The Standard Week: August 15-22

56 comments on “The Standard Week: August 15-22 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rob 1

   22 August 2008 at 2:10 pm

   Over all a good week for National John will be happy came through the polls well. People like their pragmatic approach to Energy. Welfare also has the support of the Majority.

   A few problems for the Labourites with the flavoured condoms getting a lot of exposure yet still no Herceptin very touchy subject.

   The Sex Ed in school caused some very lively debate and would expect that to come up in the house next week in terms of the Material they are handing out. Labour is obviously trying to desensitise people realign their moral compass but don’t believe its working for them.

   ETS is going to be a problem Greens worried about the cost on the average person. Also Labour wont declare where the money is going so just becomes another Cullen Tax, Labour with a real chance of being defeated not a good footing to start off a Election platform.

   Summary pretty good week for Crosby keys & textor
2. Steve Pierson 2

   22 August 2008 at 2:47 pm

   watch out, jokers and jokesses, the Majority has spoken via that medium of world renown – Rob.
3. MikeE 3

   22 August 2008 at 2:53 pm

   Any comments on the EMPU’s treatment on Shawn Tan from a “workers” perspective?

   I see Idiot/Savant is against it

   http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-not-on.html

   Surely the standard would be against such a disgusting abuse of workers rights by this terrible employer.
4. Rob 4

   22 August 2008 at 3:12 pm

   Steve sorry there was one thing I forgot to add there is still the Saga of Winston hanging around Helen even though she is trying to distance herself from it. It appears to be getting murkier by the day I mean who would not remember or forget whether they paid a $40000 bill or not. It funny how the tune changed when they got caught out do we believe him Yeaa Right !! just another casualty of the EFA rather ironical I think.
5. Rob 5

   22 August 2008 at 3:27 pm

   Just as the Police have decided to charge the man who flicked his Sons ear in Christchurch. Great news the Bradford / Clark bill will be gone by Lunch time. Helen will’try and defend not holding it with the Election but wont make her look very good.
   A referendum will be held on anti-smacking laws after parliamentary officials confirmed a petition calling for the ballot had enough valid signatures.

   The Clerk of the House said an audit of the petition found that 310,000 of the 390,000 signatures were valid.

   This was 25,000 more than needed to trigger a referendum.

   Petition organiser Larry Baldock said the vote should be held in conjunction with the election.

   The Government has ruled this out, saying it would best be held as a postal ballot next year.

   [lprent: Enough. Putting you into moderation. This isn’t a damn news service for talkback or Wishart repeater clones. You’re annoying me and a high proportion of commentators. Take a weeks ban for being a bloody nuisance.

   I have to say that you’ve just had a unique accolade. You don’t fit any of the usual criteria, but I’ll add a section to the Policy about what I’ll do for bloody nuisance.

   This is one time I’ll invite comment about a decision (of course I’ll make my own decision). However I suspect it is going to be quite popular. ]
6. Matthew Pilott 6

   22 August 2008 at 3:31 pm

   “Any comments on the EMPU’s treatment on Shawn Tan from a “workers’ perspective?”

   Depends how long he will need to campaign… Common courtesy would dictate you inform your boss if you’ll need a few months off.

   I’m glad to see, MikeE, that you’ve come so far around you think that an employee should be able to walk off their job and expect to have it waiting for them three months later, without mentioning why to their boss.

   Tell you what – you’ve got an even stronger opinion about it than I – but it’s wonderful to see you recognising the inherent imbalance in power between worker and employer, the necesity for strong employment law protection for workers, and that you’re throwing your full support behind the workers. I look forward to reading further comments from you and your newly-found extreme pro-workers’ rights viewpoint!
7. MikeE 7

   22 August 2008 at 3:42 pm

   “However, he said his supervisor told him he should resign if he was thinking about standing for Act when he first raised the subject.”

   Mathhew…. I believe the above would amount to constructive dismissal in anyones books…

   Also from the EPMU website:

   “Discrimination means that the employer has not treated the worker in the same way as other workers because of the worker’s:

   * Sex
   * Religious beliefs
   * Colour
   * Ethnicity
   * Age
   * Employment status
   * Sexual orientation
   * Marital status
   * Ethical beliefs
   * Race
   * Disability
   * Political opinion
   * Family status
   * Union involvement”

   http://www.epmu.org.nz/discrimination-2/
8. Matthew Pilott 8

   22 August 2008 at 3:56 pm

   MikeE, I was going on the story that said he decided to run without telling his employer, despite the time required to do so.

   If he’d done the same for a holiday would you be here asking the same?

   Good to see you supporting the goals and aims of the EPMU. I look forward to your words of encouragement for workers, and against employers, in all further industrial disputes.

   You could start out with agreeing to the following: “Act are scum as they refuse to deal with Unions in principle.”
9. Billy 9

   22 August 2008 at 4:11 pm

   Lprent, since you asked…

   Banning someone for being annoying? How come you keep letting Rogernome comment?

   [lprent: He doesn’t cause me extra work – see my comment below]
10. Matthew Pilott 10

    22 August 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Lprent – make it a new category, willful ignorance! It’s not just annoying, constant threadjacking does prevent a good debate.

    After all that I’m going to say that this is the one post that I think Rob-style comments would be tolerated (i.e. a bit of a Friday Misc thread, but a few links, accurate comments and less clipping-service style stuff would be the go) but pretty much all of the others have been nuked, none of them vaguely close to the topic. Not exactly constructive.
11. Robinsod 11

    22 August 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Billy – as a special treat you can ban roger for a day next time he comments on our blog…
12. Billy 12

    22 August 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Must you address me as if I am wearing a gimp suit?
13. Robinsod 13

    22 August 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Also from the EPMU website:

    Ha! From the Act party 20 point plan:

    12 Labour. Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers. Business runs better with right staff. Workers and company earn more. Contract protects both parties.

    http://www.act.org.nz/files/pledge/20pointplan.pdf

    Ironically if Tan’s party had their way he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on – I suspect he still doesn’t…

    What a dick.

    edit: Billy – I thought it was my turn to wear the suit!
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    22 August 2008 at 4:26 pm

    When you to are old men will you play chess in the park and bicker like…old men? I hope so.
15. Anita 15

    22 August 2008 at 4:33 pm

    lprent,

    Being a bloody nuisance is very subjective.

    Making shit up, on the other hand, is clear as day – repeatedly using masses of completely incorrect and unreferenced facts, making no attempt to correct factual errors, and showing no interest in moving towards being truthful is easy to assess.

    I know it probably pisses me off a lot more than it does most people, but… 🙂

    I really think that there is a problem with allowing completely untrue pseudo-facts to stand uncorrected in the comments; for a start someone might actually believe them, and they might even attribute them to The Standard, it uses The Standard’s cred to spread bullshit. One off srcew ups are one thing, repeated barefaced inaccuracy is another.

    Thanks for listening 🙂
16. Billy 16

    22 August 2008 at 4:33 pm

    To demonstrate your point, Matthew Pilott:

    ‘sod, just why do you suspect Tan doesn’t have a leg to stand on? Are you in favour of employers sacking employees for their political affiliations?

    If, as Matthew has pretended, it is because they are concerned about his ability to perform both jobs (oh, puhlease) surely natural justice wouldn’t allow a summary suspension.
17. Anita 17

    22 August 2008 at 4:47 pm

    My understanding of employment law precedent (someone please correct me – this is rusty!!) is that there is an acceptance that the actions of an employee may be so inconsistent with the business of the employer that the employee’s behaviour, in and of itself, undermines the employment relationship.

    Say, for example, someone who was a public face of an organisation trying to reduce NZ’s binge drinking spent their off hours encouraging binge drinking by 18-24 year old (by running alcohol centred events for example), that behaviour was picked up by the media, the employee did not change it, and it undermined their ability to speak credibly against binge drinking, and undermined the employer’s position and authority. I believe that in that circumstance the employee’s employment relationship could be altered or terminated because their actions have significantly damaged it.

    Does that sound right/fair?
18. higherstandard 18

    22 August 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Begs the question as to why the EPMU didn’t just say that all their employees are welcome to participate in the democratic process and just leave it at that.

    If Mr Tan gets into parliament he’ll have to leave the EPMU to take up his new job.

    Seems to me the EPMU have played this poorly
19. higherstandard 19

    22 August 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Anita

    Bit of a long bow to suggest participating in the democratic process is inconsistent with the business of the EPMU.
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    22 August 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Apparently it’s in their contract that if they are thinking of a candidacy they must inform their employer.

    Anyone else find it ironic that sokmeone running for Act would willfully violate a work contract, especially in light of ‘sod’s comment above? So much for contracts protecting both parties!

    Billy – why ‘pretended’? Do you think running for parliament is a 7pm – 8:30pm every second Tuesday kind of affair?

    HS – I suppose the EPMU could have allowed him to violate his contract wilfully, but that isn’t something they should have to suffer to ‘play’ a situation well…
21. Matthew Pilott 21

    22 August 2008 at 5:04 pm

    “Bit of a long bow to suggest participating in the democratic process is inconsistent with the business of the EPMU.”

    Bit of a long bow to suggest that running for a party that would happily destroy all ability for the EPMU to function isn’t inconsistent with working for the EPMU…
22. lprent 22

    22 August 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Anita: All of the moderation on here is totally subjective and up to the moderators judgement. For instance one persons troll is another’s “Telling it like it is”, personal attack from one persons viewpoint could be calling them anything whereas another wouldn’t blink an eye, one persons inaccurate facts are another’s “brave attempt to overthrow entrenched orthodoxy” (eg in the climate change debate), etc.

    Generally I’ll (usually) tolerate quite a lot in ambiguous situations because I think the debate is worth having even when I disagree strongly (eg climate change).

    In this case, the deciding factor isn’t even any one of these. It is a combination that requires I have to spend too much time reading comments and debate that is essentially about bugger all.

    Each time someone complains about someone else here, I usually have to track back to the relevant comment to see if there is a good reason (ie the personal attack provisions). Rob has a goodly number of these against him and the level of personal attack in each comment is rising. Almost all of them are about partial (but usually not full) inaccuracies. Rather than having to eventually ban people who are complaining about him, I’ll ban the cause.

    So in this case he was becoming a bloody nuisance – to me. That is what he is getting banned for, and hopefully he’ll modify his behavior when he gets back on.

    Billy: I think that also answers your query about roger as well. Also why I don’t ban d4j or randal for the same reasons. They don’t cause me extra and unnecessary work.
23. Daveo 23

    22 August 2008 at 5:11 pm

    This is an Act party beatup. The union’s rules and collective agreement appear to be very clear, staff who wish to stand for public office must get approval from the national executive.

    Tan broke his contract, he got suspended pending an investigation (possibly on full pay for all we know). There’s no story here.

    It’s also worth pointing out that there’s a major conflict of interest between being a union organiser and an Act party candidate. You can’t credibly spend half your time helping workers to enforce their rights and spend the other half trying to remove those rights.
24. Daveo 24

    22 August 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Mike: Idiot/Savant is a terribly excitable nobody who’s inclined to fly off the rails before all the facts are in. This plays right into the hands of people like Farrar who then use his misinformed outrage to give the right a moral highground they don’t deserve.

    To cut to the chase, I wouldn’t put too much stock in his analysis.
25. Gustavo Trellis 25

    22 August 2008 at 5:19 pm

    You can’t write a contract that negates the law either.
26. higherstandard 26

    22 August 2008 at 5:28 pm

    MP and Daveo

    “You can’t credibly spend half your time helping workers to enforce their rights and spend the other half trying to remove those rights.”

    “Bit of a long bow to suggest that running for a party that would happily destroy all ability for the EPMU to function isn’t inconsistent with working for the EPMU.”

    I didn’t know ACT was running on a ticket of banning Unions ?
27. CMR 27

    22 August 2008 at 5:33 pm

    I have just heard the lawyer for Mr Tan speaking to Larry on Newstalk ZB.

    The lawyer is confident that Mr Tan will proceed to the Employment Court. Good luck to him.

    The behaviour of the union thugs is graphic in this context. How can anybody on this blog simply dismiss it as an “Act party beatup” (Sic!)

    Please note the lawyer does not believe Tan has been “suspended pending an investigation!” (As Daveo states.)

    Mr Pilott optimistically suggests common courtesy ought dictate the circumstances here. Excuse me! The alleged facts from Mr Tan’s lawyer’s perspective admit he DID attempt to give notice but on doing so was summarily tossed from his job! Is this any form of courtesy? Certainly not “common courtesy.”

    While all employers have the right to set the conduct of employees the action by this union is unspeakably grotesque. How do they treat their members? Bloody hell the thought is a scare!
28. higherstandard 28

    22 August 2008 at 5:37 pm

    What’s next – producing propaganda and demanding their members only vote for certain parties ?
29. randal 29

    22 August 2008 at 5:47 pm

    hs…randal will start a morons party and force you to vote for it.
30. Matthew Pilott 30

    22 August 2008 at 5:53 pm

    I didn’t know ACT was running on a ticket of banning Unions ?

    Read my comment again… You were discusing inconsistency and long bows, I elucidated.

    CMR – I guess there’s a reason I don’t rely on Talkback. I might wait until the real facts come out. As I gather, Mr Tan did not inform his employer, as he was contractually obliged to; this was the cause of his suspension. As to what you say, the obligation is to inform your employer before the fact, not after. I wouldn’t take either of the two stories as Holy Writ though, as you’ve chosen to.

    I suppose you have to, though, to muster such righteous indignation.
31. Anita 31

    22 August 2008 at 5:56 pm

    hs,

    Bit of a long bow to suggest participating in the democratic process is inconsistent with the business of the EPMU.

    It doesn’t seem that the issue was Tan’s involvement in a democratic process as a whole. It was an issue of the party he chose to be very publicly aligned with, the extent of his public alignment, and the policies of that party.

    If, for example, a school teacher were to stand for a political party whose sole objective was the legalisation of sex between adults and children, I suspect their promotion of that viewpoint might be seen as undermining the employment relationship between the teacher and the school.

    I am not saying the Tan/ACT/EPMU situation is that clearcut, but nor is it as clearcut as those who’d argue it should have absolutely no effect on this employment. There is black, white and grey in this area of employment law and political participation.
32. Draco TB 32

    22 August 2008 at 6:14 pm

    The lawyer is confident that Mr Tan will proceed to the Employment Court. Good luck to him.

    He’s certainly going to need it. Willfully breaking contract isn’t defensible.

    EDIT: Willfully breaking contract also indicates that he’s not ready for government either.

    Please note the lawyer does not believe Tan has been “suspended pending an investigation!’

    The alleged facts from Mr Tan’s lawyer’s perspective admit he DID attempt to give notice but on doing so was summarily tossed from his job!

    Facts tend to be essential here and so far you haven’t provided any. Neither has the lawyer.

    While all employers have the right to set the conduct of employees the action by this union is unspeakably grotesque.

    In what way?
    He broke contract and was suspended for doing so. Seems perfectly normal to me.
33. Sarah 33

    22 August 2008 at 6:29 pm

    So if anyone provides an opposing view lprent you ban them?

    Sure the presentation of his arguments isn’t fantastic but he’s perfectly entitled to make the points he’s making.

    It’s a discussion of the week in review. He’s commenting on the week in review. But because he makes some points that come from a source you don’t agree with (“Wishart repeater clones”) you ban him. I’m sure if he did the same from a lef-wing source, he would not get the same punishment.

    All you’re doing is banning anyone who has a view opposite to you, so when the time comes to discuss a point of importance, no one will disagree with you because there simply isn’t anyone left to argue back.

    That’s not a democracy. It’s a joke.

    [lprent: This blog isn’t a democracy – it is private property – I pay for it. The reason Rob got a ban was because he was chewing too much of my valuable time. Do you think that I should waste my time unproductively? If he added something to the site it wouldn’t have been a problem. But most of the comments directed towards Rob’s comments was about how inaccurate his information was. ]
34. CMR 34

    22 August 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Draco: Have you read the contract? I have read many in my time and while there are a series of customary provisions it is not essential that all employment contracts are identical. If you have not actually read the contract which pertainsd to Mr Tan’s employment then you are rather presumptuous are you not?

    Breach of contract is defensible on numerous grounds: Frustration: Common Mistake: Vis Major: etc…
35. Bill 35

    22 August 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Interesting reading through the comments relating to Shawn Tan. So he’s suspended on full pay because he apparently did not declare a conflict of interest. That’s how it’s reading to me.

    But the question being begged, which no-one has touched on is, I would have thought, blindingly obvious.

    How many more ‘Shawn Tans’ are there within the union movement and what does that say about the state of NZ’s union movement?

    Once upon a time unionists were unionists. It would have been unthinkable that a union organiser could hold views in line with those of the Act Party.

    Has unionism degenerated to become a vehicle for careerists and opportunists? How can a person work in a workers organisation and be so removed from working class roots?

    If Shawn Tan has been discriminated against (and I very much doubt he has been) then he will get compensation.

    But as I have said, I really do not think that is the pertinent point here. What the hell was he doing working for a union in the first place!?
36. vto 36

    22 August 2008 at 7:22 pm

    As someone else said ‘imagine if the employer had been BusinessNZ or some such and Tan had wanted to stand for labour or the greens’. The shrieking would be heard across the land.

    interesting interesting. Whatcha gonna do Mr Little?

    Also, are the greens in fact doing a Lockwood Smith and swallowing a dead rat over the ETS?

    interesting interesting. Where are those principles so loudly stated over the tapergate thing?
37. higherstandard 37

    22 August 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Anita I find your example nauseating
38. Lew 38

    23 August 2008 at 12:19 am

    Interesting situation.

    My initial position was that of Idiot/Savant – that he should get his job back. However the suspension was not that he was standing for the ACT party – it’s that he breached contract by standing for office without seeking approval first; and indeed, having been informed he should seek approval, and then having failed to do so.

    All that said – this seems to me a very minor breach. `Breach of contract’ is a symbolic term which anyone who believes in the rule of law will decry, absent additional information. However as others have noted there are defences for some breaches of contract, and in some cases it’s justifiable.

    In this situation it seems the EPMU has been mean-spirited; but it’s important to remember that the game’s not up yet. Pending the disciplinary process, they can yet show themselves to be bigger than the political scandal by standing up for this worker’s rights, and backing to the hilt his right to stand for office for whatever party he sees fit as long as it doesn’t prevent him doing his job. I’ll watch with interest.

    I also have some sympathy for Bill’s point: what the hell was someone with ACT sympathies doing working for the EPMU in the first place? This rests upon the presumption that ACT is inherently opposed to the union movement, and instinctively I think it is. Anita’s point (distasteful but illustrative example aside) is also relevant: it may be that the EPMU considers this a position which undermines his credibility as an EPMU staffer.

    What’s clear from all this is how political the union movement is – in a micro sense, as well as a macro sense.

    L
39. higherstandard 39

    23 August 2008 at 7:46 am

    Not another moron’s party Randal surely we already have enough in NZ.
40. Anita 40

    23 August 2008 at 8:37 am

    hs,

    Anita I find your example nauseating

    Sorry 🙁

    I was trying to find an utterly totally clear example, and that was the best I could come up with. ’tis clear though :-/
41. Draco TB 41

    23 August 2008 at 9:34 am

    As it stands the situation is:

    Tan was suspended for breach of contract. Not fired or dismissed but suspended. A valid action by the employer where a potential conflict of interest arises from the breach in contract.

    Human rights would be an issue if he had been fired immediately which he wasn’t. He announced several months ago that he was a member of ACT and kept his job and, by all appearances so far, was discriminated against in any way. Further, the law takes into account conflicts of interest so, if a conflict of interest is proved which is likely considering that the two political institutions involved are ideologically opposed, there would be no human rights issue if the EPMU do dismiss him.

    Breach of contract is defensible on numerous grounds:

    Yeah, agreed. This isn’t one of them though due to the potential for a conflict of interest.

    What’s clear from all this is how political the union movement is – in a micro sense, as well as a macro sense.

    The union movement has always been political. They’ve always striven to change the way society operates. Labour came about as their political arm when they finally realised that just protesting wasn’t working and that they needed someone on the inside of parliament.
42. dave 42

    23 August 2008 at 10:37 am

    This is not just about breach of contract, it is about human rights. If an employer was to breach the an employees human rights by telling him he should resign if he stood for a certain political party, because of the political party stood for, while telling him not to bother asking for permission as he wont get it – then a persons human rights was breached before a contract was breached.

    And Anita, that was a pretty bad example. Do try harder.
43. higherstandard 43

    23 August 2008 at 10:38 am

    No problem Anita, I just thought the comparison was overly ugly.

    What’s your take on why ACT’s policies are such an anathema to the EPMU that they feel they have to go down this track.

    I find the whole thing completely topsy turvy in that a supposed protector of employees rights is acting against what they’re supposed to promote, while people supporting the right for individual contracts are taking the opposite view.
44. Anita 44

    23 August 2008 at 10:57 am

    hs,

    What’s your take on why ACT’s policies are such an anathema to the EPMU

    I don’t have a detailed view on this, and am unlikely to gain on while stuck on the end of a slooooow modem link. But I can guess wildly 🙂

    ACT’s pledgecard says:

    Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers

    I can’t find any more detail on what they mean by this (either their website has a blank page in their policies section or modem speed is causing me grief), but I would guess that it is an even more radical variant of National’s 90-days free fire trial period as well as some alterations to the ERA to make firing easier.

    The EPMU has come out strongly against National’s proposal, and led the campaign against Mapp’s earlier attempt. So we’re talking about someone working for the EPMU and campaigning for a stronger version of something the EPMU is campaigning against.

    Much like a ramped up version of my (hopefully less ugly) binge drinking example.
45. higherstandard 45

    23 August 2008 at 11:08 am

    With my tongue firmly in my cheek can you I say that I would have thought that the EPMU should be all for making it easier to trial new workers and can only shy away from the replacement of poor performers if the think employers will abuse the right to replace poor performance which is after all already a reason for replacing staff.

    I’m getting the distinct feeling that the EPMU is one of the weaker unions in NZ and is far too heavily involved in the affairs of the Labour party and vice versa – they should take a leaf out of some of the other prominent union’s books and concentrate more on working for their members and less on playing politics.
46. Daveo 46

    23 August 2008 at 11:47 am

    Lew. There’s a lot of information swirling around the movement at the moment that isn’t in the media. Be careful not to form your opinions on the basis of sensationalist media stories or the excitable moral outrage of Idiot/Savant.

    Why was he in there in the first place? I don’t know Shawn personally but the story goes that as recently as two months ago he was a leading green party activist and had previously been employed by two other unions. Mu understanding is he’s very immature and was easily bought off with an offer of a place on the act party list. This story is just a little exercise in self-promotion on Tan’s part.

    Higherstandard. I’m an EPMU member and they’re at the forefront of the new zealand union movement both politically and industrially. Think four weeks annual leave campaign, fair share 5% in 05, the campaign against the 90 day bill, stopping the air nz engineering jobs going overseas. I’d be interested to hear if you have any basis for that comment other than right wing blog talking points.
47. Anita 47

    23 August 2008 at 12:14 pm

    hs,

    With my tongue firmly in my cheek can you I say that I would have thought that the EPMU should be all for making it easier to trial new workers

    With my tongue equally firmly in my cheeck can I say I think you should join the EPMU and advocate for a change in policy? 🙂

    But back to reality for a moment… given what the EPMU is campaigning for, and what ACT is campaigning for, what do you think of the situation around Tan?
48. Draco TB 48

    23 August 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Eeep :0

    …by all appearances so far, was discriminated against in any way.

    That’s supposed to say wasn’t
49. higherstandard 49

    23 August 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Anita

    On the face of it my thoughts are that Tan sounds a bit odd and that the EPMU should just have kept their traps shut.
50. bill brown 50

    23 August 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Lynne, wrt Rob,

    It’s only the thread jacking that I find to be a pain in the arse, if his comments are on topic then so be it – if they’re inaccurate they’re usually easy to refute – bit of easy meat to help break up the day.

    Oh, and I’ll miss his naked yearning for JK – it always warms my heart.
51. higherstandard 51

    23 August 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Daveo

    Just my opinion but I think Laila Harre, Deborah Powell etc do a better job.

    The EPMU just seems too spend much time trumpeting Labour good National bad all the time.
52. Daveo 52

    23 August 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Laila Harre does good work, Deborah Powell is a crook who runs her union like a business and has been convicted of rigging a union election ballot. Shows how much you know about the trade union movement ‘higherstandard’.

    Mate you seem like a good sort, so I’d advise you to steer clear of the crap you hear on Kiwiblog and come to debates like this armed with facts before slagging off my union.
53. Daveo 53

    23 August 2008 at 1:21 pm

    “the EPMU should just have kept their traps shut.”

    They did – it was Tan who went squealing to the media to beat this minor employment disagreement into a story.

    From my experience as a union delegate going back twenty years he’s almost certain to get the sack now, but then I suspect that’s what he wanted all along.
54. randal 54

    23 August 2008 at 7:33 pm

    if he is anything like wodney he will be squealing like a weasel and acting like a toad…that is the act style my friend…sad but true!

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: Reflections on Shawn Tan: posted on 23 August 2008 at 8:14 pm
2. Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Checking the theme is working: posted on 24 August 2008 at 8:40 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS