Sleepover Bill in House tonight

48 comments on “Sleepover Bill in House tonight ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Darien Fenton 1

   27 September 2011 at 5:13 pm

   Will be speaking in first reading tonight. A long fight, nearing its end. Go the unions and go the workers!
   • higherstandard 1.1

     27 September 2011 at 5:56 pm

     Hi Darien

     Where are you buying your sausages from ?
     • Nick C 1.1.1

       27 September 2011 at 8:01 pm

       I hear the Mad Butcher (which I believe is no longer owned by the great Sir Peter Leitch) are having a sale HS! Plenty of meat to feed the workers for the Barbie!

       Such a great man Sir Peter. Has consistently put aside an amazing amount of his own time and money to fundraise for causes across the community. Big time supporter of the Warriors also. I’m gutted about his cancer.

       Oh wait he likes John Key. What a dickhead..
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         27 September 2011 at 9:26 pm

         I like John Key too, he’d make a great NZ Idol judge.
   • bigbruv 1.2

     27 September 2011 at 8:18 pm

     So people get paid to sleep now?

     What a bloody joke.

     And as for you Fenton, your attack on the mad butcher is low, even for you given your less than stella past.

     Hopefully this will be the last time we see a parasitic union hack like yourself in the house.

     Try and see if you can make it in the real world, see if you can survive without leeching off the efforts of others as you have done so far in your miserable life.

     I doubt you will make it.
     • logie97 1.2.1

       27 September 2011 at 8:41 pm

       so big bruv, it’s okay for sleeping shareholders to make huge gains out of others’ labours.

       … get a life you miserable creep.
       • bigbruv 1.2.1.1

         27 September 2011 at 8:55 pm

         logie97

         Each and every one of these parasites knew full well the terms and conditions of their job when they took up employment.

         The gutless National government should have done what Labour did when they were faced with a court ruling they did not like, they should have changed the law.

         Shareholders have real skin in the game logie, they are the people who face financial ruin if the business does not succeed, workers can and do come and go as they please, they have no stake in the business as such.

         Labour is simply a commodity that one buys, the market should always dictate the rate paid and there should be no government interference at all.

         If these low life workers really wanted to earn more they could always mortgage their house, go into business for themselves, battle with the union scum, put up with under performing staff when you have no real way of sacking them and all the other crap that one has to put up with in business.

         Oh…and since when has sleeping been classed as Labor?
         • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1

           27 September 2011 at 9:24 pm

           Oh…and since when has sleeping been classed as Labor?

           When you expect your servant to be at your beck and call 24/7, asshole.

           Tell me, when a soldier is getting 30 mins kip while being transported to the front lines in a chopper, should he get his pay docked?

           Loser.
           • bigbruv 1.2.1.1.1.1

             27 September 2011 at 9:59 pm

             Viper

             Soldiers?…really!, is that the best you can come up with.

             I would imagine these lazy bastards all vote Labour, who else would expect to get paid for sleeping.

             Oh…and as for the loser comment, well that is hilarious given the support that Labour have in the polls.

             The only loser come November will be the left and every Labour party voter, I am so looking forward to that night.
             • RobC …

               27 September 2011 at 10:13 pm

               Bigbruv

               As my wife is one of these workers, and I know for a fact she didn’t vote Labour last election, and probably won’t in this coming election, I can categorically refute one of your claims.

               Glad to see you spewing vile over this. I’ll make sure when we crack open the bubbly when the backpay comes through we’ll raise our glasses and toast all contributing taxpayers, including you.
         • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1.1.2

           27 September 2011 at 9:24 pm

           Actually, you sad sack, ‘sleeping’ has always been classed as labor (sic) in this industry. The workers received an overnight allowance for the responsibility of being in charge of the house (and very few get an uninterrupted night’s kip, of course).
            
           The case was about whether the allowance was appropriate or whether the overall responsibility merited an hourly rate. Turns out it does. If and when you get a responsible job, you might be able to comment with a bit of insight. And as for accusing others of leeching, maybe you should hold off saying anything until you learn to pay your bills yourself, you dullwitted bludger.
           • bigbruv 1.2.1.1.2.1

             27 September 2011 at 10:04 pm

             Sigh…

             That’s right voice, they received an allowance for doing nothing, they were all well aware of the allowance when they agreed to the terms and yet they still thought it fair to take action that will see the tax payer cough up their own hard earned dollars so these bludgers can be paid more to sleep on the job.

             As for the job being a ‘responsible’ one, that is a laugh, we are not talking about brain surgeons here are we, if they earn anything over the minimum wage they are being overpaid.
             • millsy …

               27 September 2011 at 10:15 pm

               You would have made a great plantation owner in antebellum Louisiana.

               I can just see you outside your white washed mansion on the lawn, sitting drinking a bourbon while watching your slaves toil in the southern heat.
             • Vicky32 …

               28 September 2011 at 2:34 am

               As for the job being a ‘responsible’ one, that is a laugh, we are not talking about brain surgeons here are we, if they earn anything over the minimum wage they are being overpaid.

               Obviously, you’re completely unaware of the tertiary qualifications in disability that I and others have, in order to do that job. Got any tertiary quals yourself? No, I didn’t think so.
         • Jeff O 1.2.1.1.3

           27 September 2011 at 9:42 pm

           Crikey, big bruv. You really have no idea,do you? This matter was heading to the Supreme Court. The unions, the government and the employers finally managed to negotiate a solution. All good.

           Workers have a stake in the business. Proof? The workers here could have claimed a whole bunch of back pay. They didn’t – instead, they accepted a deal giving them about half of what they could have got had the case been proven in court. Why? Because they knew that their employers would struggle to pay that much. And they didn’t want their employers to go under, for the sake of their clients.

           I call that being caring and thoughtful.
           • bigbruv 1.2.1.1.3.1

             27 September 2011 at 10:11 pm

             Jeff O

             Not one to let the facts get in the way of your propaganda are you.

             And please, they agreed to a negotiated settlement because they knew full well that was the best they could ever have got, had they demanded any more the government would have been forced to change the law (as they should have anyway) and tell the bludgers that they were going to get nothing.

             Remember, these leaches were well aware of the terms and conditions of their contract from day one, to try and claim something they were not entitled to is nothing more than I would expect from left leaning people.

             There is nothing caring and thoughtful about it, these workers (how can you call anybody who sleeps on the job a worker) do not give a toss about the clients or their employers, they settled for all they could get, if they really cared they would not have taken any action at all.
             • RobC …

               27 September 2011 at 10:16 pm

               Bigbruv

               You have, as usual, NFI

               This issue has been a festering sore for several years. Workers continued providing their labour under terms and conditions they didn’t completely agree with, mainly out of compassion for the users of the service – the intellectually disabled.

               You using the argument that they signed on the dotted line therefore they have no comeback shows you up for the brainless moron you come across as on a regular basis
               • bigbruv …

                 27 September 2011 at 10:19 pm

                 Who was forcing the ‘workers’ (including those who got paid to sleep on the job) to sign on the dotted line?

                 And please, stop with the crap that they did it out of compassion, they did it out of their own selfish and greedy desire to extract more money from their employers than the market would pay them.
                 • RobC …

                   27 September 2011 at 10:22 pm

                   Keep ranting and raving – I might make sure I toast you twice when the champagne corks pop.

                   As I say, my wife is one of these workers – I know her and some of her fellow workers better than you; stick with your perceptions and prejudices, they make great entertainment.
             • McFlock …

               27 September 2011 at 10:16 pm

               “they agreed to a negotiated settlement because they knew full well that was the best they could ever have got, had they demanded any more the government would have been forced to change the law (as they should have anyway) and tell the bludgers that they were going to get nothing.”
                 
               So the govt is changing the law so it doesn’t need to change the law?
               Planet BB.
             • millsy …

               27 September 2011 at 10:16 pm

               Going by your logic, big bruv, no one would get a pay rise at all.

               I think its time you came out and said if you approve of the economic model used in the antebellum US,
               • bigbruv …

                 27 September 2011 at 10:24 pm

                 Millsy

                 The market should decide who gets a pay rise.

                 Those in the public service should get very little if anything (apart from Cops, Doctors and active defence personal)
                 • millsy …

                   27 September 2011 at 10:31 pm

                   So you do want slavery brought back then.

                   Just say ‘Yes’. not that hard
                 • The Voice of Reason …

                   27 September 2011 at 10:43 pm

                   “The market should decide who gets a pay rise.

                   Those in the public service should get very little if anything (apart from Cops, Doctors and active defence personal)”

                   So which is it, Bruv? In the first sentence you say the market should decide and in the second, you decide. I guess you’re not that committed to the finer points of libertarianism, are you? But I bet you keep your jackboots nice and shiny.
                   • bigbruv …

                     27 September 2011 at 10:48 pm

                     Jackboots.???

                     Oh dear, I really am getting under your skin tonight, this early in the piece and already you have tossed in the towel and resorted to abuse.

                     We are always going to need the Police (but you know that) if for no other reason than to investigate the numerous breaches of the electoral act committed by the labour party and to investigate people like Darren Hughes.

                     The police will always be paid from the public purse and IMHO they deserve a lot more.
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     27 September 2011 at 10:52 pm

                     Nah, you dimwit, it’s not abuse, it’s pointing out the logical failings in your own words. You claim the market rules, but you actually want to make the rules yourself. Sad, angry little man.
                 • Frank Macskasy …

                   27 September 2011 at 11:31 pm

                   Oh dear, too funny. No doubt you value yourself highly, BB?

                   Clown that you are…
             • Puddleglum …

               27 September 2011 at 10:44 pm

               So, BB, you’re argument is that people should not have recourse to the law and legal system? (It’s ‘immoral’ to exercise that ‘right’, or something??)

               That’s an interesting position to adopt.

               Certainly, it is one that is more commonly held on the right but, even there, it’s not usually seen as 100% good form. (You know, ‘rule of law’, ‘one law for all’ and all that).
               • bigbruv …

                 27 September 2011 at 10:50 pm

                 Where obvious wrongdoings have occurred then yes, of course we should all have access to the law (within a revamped legal aide system).

                 However, there are always instances where the legal process has been abused and cases where the courts get it wrong.

                 This case and this ruling are classic examples.
         • Ianupnorth 1.2.1.1.4

           27 September 2011 at 10:36 pm

           BB watch and learn fuckwit! http://youtu.be/hOyDR2b71ag
           • bigbruv 1.2.1.1.4.1

             27 September 2011 at 10:43 pm

             Ian

             That is pure comedy gold, total lies of course but still genuinely funny.
         • Vicky32 1.2.1.1.5

           28 September 2011 at 2:31 am

           Each and every one of these parasites knew full well the terms and conditions of their job when they took up employment.

           Well, I’ve done that job, bb, and it’s neither parasitism nor is it sleeping! I was required to be alert the whole night, in case of fire, seizure or riot.. and a colleague got himself beaten severely by an upset resident… I had a sleepless night (one of many) playing musical bedrooms in a home for children, moving them around so that one particular boy could have a room on his own. He couldn’t sleep and was bullying the other boys to keep them awake! I had to take one child into bed with me… and if you’ve never slept with an 8 year old, I don’t recommend it. That was just one (very memorable) night of many. 

            
     • Frank Macskasy 1.2.2

       27 September 2011 at 11:29 pm

       Bigbruv, your comment that “people get paid to sleep now” shows you for the uneducated fool that you are.

       If you had an once of understanding about the clients that are being supervised in residential care, you’d be suitably embarressed at that juvenile remark.
2. Ianupnorth 2

   27 September 2011 at 10:38 pm

   Please please please do not rise to the drivel BB spouts; vegetables cant respond logically.
3. bigbruv 3

   27 September 2011 at 10:40 pm

   No Millsy, I want people to be paid what they are worth.

   In Fentons case it would be about 25c an hour.

   For instance, if I had my way we would double the pay of every front line policeman in NZ, we would support them far more than we do at the moment and we would back them up completely.

   In the past if I wanted a pay rise I went and asked for it, the boss had two choices, give me what I wanted or refuse, if he refused he ran the risk of losing me. That is how is works in the real world.
   • thejackal 3.1

     27 September 2011 at 10:48 pm

     I guess you’re not going to be voting for National then eh bigbruv… being that they’ve slashed Police funding like there’s no tomorrow. NFI is right!
     • bigbruv 3.1.1

       27 September 2011 at 10:53 pm

       Not sure who I will vote for yet, however you can be assured if I had my way the increase in Police funding would not be paid for by borrowing, it would come straight out of the overseas aide budget and the social welfare budget.

       If I had to sack a few more back room public servants as well then so be it.
       • thejackal 3.1.1.1

         27 September 2011 at 11:16 pm

         Well if you’re a man/woman of your word you wouldn’t vote for a party that severely reduces expenditure on Policing eh!

         Reduce welfare spending… seems like you’re into social degradation there bigbruv. How about we reduce the Police budget on the back of good social policy that reduces crime… or does that make too much sense? How about we equip our Police properly with adequate funding… National is failing to do both of these things.

         Good luck with your trolling bub.
       • McFlock 3.1.1.2

         27 September 2011 at 11:21 pm

         You mean the backroom public servants who check that police anti-stab vests are up to spec? Or just the ones who ensure that our police officers get the right amount of cash in their bank account on payday?
   • Ianupnorth 3.2

     27 September 2011 at 10:51 pm

     When are you going to come out BB; a big boy like you shouldn’t hide his sexuality. Maybe you should get some tickets early https://myaccount.aucklandmuseum.com/single/SelectSeating.aspx?p=4524

     BTW, she’s a Professor of Law, so I am guessing she is possibly more clever than you big boy.
4. bigbruv 4

   27 September 2011 at 10:54 pm

   Ian

   “BTW, she’s a Professor of Law,”

   Who are you talking about now?

   Fenton or that stupid chick in the clip you posted?
5. Ianupnorth 5

   27 September 2011 at 11:13 pm

   The ‘Stupid chick’ is law professor big boy… clearly chicks don’t do it for you….
6. bigbruv 6

   27 September 2011 at 11:24 pm

   Ian

   She may well be a law professor, however that does not stop her from being at best misguided, and, at worst an idiot.

   Back in the good old days Ian (well before you were born I suspect) there was a Labour party leader loved by a vast number of the people of this nation, his name was Norman Kirk.

   Kirk had an almost pathological dislike of academics, he distrusted them (and given what they have done to the Labour party in NZ he has been proven to be correct) and could see no place for them inside the Labour party.
   Kirk also used to tear their arms and legs off in a debate, and while these academics might have had a few letters after their name they were no match at all for the intelligence of Kirk.

   The point is Ian that just because this stupid chick is a professor does not make her opinion any more valuable than yours or mine, indeed, given that she has almost certainly spent the vast majority of her working life on the public tit then her opinion is worthless.
7. Ianupnorth 7

   27 September 2011 at 11:27 pm

   Ain’t it funny how you think she is stupid and you are right?
8. RobC 8

   27 September 2011 at 11:38 pm

   Just been listening on inthehouse … backpay before Xmas …. FUK YEAH!!!!!

   Bigbruv, suk on that kumara BABY!!!
9. Thane Pullan 9

   28 September 2011 at 1:02 pm

   Bigbruv your ignorance and insensitivity are outstanding.
   These people NOT getting paid to sleep only, these people also have to deal with putting people to bed, showering etc plus nightly interruptions like taking people to the toilet, bed wetting, crying, vomiting in some cases. It’s true that SOME may get a good night sleep, many do not.
   • Ianupnorth 9.1

     28 September 2011 at 3:01 pm

     Classic traits of the lesser spotted, transgendered troll
10. Tiger Mountain 10

    28 September 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Must rank as one of whimpy BBs most tautological splurts. Rodbeater extraordinaire.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS