Roger Award nominations open

Written By: - Date published: 4:30 pm, June 25th, 2009 - 27 comments
Categories: activism, notices - Tags: ,

180px-Roger_AwardNominations are now open for the 2009 Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation Operating in Aotearoa/New Zealand, which is organised the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa and GATT Watchdog.

You can download the nomination form (in either Word or PDF) here.

The criteria for judging are by assessing the transnational (a corporation which is 25% or more foreign-owned) that has the most negative impact in each or all of the following categories:

Economic Dominance – Monopoly, profiteering, tax dodging, cultural imperialism

People – Unemployment, impact on tangata whenua, impact on women, impact on children, abuse of workers/conditions, health and safety of workers and the public

Environment – Environmental damage, abuse of animals

Political interference Interference in democratic processes, running an ideological crusade

You can nominate the same transnational as last year as long as the nomination is about their misdeeds in 2009. Please send as much detail as you can, including newspaper clippings and reports, but you do not have to do all the research. Just quote sources if you can.

Nominations close on October 31, 2009. Send your nomination to:
The Roger Award, Box 2258, Christchurch; e-mail cafca@chch.planet.org.nz

27 comments on “Roger Award nominations open ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. appleboy 1
    25 June 2009 at 4:52 pm

    I’ll be nominating ACT. I’d say they qualify on most if not all of those criteria.

  2. roger nome 2
    25 June 2009 at 6:58 pm

    How fitting it is for Roger to have such a glorious award named after him. I reckon it’s got to be Talleys, Rio Tinto or Deloitte (depending on how the strippping of Aucklands assets under Rodney’s super-city goes).

    • Anita 2.1
      25 June 2009 at 7:10 pm

      Here’s the list of previous winners:

      BAT (British American Tobacco NZ) (2008)
      Telecom (2007)
      Progressive Enterprises (2006)
      Bank of New Zealand and Westpac (2005)
      Telecom (2004)
      Juken Nissho (2003)
      Tranz Rail (2002)
      Carter Holt Harvey (2001)
      Tranz Rail (2000)
      TransAlta (1999)
      Monsanto (1998)
      Tranz Rail (1997)

      Judge’s reports etc here.

  3. mickysavage 3
    25 June 2009 at 7:28 pm

    I see that Telecom want to win it again. It timed the announcement that Chorus have awarded a major broadband installation contract to an Australian company that prefers their tradesmen to be sole traders or companies to maximise its chances. Bugger the workers and the unions.

    I thought that the current government was going to upgrade broadband? Having Telecom throw the lives of so many broadband installers into chaos should make this a really simple process.

  4. vto 4
    25 June 2009 at 9:05 pm

    god that criteria is so ridiculously racist and sexist it is not worth shit.

  5. Scott Yorke 5
    25 June 2009 at 9:25 pm

    What a ridiculous waste of effort. Why anyone would take seriously anythng run by CAFCA is beyond me.

  6. vto 6
    25 June 2009 at 9:51 pm

    yeah, come on CAFCA, I actually think you promote an essential societal requirement and it is the main policy that pulls me greenways. But don’t tye it up with other shit.

    and anyway, what about us other non-maori males living in aotearoa ? do you think we are not affected by arsehole transnationals? aye?

    • vto 6.1
      29 June 2009 at 9:54 pm

      no answer cafca?

      • Anita 6.1.1
        29 June 2009 at 10:08 pm

        Have you considered asking CAFCA?

        Speaking into the ether in The Standard’s comments section is not quite the same thing.

        • vto 6.1.1.1
          29 June 2009 at 10:13 pm

          into the ether like cafca anita. this is where they spoke..

          • Anita 6.1.1.1.1
            29 June 2009 at 10:17 pm

            Or this is where one of the standardistas copied their words.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.1
              29 June 2009 at 10:21 pm

              Well you clearly know of those half good people. So what you say – why is non-maori male the sole exclusion from the list of people to be considered?

            • Anita 6.1.1.1.1.2
              29 June 2009 at 10:26 pm

              I am also not CAFCA.

              If you want an answer ask CAFCA, their email address is at the end of the post.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.3
              29 June 2009 at 10:27 pm

              raspberry

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.4
              29 June 2009 at 10:29 pm

              Anita that is most disappointing. Thanks for sticking up for us – yeah right and all that

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.5
              29 June 2009 at 10:34 pm

              “So what you say why is non-maori male the sole exclusion from the list of people to be considered?”

              What makes you think ‘non-maori male’ aren’t affected by:

              Monopoly, profiteering, tax dodging, Unemployment, abuse of workers/conditions, health and safety of workers and the public, Environmental damage.

              Or do you think that multi-nationals are coming in with specific practices that effect the non-maori male in a particular way, over and above those general issues?

              If you have examples of such, I’m sure cafca would be all ears.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.6
              29 June 2009 at 10:40 pm

              make sense p’s b. and you haven’t answered the question. useless.

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.7
              30 June 2009 at 6:50 am

              Yawn, try asking, just once v, a question that makes sense and I’ll be happy to oblige. I was trying to find out what your question actually meant, but you couldn’t oblige because it doesn’t actually mean anything.

              You’re just having a b ig old cry about nothing. You should form a group, or write a poem or something.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.8
              30 June 2009 at 9:32 am

              My question is quite clear.

              The bigotry shown by CAFCA is abhorrent and if it was aimed at anything female or Maori or PI there would be all hell to pay here on the Standard. In fact that young upstart rocky did just that with a recent post on “Why National Hate Women” or some such crap.

              Why is there no such outcry when the bigotry is aimed at non-maori males? This blog just goes stone cold silent. In fact worse than that, this blog actively encourages such bigotry through posting such threads from overtly racist and sexist organisations like CAFCA.

              You lot are like the three monkeys sitting on a wall with your hand over your eyes ears and mouth.

              Hypocrites again.

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.9
              30 June 2009 at 9:49 am

              vto, I simply asked that you clarify where the bigotry is. My response made perfect sense. If you think that there are issues that effect white males exclusively and that CAFCA is ignoring them, please tell me what you think they are (though it make more sense to tell CAFCA).

              When people make claims that the National party is acting in a sexist way, they tend to back that up with something that explains why they think that. Rochelle did so. You may not agree with her, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t make an argument.

              Where’s yours? All I see from you is this spluttering gibbersih that I can’t really take seriously. Sorry if that offends you, but make a case, and I’ll listen to it.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.10
              30 June 2009 at 10:07 am

              Question: why is non-maori male the sole exclusion from the list of people to be considered by CAFCA in their Roger awards?

              There. For the umpteenth time. Or are you going to avoid / deviate/mock again..

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.11
              30 June 2009 at 10:30 am

              I know what the question is vto, and I’ve responded to it. I don’t think they are in fact excluded. That is why I don’t think your question makes sense.

              There are a whole host of issues affecting white males that CAFCA are asking about. White males are not excluded in any way that I can see. CAFCA don’t say, “health and safety issues (except for white males)”. That would in fact be exclusionary.

              Go back and reread my first reply. Sorry if that sounds snarky, I don’t mean it to, but I have honestly tried to find out what your complaint is, and all you do is call me names and repeat your question. I’m getting sick of it, and bored.

              Now, can you please identify for me, as I have asked repeatedly, what sort of things would you like to complain about to CAFCA that they have excluded from the list of things there are interested in.

              What, in fact, are these ‘non Maori male’ issues of exploitation that are being excluded? I starting to think think you can’t think of any, which would explain your reluctance to respond on point.

              It’s a bit rich for you to complain about my tone, given your comments. If you won’t explain, as repeatedly asked, why you are calling me a racist, a bigot and a hypocrite then why on earth should I be polite?

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.12
              30 June 2009 at 1:59 pm

              “I don’t think they are in fact excluded.” PB, by specifically including 70% of the population (women, maori, children) the other 30% are excluded by very direct implication.

              If they are not excluded then why the need to specify maori, women and children?

              You are claiming that non-maori males are included, somehow, um generally? Through other categories? Why not just include them as a category alongside maori, women, children then?

              Why the need to break things down into age race and gender? Do you think a monopolistic transnat service provider has more effectr on some than others? How exactly? If a phone bill for example is $100 too much then that $100 has the same effect on everyone, no matter the race age or sex. If there is any categorisation needed in examining effects on specific types of people it would be based on wealth. Certainly not race etc.

              It is very clear that the effects of transnats on non-maori males is of less importance to CAFCA. My complaint / question relates exactly to this. It is a categorisation based on race, gender and even age. That is racist, sexist (and ageist). Which is so typical of today.

              Past wrongs of racism and sexism have been supplanted by new versions – namely bigotry against the white male (esp. the middle aged and middle class. fuck knows why). It is seen all over the place and CAFCA’s categories are simply another example.

              Why does the left turn a blind eye to it (and even support it!)? Is it because it is just dumb white men? They had it coming to them?

              White men get pilloried all the time today. Just follow ads on tv – the man is a slob on the couch, or being dominated by some women in an office, or made to look like a fool. This component in society is being bigodotted against big time. But somehow it is ok. Imagine ads were made where the chick on the couch had a big fat ass and was feeding her face, or whose driving was being mocked. Oh no, can’t have that. NZ today is riddled with this complete and utter double standard. And it shows up on this site often, which is totally unsurprising given it tends to be the left which exhibits this bigotry the most.

              And for the record none of the “abuse” was aimed at you if you read carefully.

            • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1.13
              30 June 2009 at 2:13 pm

              vto, thanks.

              It seems to me that the questions you are offended by are asking for examples of companies doing things that effect those groups in particular. I don’t infer from that that CAFCA doesn’t acre about white males or immigrant communities, or religious discrimination or any other thing that they didn’t mention.

              Maybe, in past surveys, those groups have had a lot to complain about. Maybe there is a trend. That’s why I’m trying to imagine what sort of complaints would fall under the ‘missing’ category.

              Re ads. yes, blokes like you and I get mocked. But we are far from alone in getting stereotyped by admen selling shit. I don’t think white males cop it out of proportian. For every ‘dum dad’ there is at least one ‘friendly professional’ or ‘DIY handy man’ etc.

  7. BLiP 7
    26 June 2009 at 12:07 am

    I nominate KiwiBlog

  8. jason 8
    27 June 2009 at 11:24 am

    I work for chorus. Well said mickey savage. I’ve been in this telecommunications game for well over 20 years and Telecom has never and will never do anyone any favours.

    I can recall a christmas when I worked for Telecom and thay gave us a CD for christmas. It was the same CD they gave as a present to all their business subscribers. Oh and the CD was from the year before. Had an excess of discs I guess.

    • The Baron 8.1
      30 June 2009 at 10:09 am

      Oh well Jason, you also got paid over Christmas, so don’t cry too much about your free, non-contractual gift that they had no obligation to provide at all.

      Telecom’s obligations are to their shareholders. Nuff said.