Talleys in trouble again

47 comments on “Talleys in trouble again ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Billy 1

   29 February 2008 at 11:06 am

   “shot on the job”

   Don’t lie, Tane.
2. Tane 2

   29 February 2008 at 11:12 am

   Billy, the worker was on the premises at the time. The Talleys had previously undertaken a contractual obligation that defined such an event as a work-related injury and received a substantial discount on their ACC bill as a result.

   I’m surprised to see you defending a pack of cowboys who are trying to rip off the taxpayer and shirk their contractual responsibilities.
3. Santi 3

   29 February 2008 at 11:14 am

   You’re adviced to direct your attacks to a better target than Talleys. They do create a lot of employment and generate wealth for this country.

   What would happen to all those workers, you falsely claim to represent, if Talley moves overseas?

   What about taking a deeper look at Mr Owen Glenn’s mates at Sovereign yachts?
4. James Kearney 4

   29 February 2008 at 11:16 am

   What would happen to all the slaves if the slave owner left the plantation?
5. Robinsod 5

   29 February 2008 at 11:30 am

   What would happen to all those workers, you falsely claim to represent, if Talley moves overseas?

   Um Santi you frikkin moron – they deal in meat fish and vege – what are they gonna do? Take all the fish, sheep and veges with them? Honestly bro, you’re a real dumb fuck…
6. Pablo 6

   29 February 2008 at 11:53 am

   Santi they don’t generate any wealth. Their workers do and the Talleys benefit from it.

   Billy, “shot on the job” is a perfectly cromulent short version of what happened. Anybody not aware of the story merely has to read the link. Crap like “you’re lying” is the sort of bullshit Impotent Prick used to lead with. You’re better than that, surely.
7. Steve Pierson 7

   29 February 2008 at 11:55 am

   Santi. They don’t ‘create employment’ nor ‘generate wealth’. The raw materials would be there even if the Talleys weren’t, and the workers would be there to build the buildings and process the materials to produce the finished product workers generate wealth when they process the raw materials into the finished products. The Talleys and their ilk just provide some initial investment and, as you know, control of that original wealth for investment does not always come in a honourable fashion. And for that initial investment, the capitalists get to reap enormous returns forever, even while denying crumbs to their workers.
8. The PC Avenger 8

   29 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

   Santi, if they moved their operations overseas, then other brave Captains Of Industry would take their place.

   You know, MARKET FORCES.
9. higherstandard 9

   29 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

   They don’t generate any wealth their workers do
   What would happen to all the slaves if the slave owners left the plantation

   What bombastic shite you chaps seem very perturbed about something today ….. have you been looking at the polls ?
10. Billy 10

    29 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    I am not defending Talleys. However, it is palpably incorrect to say this guy was “on the job”. You have deliberately expressed it like this to make it sound like someone shot him while he was emptying boxes. In fact, he was cavorting in the car park with a gang associate.
11. Daveo 11

    29 February 2008 at 12:09 pm

    HS- it’s a fairly reasonable explanation of how an economy works. Individual capitalists don’t ‘create’ the jobs and magically ‘generate’ the wealth, they just control capital and decide how existing wealth and resources should be organised for production. If one disappears another can take his place. If they all disappeared we’d work out some other system of economic organisation.
12. Tim 12

    29 February 2008 at 12:16 pm

    Don’t forget that Peter Talley also told a group of Motueka high school students that we should start killing whales and seals again, claiming that seals were a “very destructive animal” (sounds a bit like he was describing himself). He also advocates bottom trawling.

    I guess their excuse for the latest offences will be that it was the workers’ fault for breathing.

    Gee, New Zealand would really be a poorer country without such a wonderful guy.
13. Santi 13

    29 February 2008 at 12:18 pm

    “…the workers would be there to build the buildings and process the materials..”

    Steve Pierson, Professor of English, are you advocating socialism now?
14. Steve Pierson 14

    29 February 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Santi. Yes.
15. Robinsod 15

    29 February 2008 at 12:25 pm

    In fact, he was cavorting in the car park with a gang associate

    Billy you little scumbag. He was on his smoko break, in the company carpark. He was with a gang associate but was not associated with a gang himself and now has to cope with the ongoing health issues that come from being shot. Talley’s signed the ACC deal fair and square – now they want to wriggle out of a legal obligation.

    I’m sure you’ve stood beside some unsavory people in you time – if you’d been shot on one of these occasions would you have deserved it? (I have to admit there’s a part of me that wants to say yes.)

    Like so many righties you seem to lack any respect for human dignity, Billy. I suggest you’ve forfeited your right to be treated with any yourself.
16. Tane 16

    29 February 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Sod, to be fair to Billy he’s probably only heard the National Party’s line, which is what the media ran with uncritically for a long time.

    Following the shooting the Talleys must have called in some of their favours with the Nats, because the party quickly went about smearing the victim as a gang associate and lying about how the incident occured.

    All of this was done to pass a million bucks of liability from the Talleys to the taxpayer and to undermine ACC, and although I’m often critical of National it’s safe to say their behaviour in this case was truly disgraceful.
17. Steve Pierson 17

    29 February 2008 at 12:30 pm

    For anyone wondering why Santi has awarded me the title of ‘Professor of English’, it’s not a sign that he is enamoured with my lyrical prose. It’s because he can do a google search. http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=“Steve Pierson”&meta=cr=countryNZ

    I don’t know why he assumes I’m the Professor and not the surfer or the mountain biker. Maybe I’m all 3. That would be cool. Or maybe my full name is Stephanie.
18. Phil 18

    29 February 2008 at 12:40 pm

    “If one [entrepreneur] disappears another can take his [or her] place. If they all disappeared we’d work out some other system of economic organisation”

    For more information, see; Russia, stalinist-era, purges in.
19. higherstandard 19

    29 February 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Daveo

    Are you advocating we should perhaps move to some form of communism perhaps.

    You chaps are loosing the plot.
20. Phil 20

    29 February 2008 at 12:55 pm

    I think at the bare minimum he’s showing a tendency for Sexism… aren’t female entrepreneurs good enough for you Daveo?
21. Billy 21

    29 February 2008 at 1:15 pm

    I have forfeited my right o be treated with human dignity? ‘sod, I’ve not noticed you extending such a right to many anyway, so no great loss there.

    I thought I had made it clear. I am not defending Talleys. They did a deal, they should be held to it.

    That’s really the end of the Talleys thing. But if an employee of mine was shot in my car park, I would be horrified to think that it would affect my ACC premiums. (Actually, it would be about the sixth most horrifying thing about that set of events). What have I done wrong to be penalised in that situation? Am I supposed to erect a bullet-proof fence?

    This does not mean the shooting victim should not get ACC, the same as any vicitm of a non-workplace accident.

    Oh, and ‘sod, stop being a tosser.
22. Santi 22

    29 February 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Q: Steve Pierson, Professor of English, are you advocating socialism now?
    A: Yes.

    Good to see you dropping the “social democrat” mask and admitting your socialist beliefs.

    That confirms the Professor title. Who else but an academic could hold those antiquated ideas? Haven’t you noticed capitalism rules the world these days?
23. Steve Pierson 23

    29 February 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Santi. I have noticed that capitalism is the dominant economic model, yes, but does that in itself make it a desirable or optimal one?

    Um, a social democrat is a socialist, the clue is in that they both have the word social in them.

    Socialists believe that social and economic structures should be set up so that all members of society have equal rights, all members of society have a say in government, and all members of society share fairly in the fruits of economic production, including the workers who do the work. Capitalism holds that those who hold capital should rule and take the lion’s share of production for themselves.

    That’s why the last two hundred years of democratisation of political institutions (which has given more political power to those outside the ruling capitalist class) has gone hand in hand with legislative reform of economic structures to improve the lot of most members of society by taking away power and control of wealth from the capitalists.

    Crikey, I even sound like a professor.
24. Draco TB 24

    29 February 2008 at 1:56 pm

    They do create a lot of employment and generate wealth for this country.

    This is complete misdirection and bullshit. They don’t create the work or any wealth – the free market demand for the products does.
25. higherstandard 25

    29 February 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Steve perhaps you’d like to expand further – as to what is your personal optimal economic model and whether you truely believe that we have had a government in living memory who has taken any real notice of the public outside of election year.

    I agree with your comment about sharing fairly in the fruits of economic production, where we would be likely to disagree would be as to what was fair in a situation where I was the person taking all the fiscal risk as the employer and funder of a business.

    It might just be me but your post has undertones of extreme distaste for anyone running a private business and making a buck (this might just be me and I’m happy for you to correct me).
26. Steve Pierson 26

    29 February 2008 at 2:14 pm

    higherstandard. Rest assured, I’m not against private enterprise. I don’t have time for a deep explanation of a post-capitalist economic system. But I think it’s fair to say the Talleys wouldn’t be multi-millionaires in it.
27. higherstandard 27

    29 February 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Steve

    I’ll take you at your word – still can’t see why you need to have a go at the Talley’s for having done well out of their business.

    Perhaps we could debate economic systems another time – you can be assured there’ll be no rational debate from any party during election year.
28. Tim 28

    29 February 2008 at 3:04 pm

    I don’t think people are having a go at the Talleys for making money, they are having a go because they are a bunch of neanderthals.

    They treat their workers like dirt and they pillage the ocean.

    I don’t equate making money with doing well, as far as I’m concerned the Talleys have contributed nothing to society and their asinine views on ocean life endanger the fisheries industry and the marine ecosystem as a whole.
29. higherstandard 29

    29 February 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Tim

    You’re letting your dislike of their alledged political views drive your reasoning.

    The Talleys may or may not be ratbags I don’t know them at all.

    They do however seem to be major employers, exporters and pay their taxes how does that equate to contributing nothing to society
30. Tim 30

    29 February 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Higherstandard,

    It’s really not because of their political views, I’d feel the same even if they voted for the Alliance.

    The thing that annoys me the most is their attitude towards the environment. They are only interested in short term profit and not the ongoing sustainability of the ocean ecosystem (see comments advocating bottom trawling, comments about seals being “destructive animals” and “animals are there for me to kill and eat”). That jeopardises not only the ecosystem itself, but the people who rely on it for their livelihood.

    Damage to the oceans from overfishing can be irreversible, as the ecosystem becomes unbalanced when other species take over the displaced species’ niche. Companies like Talleys are exploitative and take far more than they could ever contribute in taxes.

    They may be major employers, but they are also incredibly bad employers, as their comments about female employees and recent health and safety breaches show.
31. Billy 31

    29 February 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Sorry, I am just catching up with this:

    “Perhaps if the Talleys spent more time looking out for their workers’ safety…”

    Just what should a good employer be doing, Tane, to ensure that its employees don’t get shot in its car park? Put aside your hatred of Talleys and tell me what practical steps you would take were you an employer to prevent that heppening.
32. outofbed 32

    29 February 2008 at 4:38 pm

    I think its the poisoning of staff with carbon monoxide which gave them a bad look.
    Funny that
33. Billy 33

    29 February 2008 at 4:42 pm

    So you accept that there’s nothing practical an employer could do to prevent a shooting?
34. Tane 34

    29 February 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Billy, the bit about the shooting was in regards to their appalling labour standards in general – their treatment and denigration of this worker has been appalling. There may have been more they could do to prevent the shooting but that’s not the point I was making.

    Similarly the case of sexual discrimination was not directly a health and safety issue, it was just an example of the Talleys acting like dicks towards their workforce.

    The comment you highlighted about looking out for their workers’ health and safety was in regard to the monoxide poisoning, where they clearly could have done more to provide a safe workplace.

    So what exactly are you trying to prove here?
35. Robinsod 35

    29 February 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Billy – fuck off with that. The real question is what could Talley’s could do about stopping their workers getting poisoned with carbon monoxide? And teh answer is a lot more than they did. The shooting couldn’t be stopped but the issue with that is it would have been covered by ACC if the Talley’s hadn’t contracted out of it in a stupid attempt to save dollars.

    Your misdirection is getting dull mate.
36. Santi 36

    29 February 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Michael Porton, your dislike of employers other than the state is evident.

    What’s next? At this pace you’ll be soon promoting class warfare.

    You’re gone beyond being a joke.
37. Billy 37

    29 February 2008 at 7:07 pm

    ‘sod, fuck off right back at you. You are out of order and beyond tiresome. You are also very short.

    As I have been at pains to point out, I am not defending Talleys. They did a dumb deal. They should be held to it. You are misdirecting if you are pretending that’s what I’m saying.

    But, if you guys think an employer should be responsible because an employee is shot in his car park, you are mental. Which doesn’t mean the employee shouldn’t get ACC, just that the employer’s levy shouldn’t reflect that that is a workplace accident.
38. Barnsley Bill 38

    29 February 2008 at 7:14 pm

    shot on the job/ Actually he was shot whilst sitting in a car in the car park smoking a joint. But why would you want the truth to get in the way of a nice headline.
39. Billy 39

    29 February 2008 at 8:12 pm

    BTW, Tane, I accept that your comment was about the carbon monoxide poisoning. I incorrectly assumed you were talking about the shooting, and I see I was wrong about that.
40. Murray 40

    29 February 2008 at 9:42 pm

    I have a litle inside knowledge of the three cases you mention.
    The Blenheim factory workers didn’t have the balls to complain to their foreman. The sexual discrimination case is a classic example of the feminist agenda that is driving kiwis overseas (including women), and why an employer should be responsible for some fuck who gets shot by some other fucker he shouldn’t have been associated with in the first place defies all common sense. The Talleys were given nothing, they earnt everything they have. You socialist pricks aren’t fit to lick their boots.
41. Murray 41

    29 February 2008 at 10:08 pm

    What do you suggest Rob?
42. r0b 42

    29 February 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Murray, darling, you need to find a better way to relieve your tension.
43. r0b 43

    29 February 2008 at 10:14 pm

    I suggest spending more time in the outdoors Murray. Take up tramping. Swimming in the sea.

    Also, try talking to people that you meet out and about in the real world. Try listening to what they have to say.
44. Tane 44

    29 February 2008 at 11:49 pm

    No worries Billy.
45. Hillary 45

    1 March 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Talleys are a bunch of mongrels. They bulldozed through building a fish-meal plant in Westport right by the Buller Rivermouth, which is a spot that’s used by heaps of people for recreation.

    When they got refused resource consent the first time, they came back with a new slightly improved plan, and got down and dirty with some dirty tricks to get it through some new hand picked Commissioners. They divided the community, all for ‘creating jobs’, which in the end amounted to 2 or 3 in the season.

    And surprise, surprise the fishmeal plant reeked from time to time, despite their assurances it wouldn’t.

    Talley are greedy bastards who have no social responsibility. They contributed nothing to the Westport community in terms of sponsorship etc, just their reeking fish factory and fish-meal plant.
46. thesprout 46

    1 March 2008 at 1:06 pm

    if they’re that cavalier about contaminating their workers, what are their standards with their food products?
47. Noelene 47

    1 March 2008 at 7:30 pm

    The Talleys employed security guards and other staff members to operate a covert surveillance operation against a TVNZ crew who were investigating Talleys’ bottom-trawling fishing.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS