Whale discovers that joining the union pays

Written By: - Date published: 10:38 am, February 28th, 2012 - 105 comments
Categories: Unions, wages - Tags: , ,

Cameron Slater reckons he’s cracked it; wages are growing after all. What’s his proof? A graph from the EPMU that shows wages have risen 17% and inflation only 15.7%. Wages are up, no crisis! But the man-boy genius needs to check his info better. Turns out that’s the average payrise for EPMU members since 2007. For all workers, the average pay rise was just 13% between 2007 and 2011 according to the NZ Income Survey.

Looks like joining the union pays. The average payrise for union workers is over a third larger than for non-union workers. Not a bad pay back for a dollar a day.

And, hey, check that out! Union fees increasing below inflation. So much for the myth of fat-cat union bosses.

Now you can see why the bosses and National are so desperate to break the unions this term. Without them, it would be far easier to drive down wages.

105 comments on “Whale discovers that joining the union pays ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. KJT 1
    28 February 2012 at 11:07 am

    What Slater also conveniently forgets to mention is that pay rises for most workers in that period were less than 2% /year. Zero for non union and about 2% for union members.

    The average rise is pushed up by 17% annual rises for those in the really high pay jobs. 17% last year.
    For those in a really powerful union like the NZ institute of Directors, chartered accountants or the Members of Parliament.

    At the same time basic food prices, what lower earners spend the bulk of their earning on, have gone up 25% in the last 18 months.

    • Blighty 1.1
      28 February 2012 at 11:16 am

      That average 17% is for EPMU members. Not many managers in that lot. Some high paid engineers. Lot of low paid factory workers.

    • Michael 1.2
      28 February 2012 at 7:58 pm

      Sorry, I’m going to ruin the party line on this using maths that an 11 year old knows about. If you go back to your days at intermediate school and remember what your maths teacher told you about averages. And recall how they said there is more than one type of average.

      You have a “mean” average – which you add all in the series together and then divide by the count of items in the series.
      You have a “mode” average – that is the most common number in the series. (In this context, this would be the minimum wage)
      And you have the “median” average – the one that is smack bang in the middle. 50% of the series is higher than that number, 50% lower of that series is less than that number. Doesn’t matter if you increase the figures at the top of the series, the median doesn’t move.

      (I’m sure some statistics major will say there is a hundred more types of average, but for the purposes of this comment I’m just sticking with the three I got taught at intermediate.)

      Guess what “average” the average wage in NZ is? Yip – MEDIAN. So it doesn’t matter what the top are getting it, bigger increases there don’t change the average.

      [lprent: You are an incompetent about statistics. When the stats department want to talk about median incomes then they are stated as median. Averages are averages. There is a precise mathematical meaning to both measures and they are not the same. It rather suggests that you didn’t pay much attention at intermediate school to get quite so screwed up about something so basic.

      Anyway, since you appear to be incompetent at figuring out where to find the relevant data, then try the stats department tables. Took me a couple of minutes to find the last ones… Notice the clear separation of median and average incomes and the quite different values for each.

      So far you have impressed me as being one of the more ignorant blowhards on site recently. I even think Cam would make less of a maths hash than you… And I rate his maths as pretty bad. ]

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.1
        28 February 2012 at 8:09 pm

        You’re an uneducated fuck head for thinking the “mode” and the “median” are “types of averages”. There’s a very simple definition of an average, failed shit for brains, it is:

        (n1+n2+n3+n4+…+nx) / x

        Geddit? Can we please be supplied with some better trolls? PLease please please?

        • Michael 1.2.1.1
          28 February 2012 at 8:18 pm

          Who’s the shitbrain? Here’s a simple explanation of ‘averages’ from Wikipedia:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

          In mathematics, an average, or measure of central tendency,[1] of a data set is a measure of the “middle” value of the data set.

          In the most common case, the data set is a list of numbers. The average of a list of numbers is a single number intended to typify the numbers in the list. If all the numbers in the list are the same, then this number should be used. If the numbers are not the same, the average is calculated by combining the numbers from the list in a specific way and computing a single number as being the average of the list.

          Many different descriptive statistics can be chosen as a measure of the central tendency of the data items. These include the arithmetic mean, the median, and the mode. Other statistics, such as the standard deviation and the range, are called measures of spread and describe how spread out the data is.

          The most common statistic is the arithmetic mean, but depending on the nature of the data other types of central tendency may be more appropriate. For example, the median is used most often when the distribution of the values is skewed with a small number of very high values, as seen with house prices or incomes. (Emphasis mine.)

            • Michael 1.2.1.1.1.1
              28 February 2012 at 9:53 pm

              Put simply – Increasing the amounts at the top of a range doesn’t change a median average, only a mean average. And the average wage is a median, not a mean.

              If you still can’t work out the implication, then I’ll spell it out – no matter how you spin it, the truth is the EMPU is performing worse than the market in obtaining wage increases.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                28 February 2012 at 10:06 pm

                Yeah, that’s why employers like unions so much. You’re an idiot, Michael.

              • McFlock …
                28 February 2012 at 10:11 pm

                Depends on the industry bundle. If you look at engineery-type sectors and exclude hospo, retail etc, the average is less than 17% (gotta love those minimum wage increases).

              • KJT …
                29 February 2012 at 8:34 am

                No such thing as a median average.

                If it is a median it is NOT an average. Which is what the article you linked to says as well, clearly!

                Failed 4th form stats.

                Fuckwit!

                • Yeah /Yeah …
                  29 February 2012 at 1:25 pm

                  Wow! You bunch are a breed unto your fucking selves aren’t you. It doesn’t matter what anyone asks on here, if it doesn’t match with your way of thinking, everyone else is a fuckwit, idiot, retard etc. How to make friends and influence people.

                  A bunch of no hope whingers who think any of their thoughts actually make a small iota piece of fucking diffrence.

                  Just like the failed “Save our Ports”, you have little or no following. No one takes you seriously because all you do is spurt out abuse after abusive comment against anyone who thinks differently. You’re like happy clappy preachers who get all up in your face and aggresive.

                  That would be so good to watch actually. A reality TV show of you lot trying to convince the general populace of your whackhead ideas, conspiracy theories, and how to fix everyone’s issues by making us all equal.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    29 February 2012 at 1:36 pm

                    Thanks for turning up today and showing us your considerable acting abilities. We enjoyed your read through of the role of RWNJ troll, but sadly you haven’t made it through the auditions, as the existing cast members are doing it marginally better. You are welcome to try again in the future, but don’t call us, we’ll call you.

                    • Yeah /Yeah …
                      29 February 2012 at 2:12 pm

                      It’s a pleasure. Glad I could lighten the mood in here.

                      I do however require clarity on Rule 102.3-A-1.3 of your TheStandard rule book.

                      If a person disagrees with your view, and you aren’t able to swing them to your side via the use of undialuted diatribe, then you may presume they are Trolls and are permitted to call them out.

                      [lprent: Nope. The rule is to eventually “agree to disagree” (which is where well more than 90% of discussions wind up). Because after seeing the same round robin on some topics you’ll find a very bored sysop (who seldom agrees with anyone) exercising a luser option on someone. Usually the person who claims that they have won/owned/pwned which I detest because of the really stupid arguments that happen afterwards. Have a read of the policy.

                      But I think that your critic is right. You look like just another dickhead troll with so much understanding of anything that you make a concrete block look intelligent. Just my opinion you understand… I also don’t number rules. They are loose because it causes trolls so much of a problem when they are deprived of their primary school rulesets and have to figure out risks….

                      But coincidently, making rhetorical questions about site policies tends to attract my attention as well. It tends to indicate someone who will probably need some education. If in nothing else an education in why you don’t waste moderators time. But I do so like inflicting the educative process. ]

                    • McFlock …
                      29 February 2012 at 2:21 pm

                      First “NAIRU”, then “median average”, now “Rule 102.3-A-1.3 of your TheStandard rule book”.
                      Why do RWNJs insist on referring to shit that doesn’t exist?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      29 February 2012 at 2:27 pm

                      Well, it’s not quite that cut and dried, Yeah Yeah. Michael is a troll, he was dribbling on about how he was teaching us all a lesson here at The Standard over at Whale’s cesspit at the same time he was posting here. You’re not, as far as I can tell, but you did generalise about posters here, which is one of the signs.
                       
                      There are all sorts of opinions presented here, from the revolutionary left, the greens and Labour through to liberal, conservative, libertarian and Burt. Opinions are valued, but they will be challenged if they sound bogus. So, if you make sweeping statements, expect to be rigorously tested on them and be prepared to fight your corner. As you can see from the many righties that regularly post here, there is no problem at all with their being here and they obviously enjoy the debates. Hope to see you join in.

          • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.2
            28 February 2012 at 8:27 pm

            Hey dickwad those are known as “types of central tendency” according to the article you just linked to, they are not referred to as “averages”. So you’re a failure at English and debating as well as statistics, apparently.

            Fuck off loser.

            • statstudent 1.2.1.1.2.1
              29 February 2012 at 8:16 am

              Actually Michael is 100% correct in his comments

              There are several different definitions of “average” in statistics – it usually denotes the arithmetic mean, but it can also denote the median, the mode, the geometric mean, and weighted means, among other things.

              The fact that the ‘average’ is a somewhat vague term that covers many different measures of central tendency is a common observation in statistics – I suggest that you refer to web-based statistics resources posted by staff at these and other universities:

              Portsmouth University
              Stanford University
              Berkeley University
              University of North Carolina

  2. mickysavage 2
    28 February 2012 at 11:29 am

    Hehe.

    Absolutely priceless! This has made my day …

  3. indiana 3
    28 February 2012 at 11:38 am

    Would the number of EPMU members also affect the average wage increase figure? Has EPMU membership fallen or risen?

  4. Te Reo Putake 4
    28 February 2012 at 11:43 am

    Just had a quick flick through the Stats NZ records and it appears that non union waged workers got around 9-10% over the same period, so that is a significant gap between union delivery of rises and the passive receipt of whatever crumbs the boss throws for the rest.
     
    Interestingly, a lot of the non union rises will have been pass ons from the union negotiated rises anyway, because NZ employers like to encourage a bludger culture among their non union staff. I also expect that rises in the adult minimum wage account for a fair proportion of the 9-10%, as well. That’s not a result of individuals bargaining or bosses being generous, just the effect of the law lifting the working poor a few cents up every couple of years.
     
    Of course, the really funny thing is that Cameron is commenting on wages (and getting it wrong) without having had a job himself for nearly a decade, the compo trough sucking, work shy loser that he is.

  5. McFlock 5
    28 February 2012 at 11:43 am

    Hoist by his own fucktardiness?

  6. Tom Gould 6
    28 February 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Maybe ‘blubber boy’ can tell us how much the sickness benefits has gone up over the period, assuming he is still on the benefit, or is he now earning his way? If so, will he pay it back, like Bennett has? Or did she forget to? What is it with Tories and hypocrisy?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1
      28 February 2012 at 12:32 pm

      Hes back into debt collecting in South Auckland.
      The fight to the finish with Fidelity Insurance seems to have fizzled out

    • Simon Poole 6.2
      28 February 2012 at 12:41 pm

      I’m not a fan of Slater at all, but you could do your cause a lot better by playing the ball, not the man.

      None of us are in a position to know his exact personal circumstances, and it’s pretty low to insinuate that he shouldn’t be on the sickness benefit. Yes, even if he might make inflammatory remarks about beneficiaries himself.

      • ropata 6.2.1
        28 February 2012 at 12:49 pm

        Yes poor Whale, his debilitating delusions of grandeur stop him from working for a living.

        Instead he is forced to spend his days publishing a stream of vitriol and violating name suppression orders.

      • Jackal 6.2.2
        28 February 2012 at 12:55 pm

        You can’t honestly expect people to only play the ball when all Slater does is undertake personal attacks by making shit up. Why anybody would believe anything that dribbles out of the blubbery one is beyond me.

        • Ianupnorth 6.2.2.1
          28 February 2012 at 1:03 pm

          Agree; Simon, I did think ‘Here we go again’, but Blubber Boy is atrocious with his vitriol towards anyone who does not share his belief system – he’s oily enough for it not to stick.

      • Te Reo Putake 6.2.3
        28 February 2012 at 12:57 pm

        I don’t know whether he is still on the sickness benefit, but obviously he is capable of working fulltime, because that is what he does on his blog. It’s hypocritical to bene bash, as he does, while using the state and, previously, insurance compo payments, to fund his lifestyle. It’s not ‘playing the man’ to point that out, Simon, it’s identifying his fundamental lack of credibility on any issues to do with employment or welfare.
         
        The man’s bludging is only tolerated by the Government because he is a tool they use to meet their political ends. You don’t think for a moment a lefty could get away with working fulltime on an income generating blogsite, while pulling down the dole, do you? Paula Bennett would be releasing the details of Slater’s life toot suite, if it wasn’t for his political usefulness.

        • NickS 6.2.3.1
          28 February 2012 at 4:39 pm

          …

          Quit it with the fucking ablism.

          Why? Because the only info we have is Cameron’s blog, we don’t see anything about his home life, state of mind or various other indicators that are used for scoring depression symptoms. Thus, it’s fucking stupid to claim that his blogging = able to return to work, especially when Cameron can’t think his way out of a thin paper bag without these. For all we know, he could have moderate-severe depression and barely functions outside of blogging, in which he has a strong emotional attachment to. Or like many with depression is stuck with the “can’ts” and hasn’t the tool set to think around them.

          As for WINZ, they’ve probably already told him to start looking for work or training as a condition of receiving his sickness benefit, but Cameron being the piece of shit he is, has probably sorted out a deal under the table to fulfil that particular obligation. And WINZ is far too overworked and understaffed to check up on every little detail. Rather some political interference.

          • Te Reo Putake 6.2.3.1.1
            28 February 2012 at 4:56 pm

            I don’t see ‘ablism’ in my comment, Nick.
             
            The fact is that his blog is fulltime, paid work. I don’t think he should be forced to get another job, just to acknowledge that he already has one. Not to mention the freebies, the backhanders and the freelance bullying on behalf of money lenders, of course.
             
             

          • QoT 6.2.3.1.2
            28 February 2012 at 7:39 pm

            I’m with you, Nick. I find it frankly a bit appalling how everyone wants to cry about “well he called me nasty names first!” and simultaneously say things like “well everything he says is rubbish.” Because if so, we should be able to call him on that without “lol and he is fat and also stupid and depression is totally not serious” – oh, and look, we’re commenting on a thread that manages to do exactly that. Just facts, no “playing the man”.

            But then I may still be holding a grudge from that time I actually had to argue here that referring to something as “schizophrenic” to mean “erratic” was ableist. Me and my silly ideas that words have meaning …

            • NickS 6.2.3.1.2.1
              28 February 2012 at 7:46 pm

              +1

              …And me too tired /blob

            • felix 6.2.3.1.2.2
              29 February 2012 at 1:11 am

              +1 QoT & Nick, there’s no legit reason for this approach.

              Slater is so many shades of fuckwit it’s just lazy to pick on his mental health and job status.

        • Drongo 6.2.3.2
          28 February 2012 at 5:58 pm

          Don’t think he’s on a benefit any longer, but how the hell he could’ve been entitled to one is mind-boggling. Probably got some cheating nasty under-hand lawyer mate to help him hide his income. Maybe the social welfare people should go have a dig around at what Mr Holier than Thou’s been up to.

          • NickS 6.2.3.2.1
            28 February 2012 at 6:57 pm

            Well if he’s off it, I’ll put a game on steam down (US$50) as a bet that he’s had to make repayments to WINZ due to being overpaid. Not that he’d ever admit to fraud mind you.

            And the system’s designed not to throw up massive hoops, as such obstructions can cause major negative outcomes for sickness beneficiaries…

      • Uturn 6.2.4
        28 February 2012 at 1:03 pm

        It’s precisely because he makes not just inflammatory, but down-right hateful, comments about beneficiaries that he deserves all he gets. Let those who will stick to reason and manners do so, and those who wish to strike back, strike back.

        The Left isn’t comprised of monks and nuns, Poole. Do you expect us to sit around nodding like drunken sheep as the Right abuse and destroy our people; scared to utter a word lest we are targetted with derision, condescension or someone somewhere thinks we’re rude or uncouth?

        Do you expect us all to condone their use of violence under some bastardised understanding of “free speech” while condemning our own self defence? Their comes a point where to not use violence – verbal or not – is not just an act of cowardice, but a collaboration against your own people. What is rude if it means a person gets to eat their next meal, or their job is saved or a child sees a doctor; or even if someone reads the slap-back and is encouraged that someone spoke up for them, making and otherwise dark day, brighter?

        There are unofficial lines and official lines. Let the politicians, who have the luxury, comfort and distance from the coalface, keep it clean. It’s good discipline for them. But those on the front line are in a far more immediate struggle and should make no apologies, exercise restraint or be condemned when they protect their self repect – or their last dollar – from the rich man who has come to steal it.

        • Simon Poole 6.2.4.1
          28 February 2012 at 1:20 pm

          You’re right, forget I said anything. The Standard can just continue its slide towards being the Kiwiblog of the Left and just another fucking rag that people can come and have an anonymous whinge on about their choice of boogey man.

          Or, you could actually read Eddies post and engage with the fact that Slater’s argument is full of holes. Hauling Slater over the coals for being on the sickness benefit or whatever does absolutely nothing to help the underpriveleged find their next meal or whatever you might claim. But hey, feel free to keep slapping yourself on the back for that bang-up job you’re doing.

          (In advance, I’d like to thank Lynn for the time off.)

          [lprent: Why? You resisted doing either of the two dumbarse things that I usually have to ban for when people attack the site or what authors post.

          You didn’t claim that The Standard had an opinion. And you attacked the content of Eddie’s post rather than Eddie himself.

          If it was your intent to get me to ban you, then perhaps you should reread the policy again and do a better job of making a monumental dick of yourself, instead of wasting my limited moderation time. ]

          • Uturn 6.2.4.1.1
            28 February 2012 at 1:45 pm

            You read, but your comprehension is low.

            “Let those who will stick to reason and manners do so, and those who wish to strike back, strike back.”

            That’s what I said. So go ahead, nice boy, explain the holes in Slater’s argument. Or are you just whinging?

            You also can’t register context. Do you know what paragraphs are? My last three have nothing to do with Slater personally; it addresses your implication that we should all “hate the game but not the player”. Now wipe your weepy right-wing victim troll eyes and take your own advice.

            If you like polite, go read Frog blog. If you want strict academic lines, read Red Alert. Why would come on here telling us to pipe down?

            • Simon Poole 6.2.4.1.1.1
              28 February 2012 at 2:41 pm

              1) Eddie has nicely poked holes in Slaters argument. (Lynn: I wasn’t disagreeing with the post at all, merely pointing out that comments like Tom Gould’s actually detract, rather than add, anything to the debate). I don’t really feel the need to add any more to it.

              2) My comprehension is fine. You think that calling Slater’s personal circumstances into question on a blog is fighting on the “front line” of the “war” or whatever the hell you want to call it. Actually, it’s just arguing on a blog. There is bugger all you can do on a blogsites comments that will have any effect on the real world.

              I do enjoy the bit where you dismiss me as a right-wing-troll-boy, however. That’s really sticking it to the man!

              [lprent: I wasn’t disagreeing with the post at all….

              I was wondering why in the hell you were asking me if you’d you’d get a ‘holiday’. I try to notice and respond to comments that refer to me directly or which refer directly or indirectly to the operation of the site. I also make a policy of being moderately nasty if I consider that people are taking advantage of that attention by calling for my attention without reasonable cause. The reasons for that are obvious.

              Tom Gould’s comment was within the bounds of “robust debate”. There was a point in it and it didn’t walk over the edge. Same as yours did not. ]

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 February 2012 at 2:51 pm

                Oh good for a second I thought that you were going to become Slater’s personal honour defender. Gawd knows he needs you.

                You think that calling Slater’s personal circumstances into question on a blog is fighting on the “front line” of the “war” or whatever the hell you want to call it. Actually, it’s just arguing on a blog. There is bugger all you can do on a blogsites comments that will have any effect on the real world.

                Which is why it’s curious you keep bringing it up.

                • Simon Poole …
                  28 February 2012 at 2:56 pm

                  I really don’t have time for this, but somehow I keep getting dragged back…

                  CV, if you could point out where I keep bringing it (it?) up, I’d be much obliged.

                  Until then, I’ve got a bus to catch.

                  • Uturn …
                    28 February 2012 at 3:20 pm

                    Your comprehension is totally lacking. The sentiment behind the comments on a blog are a reflection of the front line, not the front line itself. But you knew that. If blogs are so unsatisfying for you and completely ineffectual, why did you come here in the first place. You don’t even comprehend your own words. Like the wheels on your imaginary troll bus, you go round and round and round…

                    • Simon Poole …
                      28 February 2012 at 3:34 pm

                      Sure, the comments are a reflection of the front line, and Tom Goulds comment makes him (and by default, The Standard’s entire comments section) sound like a vitriolic tool. That particular domain used to be the exclusive preserve of Slater et al, but apparently you’re enjoying hanging out on the ‘front line’ so I’ll leave you to it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 February 2012 at 3:45 pm

                      apparently you’re enjoying hanging out on the ‘front line’ so I’ll leave you to it.

                      Thank bloody goodness, cya

                  • Kevin Welsh …
                    28 February 2012 at 3:46 pm

                    Poor baby.

                    Why don’t you take your ball and fuck-off home if it’s so unsatisfying for you?

        • NickS 6.2.4.2
          28 February 2012 at 4:44 pm

          It’s precisely because he makes not just inflammatory, but down-right hateful, comments about beneficiaries that he deserves all he gets. Let those who will stick to reason and manners do so, and those who wish to strike back, strike back.

          By all means, cluebat his butt, however, fuck off with the ablism, as it’s blighted bigoted bullshit that perpetuates negative stereotypes about those of us dealing with depression as well as other disabilities who find ourselves stuck on the sickness or invalids benefit. And Cameron provides plenty more malicious, moronic material to fire back at him…

          • ropata 6.2.4.2.1
            29 February 2012 at 12:16 am

            NickS, people aren’t bagging Slater because he is on a benefit/depressed/whatever they are bagging him because he’s an asshole.

        • Zola 6.2.4.3
          28 February 2012 at 8:48 pm

          + 1

  7. Jester 7
    28 February 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Ummm.. Eddie

    Dec 2006 Average Hourly was $22.42
    Dec 2011 Average Hourly was $26.56

    • NickS 7.1
      28 February 2012 at 4:52 pm

      More cherry picking /rolls eyes

      Here’s an idea, show us a breakdown of wage band increases over that same time period, instead of the overall average which is heavily skewed by very high CEO etc wages, thus creating a false impression of wage levels.

      • Jester 7.1.1
        28 February 2012 at 5:19 pm

        I am sure you can manage to do your own breakdown Nick. Its good therapy btw.

        Im pretty sure that Eddie quoted above “For all workers, the average pay rise was just 13% between 2007 and 2011 according to the NZ Income Survey”

        Which it clearly isn’t.

        Unless of course you are telling me that Eddie skewed the control data to fit the picture he wished to paint? And why would he? That would be like comparing apples with oranges and hardly scientifically controlled comparison then is it.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          28 February 2012 at 6:24 pm

          Um, Jester – if Eddie was using the same period as EPMU, i.e. “since 2007”, why are you taking the start point as Q4 2006? Doesn’t “since” imply a start point of Q4 2007? Which would give an hourly rate of something like $23.40?  

          • NickS 7.1.1.1.1
            28 February 2012 at 6:39 pm

            This.

            Also the recession started biting in 07, which is why the EPMU used that as the starting point. They’re also using solely union members pay increases, not teh whole average. Which is going to be somewhat different…

          • Jester 7.1.1.1.2
            28 February 2012 at 7:39 pm

            McFlock. I like to compare data from the same timeframe as I believe it gives a more accurate result. 5 years back from Q4 2011 is Q4 2006 I believe.

            • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1.1.2.1
              28 February 2012 at 7:46 pm

              Surely Q1, 2007 is the start point if the end point is Q4, 2011?

              • Jester …
                28 February 2012 at 8:07 pm

                Wrong.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  28 February 2012 at 8:19 pm

                  Really? No wonder you can’t get this stuff right, Jester.

                  • Jester …
                    28 February 2012 at 8:34 pm

                    Come on Te Reo. If the last NZ Statistics report was Q4 December 2011 and there are 4 report per year it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to go back 20 report periods or quarters.(Q)

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 February 2012 at 8:54 pm

                      Meh. The problem is that you are defining the period at what you perceive to be its widest possible coverage, when the EPMU define it as four years. 16 quarters. A useful second option would be to compare the CPI figure they use and see how many years that covers and then match the two. If you can be bothered.
                       
                      And just cause I’m in a good mood, what do reckon the date was on the first day of this century?

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.2.2
              28 February 2012 at 7:55 pm

              And where does eddie or the epmu poster mention “five years”? Must have missed it. I see “since 2007” and “between 2007 and 2011”. Not “five years”. 
                 
              “2007 to 2001 inclusive” would be five years. But the operative words are “between” and “since”. EPMU says “since 2007”. Eddie says both. 
                
               
              Either the EPMU said “since 2007” when they meant “since 2006”, or Eddie’s general pop average wage is comparing apples with oranges, or Eddie was slightly imprecise with his language in one place but is using the same “since 2007” data start point/time frame as the EPMU.
                
              The first possibility is inconsistent with Eddie’s figures.
              The second possibility is odd.
              The last possibility is in line with the data.
                
              Which option did you commit to, again? Oh, the first one.

              • Jester …
                28 February 2012 at 8:03 pm

                Yep the first one McFlock. The Epmu based their figures on 5 years. Using the same theory my average wage data above shows an average wage increase of 18.3% which certainly trumps Ediies and the Empu figures.

                I’d check the poster and mailout again if you wish to doubt me on this.

                Cheers

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  28 February 2012 at 8:13 pm

                  Nope. The EPMU based their figures on 4 years, 2007-2011. If your figures were right, then the union would have got increases less than the average increase, which ain’t the case. Obviously.

                  • Jester …
                    28 February 2012 at 9:01 pm

                    And just because I’m in a good mood I won’t twist the knife into you after we finish this conversation.

                    Well considering that if you use the same independent figures that the Empu used you need to calculate 5 years of data to arrive at the same 15.7% inflation figure they have quoted. Why use two different timeframes to compare data? 5 years for inflation and 4 years for wage increase.

                    In the letter to union members on the 24 Feb 20012 the EPMU state:

                    “Looking back on the last five years we can compare the union fee with inflation and average wage increases negotiated by the union and we can see the union fee is a good deal.
                    Over that period inflation increased by 15.7% and average wage increase negotiated by the EMPU Increased by 17%. The union fee in comparison Will have increased by 12.3%, including this years increase.”

                    Looking back on the the last five years…..
                    Over that period inflation…….

                    Kinda looks like the union if pulling the wool over your eyes to me.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2012 at 9:54 pm

                      Hmmmm.
                         
                      I tend to agree that eddie’s using the “since 2007” data and that the EPMU’s “since 2007” should probably read “since 2006” or “start of 07”, but I’m not sure that the union member’s incomes rose less than their peers, looking at the ANSIC06 data cut by industry. I arrive at a rough 16%, so it’s probably slightly better to be a member. Not including the other benefits, of course.
                         
                       

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:18 pm

                      Er, are you saying the union compared 5 years of inflation with four years of wage rises? ‘Cause that makes their claim even better doesn’t it? They bettered 5 years of CPI with just 4 years of wage rises. If you add in another year’s wage rise, the gap they achieved above inflation is even better than the pamphlet says.
                       
                      But the big question is what the average non union worker got over the period. Much less than their unionised mates, as it happens.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:27 pm

                      union seems to have done 5 years inflation + wage. Eddie seems to have done 4 years of overall wage.

                    • Jester …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:29 pm

                      No there wage and fee rises are based on 5 years data. Just as the link to their newsletter confirms. Ignore inflation its not really relevant to the argument. You compare the figures they posted as achieved (17%) to the same same timeframe for the average wage increase and it shows the union isn’t out performing. The question I want to know is who are they trying to bullshit and why Eddie didn’t check the data before feeding it to the standard.

                    • KJT …
                      29 February 2012 at 8:31 am

                      As non union members hourly rate in most industries, including mine, have had no increases while Union members have had 2 to 6% annual increases in the same time span it is obvious that joining a union pays.

                      Comparing it to average wages overall, which are distorted by very big gains in, the heavily unionised, old boy network, directors and managers pay it is deceptive.

                • McFlock …
                  28 February 2012 at 9:09 pm

                  I’d actually prefer a non-WO link.
                      
                  The picture in this post clearly says “since 2007”. Eddie’s figure matches that period.
                   
                   
                   

                  • Jester …
                    28 February 2012 at 9:16 pm

                    Must be hard breathing with your head that deep in the sand McFlock. But hey that’s your business. Cheers for the debate.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2012 at 9:59 pm

                      Hey, I posted that before reading your 901pm comment – got in after dinner, opened the page, and trawled through the thread.
                        
                      Blame Gos for lying so much I’m twice-shy about what tories assert as a truth without any links or supporting evidence.
                       
                        
                       

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:23 pm

                      Cheers.
                       
                      While I think Eddie was indeed comparing the wrong apples with oranges, it was probably fair enough based on the leaflet (even though the leaflet was unclear).
                         
                      As for the 18% avg increase comparison, I think that’s about as valid as comparing 4 year and five year periods. Best would be industry unin vs same industry non-union. A rough look at likely industry totals suggests a purely pay advantage to the union members, but it’s all in the cut, I guess. Certainly not worth crowing about from either side, I’ll grant you that 🙂
                          
                       

                    • Jester …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:33 pm

                      All good McFlock. Gotta go, sadly I’m not one of the 1% yet so work beckons. Cya

                  • Jester …
                    28 February 2012 at 10:11 pm

                    Thanks for having an open mind on this. Always nice to debate as adults 🙂

                    With my calcs I’m pretty sure that the union did achieve 17% so to be fair if we use the same data in comparison non union achieved 18.3%

                    This is why I call bullshit on this one and would be interested on Eddies take on why he accepted the data without question.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 February 2012 at 10:33 pm

                      “With my calcs I’m pretty sure that the union did achieve 17% so to be fair if we use the same data in comparison non union achieved 18.3%”
                        
                      Not so sure about that – that 18.3% includes what 25% all-industry union and near-minimum-wage workers. By industry I think it might be weighted towards union mebers by a percent or so.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      29 February 2012 at 7:28 am

                      It’s a far higher gap than that, Jester. Most kiwi workers have had no or little pay rises over the last few years, except those who are unionised. And a fair few who got rises were simply picking up what the union negotiated for their members, which is a fundamental weakness in the law.
                       
                      If you seriously think that professional bargaining delivers lower increases, then you are deluded.

  8. NickS 8
    28 February 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Oooh Cherry Picking, and especially brainless cherry picking at that too, since it’s easy to find the original source…

    But stupid does as stupid is, and in Cameron’s case that means making a even bigger idiot out of himself. Not he’ll ever turn up here to address this particular issue, given how much of a fucking intellectual coward he is.

  9. james 111 9
    28 February 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Theres no way they are worth those increases in time of recession should be taking decreases

    • Te Reo Putake 9.1
      28 February 2012 at 6:20 pm

      “Theres no way they are worth those increases in time of recession should be taking decreases”
       
      Is it just me, or does that sentence read like it was written by a drunk?

    • Drongo 9.2
      28 February 2012 at 7:16 pm

      Couldn’t you find a complete post from nasty bastard Odgers to cut and paste and claim it as your own? I’m sure there are plenty that would fit in here nicely, Mr ‘sycophantic never had an original thought in my life’ james.

      • fender 9.2.1
        28 February 2012 at 9:32 pm

        For quite some time I thought james was about 11. After that comment he’s got me thinking perhaps he might be 111.

    • Colonial Viper 9.3
      29 February 2012 at 12:14 am

      Theres no way they are worth those increases in time of recession should be taking decreases

      Yeah I’m waiting for the POAL CEO and Board members to start slashing their own pay. The execs at AFFCO too.

      What’s the chances?

  10. Kotahi Tane Huna 10
    28 February 2012 at 5:30 pm

    I can remember some while back the chorous of disdain for RedAlert’s obeisance to David Farrar.

    Seriously – who gives a Murray McCully for what Cameron Slater thinks or says?

  11. tsmithfield 11
    28 February 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Maybe the the dramatic decline in union membership over recent years has something to do with unionised businesses becoming uncompetitive due to union pressure and thus either going out of business or finding ways to rid themselves of unions as POA is doing at the moment.

    • McFlock 11.1
      28 February 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Maybe grass grows on Mars.

    • KJT 11.2
      28 February 2012 at 9:49 pm

      Of course lack of capital investment and efficiency gains because lazy overpaid and incompetent management have no ability to build a business, and can only conceive one way of making it more profitable, cutting wages! has nothing to do with it.

    • ropata 11.3
      29 February 2012 at 12:23 am

      Maybe the Employment Contracts Act, the Voluntary Unions Act, the privatisation of Rail, Works, Telecom, the SOE Act, the removal of import tariffs, FTAs with 3rd world countries, record unemployment, record emigration, record social inequality, the Mother of All Budgets, Rogernomics etc etc etc
      had something to do with it

  12. fender 12
    28 February 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Whats Slater going to do now? Join a Union?
    He might be slow but at least he’s consistant.

    • Drongo 12.1
      29 February 2012 at 12:22 am

      Maybe start bullshitting his way out of a Work and Income investigation into where he put his income and assets while he was on the sickness benefit? The law’s the law…as he keeps telling us.

  13. Jester 13
    28 February 2012 at 10:52 pm

    “But the man-boy genius needs to check his info better.”

    Let me make the introductions for you Eddie

    Egg meet Face 😉

  14. fender 14
    28 February 2012 at 11:35 pm

    Many thousands of workers are alive today thanks to Unions. Advocating for and overseeing implimentation of health and safety measures over the years is another great legacy of Unions.

Links to post