-warns-striking-to-join-budget-hui-would-be-illegal

   https://www.facebook.com/MaoriParty/posts/pfbid0WUW7AHBiubTwshFxZfM2unmsWNiLrcvd1JFVQgVZJgQ9E9pM4eATnCBjBjKXb3Wfl

   Reply
   • weka 9.1

     28 May 2024 at 2:35 pm

     use of the word strike is in this image,

     https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=982735883307315&set=pcb.982735963307307

     Reply
   • weka 9.2

     28 May 2024 at 2:40 pm

     Labour MP Cushla Tangaere-Manuel pointing out that it's not TPM organising, it's Iwi and hapū.

     https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/05/28/luxon-warns-going-on-strike-to-join-budget-hui-would-be-illegal/

     Reply
   • Belladonna 9.3

     28 May 2024 at 2:47 pm

     Unless you're granted leave, you can't just take a day off work, because you want one. It has to be negotiated in advance with your employer.

     https://www.business.govt.nz/hiring-and-managing/handling-holidays-and-leave/managing-annual-leave-for-your-team/

     A formal strike (legal under NZ laws) protects the workers from being fired or otherwise penalized (apart from not being paid) for not being at work. But a formal strike does need to be called in the proper way (and can only be about the conditions of your job) – in that sense, if they are calling this a 'strike', it would be an illegal one.

     https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/unions-and-bargaining/strikes-and-lockouts/

     I suspect, in any case, that most of the attendees won't be 'workers' in that sense. They'll be students, unemployed, beneficiaries, academics, unionists (maybe some public servants – this is less likely with looming job cuts). People who don't have penalties for not being on the job at 8.30, and who won't be losing a day's pay.

     Reply
     • SPC 9.3.1

       28 May 2024 at 3:09 pm

       There is an omicron outbreak.

       Reply
       • Belladonna 9.3.1.1

         28 May 2024 at 5:25 pm

         If you are caught on camera or social media at a protest, when you've called in sick – your employer would have every legal right to sanction you.

         Reply
         • SPC 9.3.1.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 5:49 pm

           Baa baa black face in a sun hat at the Basin.

           Reply
           • Belladonna 9.3.1.1.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 9:48 pm

             So hardly a 'strike' then, if you're afraid to tell everyone why you are there and what you are protesting for.

             Reply
             • SPC …

               28 May 2024 at 9:55 pm

               It is not a strike, it is a day off work to protest.

               And it is obvious they will be at a protest and let the government know why they are there.

               And it is not something anyone should lose their job over.

               Reply
               • Belladonna …

                 29 May 2024 at 9:35 am

                 Well, if it's not a strike, don't call it one (and therefore generate all this confusion).

                 If your employer can manage without you, then of course you can take annual leave. If they can't (especially at such short notice), you're required to work. If you don't turn up for work as scheduled, then your employer can take action. What that action may be will depend on your previous record, and the difficulties you put the organization in.

                 What you do in your holiday time, is up to you. What you do when you are supposed to be at work, is very much your employers affair.

                 Again, I doubt there will be many actual 'workers' at this day of action.

                 Reply
     • weka 9.3.2

       28 May 2024 at 3:31 pm

       Unless you're granted leave, you can't just take a day off work, because you want one. It has to be negotiated in advance with your employer.

       Actually you can. But you might get fired. It's not illegal to not go to work.

       A formal strike (legal under NZ laws) protects the workers from being fired or otherwise penalized (apart from not being paid) for not being at work. But a formal strike does need to be called in the proper way (and can only be about the conditions of your job) – in that sense, if they are calling this a 'strike', it would be an illegal one.

       are you sure about that last bit? Is School Strike 4 Climate an illegal strike under the ERA?

       Reply
       • weka 9.3.2.1

         28 May 2024 at 3:32 pm

         there might be something that says a general strike is illegal, but I couldn't find it on google.

         Reply
         • Belladonna 9.3.2.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 5:27 pm

           From the link above:

           Employees can only legally strike or be locked out for health and safety reasons or in relation to collective bargaining if they will be bound by the collective agreement being bargained for.

           https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/unions-and-bargaining/strikes-and-lockouts/

           A general strike is no longer legal in NZ – and hasn't been for some time.

           Reply
           • weka 9.3.2.1.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 6:23 pm

             if someone takes time off work on Thurs to attend the protest, is that striking or not? If you think it is please explain how.

             A general strike is no longer legal in NZ – and hasn't been for some time.

             Did TPM break the law in calling for this action?

             Reply
       • Belladonna 9.3.2.2

         28 May 2024 at 5:24 pm

         The "School Strike 4 climate" isn't illegal. But nor is it legally a strike.
         [The argument about whether the kids under 16 should have been in school (a legislative requirement) – is somewhat moot with the current absentee rates.]

         There are no 'workers' involved (or at least none, that are calling it strike action under the ERA).
         It would be illegal for workers to claim it was a strike (and therefore enjoy the legislative protections under strike action).

         Just calling something a strike, doesn't make it legally one.

         Reply
         • weka 9.3.2.2.1

           28 May 2024 at 6:24 pm

           Just calling something a strike, doesn't make it legally one.

           So Luxon was wrong?

           Reply
           • Belladonna 9.3.2.2.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 9:15 pm

             So was TPM for calling it a strike.

             Reply
             • weka …

               28 May 2024 at 10:27 pm

               yes, but not as defined in the ERA as far as I can tell. Rather, like SS4C. I'm still not clear on what the law says about a general strike. But it's not the main focus of their call, so it's hard to see how any of that would apply.

               Reply
       • Belladonna 9.3.2.3

         28 May 2024 at 5:31 pm

         Actually you can. But you might get fired. It's not illegal to not go to work.

         You may indeed get fired. And the reason for that is that you've broken employment law. If you are contracted to work certain hours, you don't get to just decide which ones you feel like turning up for.

         Are you going to end up in the criminal courts? Of course not. Will you find difficulty in getting another job? Almost certainly.

         Reply
         • weka 9.3.2.3.1

           28 May 2024 at 6:21 pm

           the entire thread is about whether the day of action on Thurs is a strike (in ERA terms). Whether action is taken against individuals for not going to work one day is a different matter, and nothing to do with striking (as far as I can tell, but it's weird that there'd no clear answer on this).

           Reply
           • Traveller 9.3.2.3.1.1

             28 May 2024 at 6:59 pm

             Hi Weka. I am not a lawyer, but I do have experience around employment matters. Here's my 2 cents worth.

             if someone takes time off work on Thurs to attend the protest, is that striking or not?

             No. In a strike, there is an accepted relationship between a group of employees and their employer(s). To be a strike, the action must be part of a combination, agreement, common understanding, or joint action made or done by the employees. Strikes and lockouts » Employment New Zealand.

             Did TPM break the law in calling for this action?

             I'm not sure if they are breaking the law, but TPM have a problem in that they are apparently calling for people to "walk off the job" to attend the protest (Protests: Te Pāti Māori co-leaders back calls for strike action around NZ on Budget Day – NZ Herald). If they mean that literally, as in in the form of a strike, then that would appear to be a call to break the law. "Strikes and lockouts can be used as a tool by parties to collective bargaining or for health and safety reasons." Strikes and lockouts » Employment New Zealand

             So Luxon was wrong?

             Luxon is reported as saying – "told reporters today calls for people to strike were wrong and illegal as there were rules in place around when and how strike action could take place." Protests: Te Pāti Māori co-leaders back calls for strike action around NZ on Budget Day – NZ Herald. I'm not sure 'calling' for a strike is illegal, but it appears to be a call to break the law.

             All that aside, TPM are just doing what they do, which is stir up division to remain relevant. In 2013 they received 87,844 votes (E9 Statistics – Overall Results (electionresults.govt.nz)), just 3% of the votes cast. There 904,000 Maori in NZ, so even removing people under voting age, TPM represent a tiny minority.

             Reply
             • James Thrace …

               28 May 2024 at 8:12 pm

               Employment lawyer here

               unless the employees and employer are engaged in bargaining for a collective agreement, it is an illegal strike if people are pushing their employer to do or change something in the workplace, and the workers withhold their labour in order to force that change outside of the bargaining process.

               the key element is that there has to be a withholding of labour by the worker with a link to the desired action/s required of the employer by the worker.

               in this instance, the “general strike” is not directed by the workers toward their employer, but is directed at the government.

               therefore, unless the employer can prove that the employees withholding of labour to attend the “strike” against this government was directed toward a desired outcome or concession by the employer, then Luxon is utterly gormless.

               this is about as much of a “strike” as elephants are purple.

               Reply
               • Traveller …

                 28 May 2024 at 8:20 pm

                 Thanks James. I couldn't see how calling for this action could be illegal in and of itself.

                 Reply
               • weka …

                 28 May 2024 at 10:29 pm

                 cheers.

                 Reply
     • adam 9.3.3

       28 May 2024 at 4:45 pm

       Rather than being spinless feckless slaves, protest.

       If a law is unjust, break it.

       Funny how so many on the right go, "the law you must follow it", even if it is to your own long term determent.

       Reply
       • Belladonna 9.3.3.1

         28 May 2024 at 5:28 pm

         If a law is unjust, break it.

         The attitude of all those conducting ram raids, assaults on shop owners, and mindless violence against school kids.

         Reply
         • mac1 9.3.3.1.1

           28 May 2024 at 5:45 pm

           I'm not sure that the mindset of ramraiders, assaulters and the mindlessly violent is a protest against an unjust law.

           But hopefully I am none of these, so what do I know?

           Reply
         • adam 9.3.3.1.2

           28 May 2024 at 11:09 pm

           The attitude of all those conducting ram raids, assaults on shop owners, and mindless violence against school kids.

           So laws against violence are unjust now in your world Belladonna? Do your really have no moral compass which can tell the difference between a just and unjust law. Or is it working class folk are all criminals and thugs as you imply?

           Please, unjust laws have always existed. It is the duty of those who actually have a moral compass to challenge them. Rather than fools and tools who support unjust laws unthinkingly.

           Reply
           • Belladonna 9.3.3.1.2.1

             29 May 2024 at 9:30 am

             Your definition of a just and an unjust law (and therefore one you feel free to break) appears to be entirely self-centric. What you define as unjust.
             Exactly the same attitude as criminals – who feel that they can break any law they please.

             If you truly believe a law is 'unjust' there are legal methods to challenge it.

             Note: the last centre-left government didn't change the laws around strikes – so your belief appears to be even further left, and therefore concentrated among an even smaller group of the population.

             Reply
             • adam …

               29 May 2024 at 9:06 pm

               I love the whole make up a point that was never said, to knock it down type of discussion, how very SIS of you. Check in the mail?

               "Last center left government", that's a rude joke right there, and totally delusional. Only a liberal would think the economics of the last government was anything but far right. No government of the last 40 odd years has been anything but.

               As for laws, be honest with yourself. You lack the moral courage to stand up to what is wrong. That's OK. But don't lash out at those with the moral courage to stand up to what is a series of unjust laws these Tory idiots are pushing onto everyone.

               Reply
           • Belladonna 9.3.3.1.2.2

             29 May 2024 at 11:56 am

             Also the imagery associated with the TPM call to action – is deeply disturbing. Presenting guns….

             It looks like a call to violent insurrection.

             https://www.facebook.com/watch/?mibextid=oFDknk&v=423581487174518&rdid=KNQqnxboI81bwIXp

             If that is not the intention – then TPM have been very poorly advised by their media coms people. If it is only intended to attract attention – then they cannot complain that the 'wrong' attention is being attracted.

             This would be cause for deep concern if it were issued by any other party (ACT's McKee has been derided here for her support of gun owners – imagine how TS would react to an ACT video with the same imagery)

             Reply
             • adam …

               29 May 2024 at 8:53 pm

               OH dear, I love people who live here and know no history. The pistols are a representation of the all the shit that led to the treaty. You know, the orgy of death and destruction that was the Musket Wars.

               Why do we have to suffer a piss weak moral panic form the ill informed?

               Your choice is to suffer fools who want an orgy of death and destruction or stand up against it.

               Reply
10. SPC 10

    28 May 2024 at 2:54 pm

    DTI meet LTV – get to know each other, like a banker does – cartel and windfall profits.

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/05/28/reserve-bank-confirms-major-changes-to-mortgage-rules/

    Reply
11. SPC 11

    28 May 2024 at 3:19 pm

    National growing our future by cutting back on the potential for R and D work

    They want science teachers to teach science, and the future of science appears to be offshore.

    Government science agency Callaghan Innovation was also proposing a "strategic reset" to focus on projects that make money – which could result in some of its more than 400 employees losing their jobs.

    "A whole lot of science jobs are being lost – both in the public sector… but also within Crown research institutes which have not been specifically required to do those cuts, they are still now starting to cut people," Save Science Coalition spokesperson Lucy Stewart told AM.

    A nation impacted by weather and surrounded by sea and with major water infrastructure issues (including health of waterways)

    Morgan reiterated the institute needed to cut costs "without compromising the delivery of NIWA's core purpose as a climate, freshwater and ocean science provider".

    Nonetheless, the Save Science Coalition said such cuts would result in New Zealand losing "institutional knowledge".

    "We have a science system now where there is nobody… safe, there is nobody whose funding is secure," Dr Stewart said. "It is really hard to be world-leading when every day, you're… getting up and thinking, 'How am I going to secure funding to just keep doing my work?'"

    And then there is the environment in general (the habitat separate from its exploitation for profit).

    In addition to proposed cuts at NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment asked for voluntary redundancies last month – with "the impact of the savings exercise on our work programme and jobs" to come after this week's Budget, the department's business transformation and services deputy secretary Laura Dixon said.

    What will those going into school inherit, if this government gets multiple terms?

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/05/public-service-association-starts-save-science-coalition-against-government-cost-cutting.html

    Reply
12. SPC 12

    28 May 2024 at 3:46 pm

    One game, two proposals

    Proposal 1 from Central Commissariat Corporate Capital Command and Proposal 2 from the working class – the clubs of the provincial unions.

    And appropriately on the same day as the budget from the CofC.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/rugby/explained-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-crucial-new-zealand-rugby-special-general-meeting/CE56OONZZNAXLGMCK7BXKBTKZY/

    Reply
13. adam 13

    28 May 2024 at 4:50 pm

    Why are we letting the french military beat the indigenous population back into line?

    You know the french, those folks who engage in terrorism.

    The french, who have colonies, I thought it was the 21st century.

    Indigenous rights, oh wait white settle culture – of course we going to do nothing.

    Reply
    • SPC 13.1

      28 May 2024 at 4:56 pm

      Only when given permission to warn us, we are without protection without the letters after A, UKUS

      Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS