What have Unions ever done for freeloaders?

Written By: - Date published: 8:39 am, June 16th, 2019 - 198 comments
Categories: education, Media, spin, taxpayers union, uncategorized, Unions, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Maybe the Taxpayer’s Union should think of an offshoot, the freeloaders’ union.

After a long battle and industrial action the Teachers Unions have succeeded in obtaining a significant improvement in wages and conditions for their members.  But not everyone is happy.  Some teachers who do not pay union fees and want to freeload on the gains the unions have made also think that they should get the benefit of the negotiation.  Even though they have not paid for it and did not strike.

From Simon Collins at the Herald:

Non-union teachers are angry that they will have to wait three months to get the pay rises that the Government has offered to union members.

Ministry of Education deputy secretary Ellen MacGregor-Reid has confirmed that the proposed pay hikes would take effect from July 1 for union members, but not until three months later for teachers who don’t belong to the unions.

Union members, but not non-union members, would also get $1500 one-off payments on July 1.

Teachers who belong to the two unions, the NZ Educational Institute (NZEI) and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA), will start voting this week on whether to accept the new offer, which would lift the top of the teachers’ basic salary scale from $78,000 to $90,000 by July 2021.

But Justin Lindsay, a Hastings Boys’ High School music teacher who is philosophically opposed to unions, said the three-month delay in the pay rise for non-union members is unprecedented and unfair.

“We are the teachers who would like to see performance pay and individual contracts,” he said.

“That’s a philosophical issue, but I feel like we are being punished for taking that point of view.”

Well Justin I am sure that you have a philosophical issue with bludgers as well.  And you have an individual contract.  One that is not paid as well as the contract the collective negotiated. Don’t you think expecting the same pay as someone else is just a bit weird?

But there were others who not only held stupid views but were also too stupid to realise that uttering them publicly would result in public ridicule.

Like this guy:

Shiman Singh, a design teacher at De La Salle College in Māngere, said the proposed deal was “an absolute kick in the teeth for non-union members”.

He said unions had not “evolved with the times”. He felt they were no longer necessary to protect workers now that most people were well educated and could access legal representation, and “use the teachers as pawns” in national bargaining.

“This is not the 19th century! Please tell me am I wrong. If this was a private practice the employer would be in a dispute resolution,” he said.

Well Shiman if collectively negotiating better wages and conditions is not evolving with the times I suggest you should review your view on time.  And go and negotiate your own wages and conditions if you are that good.

I suggest these guys band together with as many others as they can and demand collectively that they be treated better.  Maybe they should form their own union.  A freeloaders’ union.

198 comments on “What have Unions ever done for freeloaders?”

  1. Pierre 1

    Does Prof. Lindsay want performance pay because he believes he's better than his colleagues and he deserves to earn more than them?

    I bet he's popular in the staff room :/

  2. mikesh 2

    Even non union members could still have joined the strike in sympathy with union members, but would they still have been entitled to the same salary increases as union members.

    • Kevin 2.1

      Probably not. And why should they?

    • mickysavage 2.2

      The Union members funded everything including the negotiations and the analysis and preparation of their negotiating points.

      • mikesh 2.2.1

        I can understand them not receiving the $1500 if they kept on working since the strikers would presumably have lost pay as a result of the strike, whereas non strikers would not. However, I don't see the justification for deferring the salary increase for three months. Remuneration should depend on the job, not on union membership. Depriving them of three months salary increase seems to be a way of forcing them to join the union regardless of their philosophical point of view. 

        • Dukeofurl 2.2.1.1

          Did they not negotiate a better deal under their one on one deal 

          Why not?

          • mikesh 2.2.1.1.1

            Probably because the Education department would not have been willing to pay them more than they were paying other teachers. 

            • Grant 2.2.1.1.1.1

              individual choice, consequences, personal responsibility…..

              • mikesh

                These days we can legally choose whether or not to belong to a union. and differential pay rates between members and non members seems to be at odds with the philosophy of "voluntary unionism" which seems implicit in the current legal framework. The government, in offering different rates, seems to be saying that they want people to be members of a union; but are they entitled to say that, given that framework.  

                • The Chairman

                  The government, in offering different rates, seems to be saying that they want people to be members of a union

                  Alternatively, despite the temporary delay in pay parity, the Government allowing non union members the benefits of union members undermines the union membership and the benefit of being in one.  

                • Craig Glen Eden

                  The  freeloaders will get the same terms and conditions as the collective. What they don’t get because they for what ever reason chose not to be part of is the settlement the union negotiated. Settlements are negotiated between the Parties if you chose and individual contract tough shit.

                  • mikesh

                    It is "voluntary unionism" that undermines the union movement, not the government. However, as long as the government is unable, or unwilling, to change the law, for reasons to do with democracy, it should at least tacitly go along with it and not discriminate between members and non members in matters of pay. 

                    I suspect most private sector employers would probably not discriminate, albeit that this is probably because they don't want to encourage employees to join a union.

                    • The Chairman

                      It is "voluntary unionism" that undermines the union movement

                      That is one we can agree on. However, extending the benefits of union members wins to non union members also does too. 

                      Unions now have to attract members, extending the benefits of union members wins to non union members undermines union benefits being a powerful draw-card. Thus, undermines the union.

                      Introducing voluntary unionism allowed for more wage disparity thus the discrimination you seem so concerned about.

                      I suspect most private sector employers would probably not discriminate, albeit that this is probably because they don't want to encourage employees to join a union.

                      Same reasoning why the wage disparity is only temporary.

                  • mikesh

                    Settlements are negotiated between the Parties if you chose and individual contract tough shit.

                    In that case why are non member getting the increase in three month's time anyway.

                    What you term "tough shit" I call "discrimination". 

                     

                     

                    • woodart

                      what you call discrmination, I (and most others) call sour grapes. if you choose not to join a union, and negotiate your own contract, dont whinge when others get a better deal than you….its called freedom of choice, you choose to be different, dont moan when you are treated differently….

                    • The Chairman

                      In that case why are non member getting the increase in three month's time anyway.

                      As you noted re the private sector: "this is probably because they don't want to encourage employees to join a union."

                       

                    • mikesh

                      Complaining about someone getting equal pay without union membership is equally "sour grapes". If an employer chooses not to discriminate it's nobody's business but his. 

                    • The Chairman

                      Complaining about someone getting equal pay without union membership is equally "sour grapes".

                      No it's not. There is good reasoning for it as has been explained.

                      Non union members aren't entitled to union member's wins. That is a benefit of being in the union, which is a personal choice and which benefits are also a major draw-card in attracting new members and maintain current ones, ensuring their strength and survival going forward.

                      So as you can see, it has nothing to do with being sour grapes. It's about the negative and undermining impact it has on unions and its members.    

                    • mikesh

                      No it's not. There is good reasoning for it as has been explained.

                      There may well be good reasoning for it, but it's still discrimination, and the end doesn't justify the means (at least, that is what I have always thought).

        • Psycho Milt 2.2.1.2

          Nope, just a means of reminding the freeloaders that unions negotiate for the membership, not the freeloaders.  That three-month delay will still leave the freeloaders better off than union members, courtesy of all the years of not paying membership fees.  Hopefully, the union negotiators got together and figured out how many years of economic advantage from freeloading would be wiped by a three-month delay, but I bet it wasn't very many years.

          • Dukeofurl 2.2.1.2.1

            Yes. Its not the unions job to negotiate terms for non members.

            • mikesh 2.2.1.2.1.1

              That's beside the point. The issue is whether the Education Department is justified in withholding, or deferring, a pay increase to some but not to others who are doing the same job. 

              • Dukeofurl

                Their individual agreement has no such provision , you mean .

                The reality is  for non state employer,  they would get nothing unless it came round to their individual contract renewal time.

                 

              • Gabby

                Are they withholding or honouring their individual contracts mikeshy?

                • mikesh

                   

                  Who is "they".

                  The government is giving them the pay increase in three month's time any way.  So apparently honouring or not honouring contracts doesn't apply. The government is simply punishing non members for being non members. Given that, under law, membership is not compulsory, this simply discrimination. 

              • The issue is whether the Education Department is justified in withholding, or deferring, a pay increase to some but not to others who are doing the same job. 

                Depends on whether the relevant employees are all covered by the same agreement or not.  If they're on different agreements (eg a collective contract vs an individual contract), there's no reason to assume that the pay increases will be implemented at the same time, or even be the same amounts. 

                In reality, of course, public sector employers usually give their non-union members whatever the union negotiates, because it would be a pain in the arse having two different pay scales and sets of conditions (which is why some union members refer to the non-union members as freeloaders).  However, there's no reason the union shouldn't try to gain member-only clauses in its agreements via negotiation, and no reason the employer shouldn't agree to those clauses if that's the best way to close a deal.

              • Kevin

                Then it is up to the non-union workers to negotiate a better settlement then. Struggling to understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand. 

                • mikesh

                  Whatever the non member's negotiating skills I think it would be difficult for the Department to agree to anything but the going rate. And if the if the going rate increases, no matter what the reason, the non member's rate should increase with it. I imagine the Department has a standardised contract for non members.

                  Given that there are so many now unwilling to join unions, and so many union members calling them "freeloaders", perhaps it is time to reflect that the union negotiation method of setting wage rates is not the best. However do the unions really want some other method.

                   

                  • Ed1

                    "Given that there are so many now unwilling to join unions, and so many union members calling them "freeloaders", perhaps it is time to reflect that the union negotiation method of setting wage rates is not the best." 

                    On the contrary, perhaps the union negotiation method is the best, and industries should be able to require all employees to be members of the negotiating union – provided there is a substantial majority (- say 75%?) in favour.

                    I certainly think a bulk agreement, however agreed, is better than thousands of individual negotiations, or than contracts imposed as a condition of employment . . .

                    • mikesh

                      I'm inclined to agree with you, but unfortunately we got rid of compulsory unionism nearly 30 years ago. Equally unfortunately this has left us with the seemingly intractable problem of defending the rights of non union members whom members regard as "freeloaders".

                      With this country being a democracy and with more people being opposed to compulsory unionism (though my evidence for that is largely anecdotal), I don't see the latter returning any time soon.

                       

                  • …perhaps it is time to reflect that the union negotiation method of setting wage rates is not the best. 

                    It's not?  How come there are complaints by non-union members that they're not getting as good a deal, then?  Seems pretty obvious who did the better negotiations there.

                    • mikesh

                      Oh, come on, pull my other leg. They didn't get the better deal because they were better negotiators. They got it because they "held the government to ransom" by going on strike for a week (or was it a fortnight?). Probably they deserved the increase on the basis of the work they do, but so do the non members in that case.

                    • In Vino

                      Mikesh – has it escaped your notice that people on individual contracts are uncoordinated, and cannot take those very actions that made the Unions successful? I suspect that you are becoming deliberately obtuse. "Held the Govt to ransom"…  Utter bollocks.  Previous Govts have held out far longer. It was only a feeble one-day strike.  They did the one-day so-called megastrike (one day is hardly significant) and third formers got rostered home the next Tuesday. Nothing since. Where in God’s name do you get this ‘fortnight’s strike’ from?

                    • mikesh

                      One day was it? I really thought it was longer, but I must have been mistaken – it just felt longer. However I still believe they got their increase because of the strike and not because of superior negotiating ability as Psycho (above) seemed to be claiming.

                      However thanks for putting me right about the duration of their "holding the government to ransom".

                       

                       

                       

                       

                       

                    • Negotiations between parties with conflicting interests can get a bit fraught, yes.  Unless there's no union, in which case you get to accept what the employer offers or find another job.  Right-wingers consider that latter situation their preferred default and tend to present it as evidence of a better method of setting workers' pay and conditions.  Workers, understandably, tend to be less satisfied with it.  

                  • Kevin

                    Given that there are so many now unwilling to join unions, and so many union members calling them "freeloaders", perhaps it is time to reflect that the union negotiation method of setting wage rates is not the best. 

                    As opposed to the take-it-or-leave-it attitude that infests most small to medium enterprises with non-union workforces?

        • Kevin 2.2.1.3

          The Union members paid for people to negotiate their contract. The non-union members did not contribute. So why should they receive the full benefit of something that someone else has paid for? Not sure why this makes no sense to you 

          • mikesh 2.2.1.3.1

            They are not asking to be paid for something that someone else has paid for (assuming they are actually doing so). It's more to do with asking to receive the rate of pay appropriate to the job. If the new rates are not appropriate then why was the union striking in the first place. 

            • Dukeofurl 2.2.1.3.1.1

              What do you mean 'rate of pay appropriate for a job' -they are on individual contracts by choice

              What part of 'individual'  dont you understand. 

              • mikesh

                They are not "on contract" entirely by choice if they are opposed to the only other alternative and they need the job. Nobody should be prevented from following their chosen profession simply by dint of their refusing to join a union, which of course the law allows.  

        • Lucy 2.2.1.4

          They are lucky to get pay rise – if they didn't negotiate in their contract for parity with union then they shouldn't get it at all! They did none of the work and put no money into getting the increase.

  3. tc 3

    granny spins for her masters, a non story as you take your chances outside the union.

    suck it up you’re adults. This govt just dealt with another wilfully neglected aspect under national….teachers pay. Novopay, empty schools and those leaky buildings come to mind just in education.

    granny does her bit yet again.

  4. Morrissey 4

    This Justin Lindsay creature says he's "philosophically opposed to unions." Bet he's not philosophically opposed to pay rises.

    I also doubt he's done much—or any—reading in philosophy.

    • mac1 4.1

      I still remember my Training College tutor 'quoting' one of the Greek philosophers- "What? Teach, and get paid too?"

      I read that our Mr Lindsay is a musician. I wonder whether like me he ever joined the musicians union which like PPTA (I was a member) also negotiated better wages? Many believed that musicians really only needed to be paid with free beer and supper as they enjoyed their work. Well, it wasn't really work, was it? Like teaching really…….

       

      • mikesh 4.1.1

        I'm inclined to think that if someone was a member of some other union he should strike anyway; and his own union should have joined with the the teacher's union, on behalf of its members who held teaching positions, at the negotiating table. 

  5. Adrian 5

    As for  "legal representation ", I'll bet that costs more than union fees. Are these people too stupid to be teachers?

    • Wensleydale 5.1

      Some of them seem to have an abysmal understanding of how labour unions function. As long as they're not teaching employment law, they're only harming themselves.

  6. MickeyBoyle 6

    Non unionized workers will come out better off within five years as they do not have to pay union fees. Obviously some do not realize this.

    • Most, I expect.  Freeloaders tend not to recognise the unearned benefits they enjoy from others' efforts.

    • mickysavage 6.2

      If it wasn't for the union no they would not.  Their salaries would be stagnating.

      • MickeyBoyle 6.2.1

        Plenty of un-unionized workers get salary increases annually, I'm one of them. Unions are dying, it's only a matter of time until they do not exist.

        • Craig GlenEden 6.2.1.1

          Plenty of Jobs don’t have a union representing them and they get jack shit. Which  is how wages fall behind providing people with a liveable wage.Incase you haven’t noticed that isn’t working very well for lots of workers. 

        • Dukeofurl 6.2.1.2

          "Unions are dying, it's only a matter of time until they do not exist."

          Why do employers have them  too ?

          https://www.ema.co.nz/Pages/Home.aspx

          • Wensleydale 6.2.1.2.1

            It's all in a name. Don't call it a union. That makes you seem like some grasping prole. Call it an 'association' or a 'federation', then your veneer of respectability remains intact.

          • mikesh 6.2.1.2.2

            The pay differential is down to the Education Department's decision to discriminate. It has nothing to with their decision not to join a union, which of course is their entitlement at law.

          • mikesh 6.2.1.2.3

            The problem seemed to relate to the old award system which never seemed to work very well. Under that system unions would, once the award was finalised, negotiate with individual employers for additional rates of pay for members employed by that employer. This meant that tradesmen with the same qualifications and experience, but working for different firms, were not necessarily paid the same rates. The Labour Department thought that what they called "enterprise bargaining" would be better. This would have involved scrapping the award system and allowing unions to form within firms and bargain directly with their employers. The National party when it came to power in 1990, scrapped the award system alright but replaced it with a system of individual contracts, which I don't think was quite what the Department had invisaged entirely. However some collective bargaining remained and we now have a sort of "half in half" system in which some workers are in unions and some on individual contracts and I think we need to deal with that in such a way that workers doing the same work in the circumstances receive the same pay regardless of whether they are union members or not.

          • Kevin 6.2.1.2.4

            Up until the early 1980’s NZ had a higher standard of living than Australia. Then we got the Employment Contracts Act and Australia stuck with unionism. The results speak for themselves. 

            • In Vino 6.2.1.2.4.1

              Mikesh – What is so hard to understand?  I am a PPTA member, but for a few years I worked on an individual contract in a Transition Dept. My individual contract was yearly and went from February to February.  I was not given any increase when the PPTA won one – I had to wait until my individual contract came up for renewal next Feb and ask for an increase then.

              That is how it works. Those not in the union are on individual contracts by their own choice and fox for themselves. Stop bleating about same pay for same job – these people opted out of that when they opted for individual contracts.

        • Infused 6.2.1.3

          Cant wait for that day. Unions are dead and not needed.

          Teachers were a special case.

      • mikesh 6.2.2

        Which doesn't say much for the kindness that Jacinda talks about.

  7. The Chairman 7

    A three-month delay? Freeloaders are lucky they are still going to get the increase at all.

    The benefits of joining a union and attaining more should not be shared with freeloaders. It weakens the point of being in the union if one can obtain the benefits without paying their dues.

    Imagine how these freeloaders will feel if members hold strong and obtain more?

    • mikesh 7.1

      In other words a teacher's rate of pay should depend, not on the work that they do, but on whether they are union members or not. I went on strike when there was a big public service strike in the late eighties though I was not a member of the PSA. (My non membership was because I was a temporary worker, not because I was philosophically opposed.) Whatever happened to the concept of equal pay for equal work?  

      • The Chairman 7.1.1

        Equal pay for equal work went out the window with compulsory unionism.

        Additionally, Union members rate of pay is based upon on the work that they do and not solely based on their union membership.

        • mikesh 7.1.1.1

          If people want compulsory unionism they should vote for a party that promises to re-introduce it. In the meantime, saying that the work that non union teachers do doesn't justify the increase, is the same as saying the work that the striking union members do is not worth the extra pay, in which case the strike itself would have been unjustified.

          I would assume that the union was striking for pay that befitted the job, not for a rate of pay higher than that of non union members. The pay differential is something that the government seems to be imposing. 

          • The Chairman 7.1.1.1.1

            I'm not saying the work that non union teachers do doesn't justify the increase. I'm saying if they want the benefits of unionism, best they join a union.

            Unions were striking to improve the working conditions of their members.

            Therefore, the pay differential in this instance is down to the choice of teachers unwilling to join the union. 

            • mikesh 7.1.1.1.1.1

              The pay differential is down to the Education Department's decision to discriminate. It has nothing to with wokers’ decision not to join a union, which of course is their entitlement at law.

              • The Chairman

                Why should a non union member be given the benefits union members collectively got together and fought hard for?

                It’s not discrimination. Non union members aren't entitled to what a union wins. They are lucky they only face a temporary delay in obtaining parity. They shouldn't be getting anything at all from this union win. It's the price one pays for not joining.

                • mikesh

                  Deciding what non union members' pay should be is not the union's call. That decision is really up to the employer. If an employer decides not to discriminate, and he probably should, that's his business.

                  Why should the question of whether an employee belongs to the union or not be any concern of the employer’s.

                  • The Chairman

                    I didn't say it was the union's call to decide what employers pay non union workers. Just pointing out non union members aren't entitled to what a union wins. Furthermore, the negative and undermining impact sharing those wins have on unions, their membership, strength and survival.  

                  • Dukeofurl

                    "Why should the question of whether an employee belongs to the union or not be any concern of the employer’s."

                    Thats because non union employees sign an individual contract with the School Board as their employer.

                    You dont seem to get the huge difference between a collective contract and an individual one.

                     

                    • mikesh

                      Stop bleating about same pay for same job – these people opted out of that when they opted for individual contracts.

                      I wouldn't be too sure about that. I think the Department probably has standard contract for non union members, which they have to sign if they want employment. I doubt if it envisages different pay rates from those of other (unionised) employees.

                      Obviously I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess that your "individualised" contract was for an individualised job.  

                    • mikesh

                      Thats because non union employees sign an individual contract with the School Board as their employer.

                      That's not really a reason for discriminating against them; and your lack of a capacity for rational thought is evidenced by the fact that you believe I don't know the difference between a collective contract and and an individual one.  

                    • In Vino

                      Mikesh – the theory were given back in the late 80s/early 90s was that when the dinosaur unions were all dead, we would all be on individual contracts and talented teachers would get zillions more, while the deadheads would be driven out of the profession, (It was, of course, bullshit. They had no source of teachers -let alone talented – to replace the deadheads they were theoretically getting rid of.)

                      But people on individual contracts are (unconsciously?) buying in to that philosophy.  They never got the hinted-at performance pay because Boards of Trustees are bulk-funded, and therefore underfunded.  So the Boards put non-union teachers onto individual contracts on the same pay rate as collective agreement.  Some may have managed to pay a few people less – I do not know..

                      But NO – these people have no automatic right to be paid the same as the collective agreement. They can be paid either more or less, and that from when their contracts come up for negotiation. 

                      Obviously most of them have contracts same as Collective, probably from normal starting date, and Ministry is being generous in agreeing to fund these people’s pay increase from only 3 months out. They could have told BOTs to wait until renewal of individual contract. But because Ministry still has to fund teachers’ salaries separately from the Bulk-underfunded Operations Grant, they cannot do that. Too much work entailed.

                       

          • Grant 7.1.1.1.2

            This all reminds me of the story about the Little Red Hen from my childhood. 

      • Dukeofurl 7.1.2

        Its still there.

        They have chosen to have individual contracts which arent as good as the union one.

        Shouldnt be be asking  why they made the choices they did .

        I understand that because their individual contract required more bureaucratic hoops to jump through the  time delay occurs

      • KJT 7.1.3

        Equal pay for equal work has never existed.

        It has always depended on the relative market power of employers and employees.

        Unions ameliorated this somewhat.

        It is totally hypocritical to even work in a job, State school teaching, which only exists in the first instance because of the Labour Union movement, if you have a "philosophical opposition to Unions".

        The scabs should be in the low wage zero hour job, their intelligence level would put them in without Unions.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 7.2

      Absolutely; the primary role of the voluntary employee union movement is to protect and enhance the working conditions and renumeration of their members.

      In my (former) workplace, elected individuals did all the heavy lifting regarding contract negotiations (a largely thankless task), and championed employee grievances to boot.  A (small) delay before negotiated renumeration increases (approved by members) were passed on to non-union employees had been in place for many years (maybe a decade or more).

      Not belonging, not paying union fees, is (for most) a choice, 'right'?

      Certain unscrupulous employers (with the support of favourable courts and certain ‘flavours’ of government) are always trying to undermine unions (why might that be?), for example by attempting to favour non-union employees.

      Employer’s Grant of Extra Holiday to All Employees Except Those Represented by Union Not Unlawful, NLRB Rules
      https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0a33cab-fcc9-4a7d-8de8-c09dff48a625

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/83976940/victoria-university-defends-job-advertisement-offering-higher-wage-for-nonunion-members

  8. marty mars 8

    Unions have always carried people – some within and some without. I am in the union. I love the union. Even the word UNION is beautiful and comforting.

    These moaning righty non union verses the unionised are a good illustration of the difference between the left and right. 

    • mikesh 8.1

      Even John A Lee, a man of impeccable left wing credentials, was opposed to compulsory unionism, believing it would lead to the formation of "union bureaucracies" and to what he called "gangster unions" (which conjures up visions of the Longshoreman's union depicted in the Marlon Brando film, On the Waterfront). However I'm not sure that bureaucracy is necessarily a bad thing, and in any case, union officials still have to be elected by members whether membership is voluntary or compulsory.

       

      • marty mars 8.1.1

        "John A. Lee was a dynamic figure in the Labour Party from the 1920s until 1940, when he was expelled for attacking the leadership of M.J. Savage."

        https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/john-a-lee

        Not sure if the perceptions back then are really too relevant today. Everyone has evolved mostly sorta.

        • mikesh 8.1.1.1

          He seems to have had good reasons for attacking M J Savage, at least in his own mind. However he probably needed to stage a coup rather than openly attack Savage, but I don't think he had the numbers. It would be a bit like trying to overturn Jacinda because of her stance on CGT, given Savage's popularity. 

        • greywarshark 8.1.1.2

          John A Lee was thinking of the importance of both protecting Labour and also,  no doubt Savage, who was terminally ill.  

          Suffering from cancer of the colon at the time of the 1938 election, Savage had delayed seeking treatment, to participate in the election campaign. He died from the cancer in March 1940, although the terminal nature of his illness was still being denied at the beginning of March.[17]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage#Prime_Minister

          He had to get the Social Security Act passed before the election and leave  it open for National to change it if re-elected by having it start in 1939.    So to be sure of it people had to vote Labour again, and they did.

          • Social Security Act passed  14 September 1938
          • 15 October 1938 General election, Labour re-elected.
          • 3 September 1939 NZ entered the war 2 days after Britain declared.

          What a hectic time.    And what a gallant warrior for ordinary people. And he was Australian, mark that.    It appears that they have more go than Kiwis.

    • Infused 8.2

      You're just a weak negioater really or in a low skilled job. Otherwise you wouldn't need the union

      • marty mars 8.2.1

        ruddish nobby

      • KJT 8.2.2

        Even the highest skilled jobs depend on the "floor" set by Unions.

        In fact the "old boys club" of Managers and Directors" is the most powerful union of them all.

  9. Sacha 9

    "philosophically opposed to unions"

    Ah, _that_  Justin Lindsay: https://twitter.com/JustinAxLindsay

    Fulltime Libertarian. Stone cold, unrelenting atheist. Crusader.

    • marty mars 9.1

      yuck what an ugly person – a babyman with babyman issues.

      • Rapunzel 9.1.1

        I'm glad no child I know is exposed to that person, it's pretty scary – mind you he is just one person but it seems to be that these "one persons" are so determined to be vocal that they seem to be more numerous in number than they really are. What a cheek though he and the others with these thoughts should not take the increase though I doubt it works like that.

      • joe90 9.1.2

        Indeed he is.

         

        • dv 9.1.2.1

          Geez. You have to wonder if he is a fit and proper to be a teacher.

          • Macro 9.1.2.1.1

            That thought just crossed my mind as well!

            I wouldn't let him near any of my children with that sort of publicly published bile.

            • Macro 9.1.2.1.1.1

              Further to the above:

              Here are the Teaching Council Rules 2016

              Part 3

              Criteria for reporting serious misconduct……

              9 (k) an act or omission that brings, or is likely to bring, the teaching profession into disrepute.

              (2)  Misconduct described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) and (k) of subclause (1) may be—

              (a)  a single act; or

              (b)  a number of acts forming part of a pattern of behaviour, even if some of the acts when viewed in isolation are minor or trivial.

              Posting such nasty stuff online may be regarded by some as  minor or trivial – but this person in my opinion is sailing pretty close to the wind.

              • Dukeofurl

                Exactly.

                Scratch the surface and look what is found , hatred and bile. Who would have guessed

        • joe90 9.1.2.2

          /

        • marty mars 9.1.2.3

          Yep his feed is hideous. 

          • Dukeofurl 9.1.2.3.1

            This like  of his is too funny in the Union-State pay rise  context

            "Capitalism is when you create your own story for your life. Socialism is when the State hands you down an already written one and demands you follow the plot faithfully."

             

            • Macro 9.1.2.3.1.1

              LOL

              😂

              Like all "Capitalists" he believes in Capitalism when it suits him. 

               

              • Shadrach

                You should avoid speaking for other people.

                I am a capitalist.  I believe in it, whether or not it suits me, because societies that embrace free market economics are generally better off than those who reject it.  Capitalism/free markets have dragged millions of people out of poverty, and it is capitalism that has enabled millions that were previously oppressed by socialist ideology to thrive and prosper. 

                • I feel love

                  Where are these capitalist countries? There's no such place functioning as a 100% capitalist country, like NZ they all have socialism ie free or subsidised (by the state) education, health, roads & infrastructure yada yada… I'm into capitalism too, but only because it includes socialist ideas, not this weird selfish he man winner takes all utopia you envision (yet have never lived in).

                  • Shadrach

                    I didn't say 100% capitalist, I said 'societies that embrace free market economics'.  There is no country that is 100% anything.  But those countries that embrace the free market generally do better than those who reject it.

                    • Siobhan

                      'societies that embrace free market economics'..

                      I think its the Politicians and the Business Leaders who embrace 'Free Market Capitalism', Society just tries to hold on for dear life as..and sure the 'Economy' does well..the people not so much.

                      It starts out nice, with super big, super cheap imported TV's and garden furniture…and  ends up with people trying to ignore the fact that they are carrying around the biggest debt burden of all time and wondering why the kids can't afford to leave home.

                    • Shadrach

                      " I think its the Politicians and the Business Leaders who embrace 'Free Market Capitalism'…"

                      Politicians are elected by us, the people.  Business Leaders embrace capitalism because they are, well, business leaders.  It's difficult for business to thrive when the government owns the means of production.  But then when government owns the means of production, it's difficult for anything to thrive.

                      "…ends up with people trying to ignore the fact that they are carrying around the biggest debt burden of all time and wondering why the kids can't afford to leave home."

                      Yes the socialist states that collapsed have little problem with debt…they solved their debt problems with a nice convenient mechanism called default.

                    • KJT

                      Like Honduras, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Haiti

                    • Shadrach

                      "Like Honduras, …"

                      Honduras is a good example of socialist failure going back to the 70's and 80's.  Marxist unions, military run state sponsored economy.  Socialism ruins everything.

                    • KJT

                      Honduras. Right wing US imposed military dictatorship, is an example of "socialism". FFS.

                       

                    • Shadrach

                      "Honduras. Right wing US imposed military dictatorship, is an example of "socialism". FFS."

                      Having another conversation with yourself?  I referred to the '70's and '80's.  Socialism totally stuffed the country.  But if you think a country with price controls on food, fuel and clothing, electricity and telephone run by state monopolies, restrictive regulations around starting a business, and ranked 125th out of 185 countries, for ease to do business in is 'capitalist', you have a very strange definition of capitalism.

                    • KJT

                      The 70's and 80's are not when people fled Honduras, it is in the last decade. Funny that.

                    • KJT

                      https://www.alternet.org/2015/03/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare/

                      A country ruled by United fruit and the CIA, for most of it’s existence, is a disaster because, “socialism”? Bullshit.

                    • Shadrach

                      "The 70's and 80's are …"

                      …when socialism stuffed Honduras.

                    • Shadrach

                      "A country ruled by United fruit and the CIA, for most of it’s existence, is a disaster because, “socialism”? Bullshit."

                      You fool, you didn't even read that article did you?  It's an opinion piece about libertarianism.  

                       

                    • KJT

                      The ultimate capitalist free market. What you are pining for.

                      Honduras was, of course well stuffed, without socialism.

                      Resorting to personal insults when your nonsense is called out.

                    • Shadrach

                      Honduras was stuffed BY socialism.

                      You have conflated both military dictatorships and libertarianism with capitalism.  You referred to Cuba in connection with an article you referred to that didn't even mention Cuba.  My comments are not personal insults, they are simply pointing out you haven't a clue.

                    • KJT

                      Only in your mind. And the article you quoted did mention Cuba. "The vibrant Caribbean nation". Under Batista. FFS.

                      It is you who doesn't have a fucking clue. With your right wing blinkers, on.

                    • Shadrach

                      The article was one YOU referred to here https://thestandard.org.nz/what-have-unions-ever-done-for-freeloaders/#comment-1630061.

                      And just so you learn something from our conversation, libertarianism is not, by definition, capitalism.  A military dictatorship is not, by definition, capitalism.  You don't even display a basic understanding of what capitalism even is!

                    • Shadrach

                      That's MY post.

                      BTW – did you watch the Reagan jokes?

                • Macro

                  Capitalism/free markets have dragged millions of people out of poverty, and it is capitalism that has enabled millions that were previously oppressed by socialist ideology to thrive and prosper. 

                  LOL! Yeah right! 

                  So you live in Ethiopia then? 

                  Well done you.

                • greywarshark

                  I Believe – I Believe

                • KJT

                  Shadrack. The new Jonathan Swift!

              • Dukeofurl

                Quite happy to  sneer  at the 'drones working for the socialist hive'.  But the fruits of their collective actions seem to have produced honey and he wants some  . "its my right"

            • greywarshark 9.1.2.3.1.2

              He must have Ayn Rand and other books on tape and play them to his subconscious when asleep so he is soaking in that barbarian stuff.

  10. gsays 10

    I can't help but feel the vibe here is an anathema to the direction that Helen Kelly wanted to take the union's.

    When the security guard in Auckland was killed on his first shift, I recall Helen Kelly getting support and assistance for the family of the victim. The victim did not belong to a union.

    I am in the odd position of being one of the few (only) union members in my workplace. I suppose that means it is my responsibility to recruit more members.

    • Dukeofurl 10.1

      Quite a bit different from  pay rises dont you think.

      The key words were 'first day on job' and  'death'.  giving a family assistance  for some thing like that  would never depend on  being a member first.

      It seems that the idea of collective bargaining is an anathema to one , except  when there is the chance to score some extra money.

    • Dukeofurl 10.2

      Quite a bit different from  pay rises dont you think.

      The key words were 'first day on job' and  'death'.  giving a family assistance  for some thing like that  would never depend on  being a member first.

      It seems that the idea of collective bargaining is an anathema to one , except  when there is the chance to score some extra money.

      • gsays 10.2.1

        Don't get me wrong Duke, this Lyndsay chap seems like a bell end.

        Philosophically inclined to say 'me too, gimme gimme'. The ideal candidate for the Herald to quote.

        I merely wished to remind nd folk that a recent, decent leader of the union's was putting a kinder face on worker relations, despite 3 decades of anti worker behaviour from the state and employers. E.g. 90 day right to fire, Hobbitt law, suppression of wages….

  11. Sabine 11

    Or else create a new term if you so like that applies to all workers within a industry regardless of a worker being in the union or not. 

    The german system, 

    Collective agreements in Germany are legally binding, and this is accepted by the population, and it causes no alarm.[2][not in citation given] snip……….[3] Together, management and workers are considered "social partners",[4] snip…..

    the fins 

    In Finland, collective labour agreements are universally valid. This means that a collective agreement in an economic sector becomes a universally applicable legal minimum for any individual's employment contract, whether or not they are a union member. For this condition to apply, half of the workforce in that sector needs to be union members, thus supporting the agreement.

     

    that way people can join or not – and sometimes not joining makes sense especially for temp workers etc – which in the above countries would be covered by the 'tarifvertrag'. 

    I remember one of my early jobs was working the burners at a Plant making gasheaters. The pay was awesome!!!! overtime, night shit time, danger time (burners! a job the ladies with the small hands did 🙂 ) Weekend etc.   This was a temporary assignment so really there was no need for me to join the union as after this assignment i would end up where ever next. Thus temp workers and seasonal workers were covered and received the same pay as the fulltimers. 

    and no need to shame either union member or not union member. 

  12. Peter 12

    Looks like the non-union members have three months to negotiate their own deal.

    And the union members three months to consider how their union fees have paid for the non-union members to get more money and better conditions.

     

    • mikesh 12.1

      Their union fees paid for their own wage increases. If non union wages increased as well, this was largely a side effect. I imagine non unionised workers were quite happy to receive the going rate, whatever it was. And they should continue to receive the going rate, even if that rate increases.  

  13. Tall Pat 13

    And don't forget, many private school teacher are paid a certain percentage above their state counterparts. They have been waiting with baited breath for the union deal to come through. 

  14. Incognito 14

    Looks to me a fine example of the Pareto principle where hard-fought gains for all or the majority are obtained by or through a few hard-fighting folks. I’m sure this also applies to union members and within unions themselves. It is disappointing, but predictable I guess, that a few non-union who speak up are named and shamed and not just for their topical views. They raise a valid point IMO and there’s no need for personal attacks or insults. Just my 2 cts.

    • Craig Glen Eden 14.1

      Named and shamed? They front up to a journalist or publish crazy stuff on Twitter express ideas that are considered stupid by many and those ideas are challenged. They haven’t been named and shamed. They say sad shit publicly just like Israel did. There are consequences for doing and saying dumb shit in life you know.

      • Incognito 14.1.1

        Saying dumb shit means you are a dumb shit and get treated as such. It gives others a sad excuse to say dumb shit about you …

    • Gabby 14.2

      Justy seems to be doing a tiptop job of shaming himself coggy.

      • Incognito 14.2.1

        It makes him a perfect target for personal insults and ridicule. Not all non-union members are ‘nutters’, not even when they share the same opinion on this free-loading. So, we take an extreme example and take potshots at him instead of having a conversation about the point raised.

        • Muttonbird 14.2.1.1

          You can't disassociate the idea from the person. He's outspoken on this and the rest of his utterances show a bitter agenda. They are one.

          • Incognito 14.2.1.1.1

            Yes, I know this is what’s happening but the logical consequence of this is that it justifies attacking the person whilst claiming or pretending to contest the idea or ideology that the person subscribes to. Isn’t this the pivotal point of hate speech?

            • Muttonbird 14.2.1.1.1.1

              I read through both sub threads and true to form Marty Mars was the the most blunt and pointed. Called him an ugly person – which is true, ffs!

              Lindsay has cropped up because of his views on unions but his extensive social media presence has opened a window to his anti-islamic thinking, his morbid fear of Golriz Ghahraman, and his thoughts on the PMs baby.

              His Twitter avatar is aggressive, he is aggressive and aggression leads to violence. It also enables other violent acts. Basically he thinks like the Christchurch murderer and if we are going to stop other massacres then people like Justin Lindsay need to be watched, not encouraged.

              IMO.

              • Incognito

                Some people need to be “watched” because they’re “ugly” and “aggressive”. Sure. Still doesn’t answer my question though. Let me phrase it differently: is it ok to hate the haters (AKA is it ok to punch a Nazi?)? It is a variation on, but not quite the same as, Popper’s paradox of tolerance. He said we should not tolerate the intolerant. IMVHO, the ‘venom’ directed at this person borders on what he’s being accused of. If/when we are the good guys and he’s the ‘bad’ one, it is ok? This is very complex issue without an easy answer(s) but it is crucial that we answer it as best as we can and I think we’re a long way off our ‘best’.

                • marty mars

                  maybe you need to get real – sometimes the 'intellectual' approach is just not what is needed – we punch a nazi cos if we don't 8 million people get murdered

                  • Incognito

                    Feels to me we’re going around in circles. Does it help or work, punching a Nazi? If so, for how long? Do they come to their senses when hit? Do they all of a sudden ‘see the light’? Do they run away and take their ‘stuff’ somewhere else? Do they cower in silence until the right moment arrives for vengeful payback? Sometimes the ‘violent’ approach is not what is needed either. All emotions, whether good, bad, or ugly, need to be acknowledged and channelled. Seems to me that our intellect is the best tool to achieve this but some prefer to let their fists do the talking and maybe that’s all they ever learned to do.

                    • marty mars

                      that's okay we'll fight the good fight so you don't have to

                    • Incognito []

                      That’s ok, I will write another post on this and see whether I can argue a way forward to break the cycle of violence. The way I see it is that if nothing changes we will still be punching Nazis in 100 years’ time.

                    • marty mars

                      It is worth discussing I think.

                      If there are those who hate on others and diminish them and want them gone then yeah we'll fight those fuckers until none are left – to do anything else is disrespectful to their victims imo and there are always many many victims who don't get noticed – THEY are the ones I care about not the perps.

        • McFlock 14.2.1.2

          The point raised being that he doesn't understand why he doesn't get a share of a deal he didn't negotiate and, by choice, wasn't involved in?

          Or was it that a single union act almost reimburses membership fees by itself, let alone all the other benefits of joining a union?

      • Sacha 14.2.2

        “Justy seems to be doing a tiptop job of shaming himself”

        Reckon. Google really is not his friend.

  15. newsense 15

    Kind of the Herald to run free ads for unions.

  16. Bryan 16

    Let's see if the state sponsored largesse to those unions associated with Labour is extended to other unionists. I do not hear any noise about the $20M squandered by DHBs trying to repudiate the junior doctors terms and conditions. Or the scab union enablers in the PSA with their bosses' union STONZ.

  17. Marcus Morris 17

    Our local paper is the Hauraki Herald and each week it features a parliamentary view from Labour and National. The Herald is published on line by Neighbourly and I can't give a link to this page in the latest edition. However here is a quote from part of the contribution from Stuart Smith,  National MP for Kaikoura:

    " Last year we announced that we would work towards reducing student/ teacher ratios in primary schools and we are developing an Education Discussion Document which will be released later this year which will cover more detailed policies around teachers’ pay and workload.

    Pay is important to teachers, too. While in Government, National was dealing with the Global Financial Crisis and Canterbury Earthquakes, which means we were more limited in our spending options than thiFor how many years Government, but we still increased teacher pay: We invested $359 million in a programme that provided additional salary payments for some teachers………"

    For how many years have we heard the promise to reduce pupil/teacher ratios and for how much longer do we have to listen to the line that the GFC and the Earthquake placed major constraint on spending. Plenty to spend on roads for trucks however and let's face it, their eye was focused purely on the "holy grail" of a  budget surplus to be achieved at whatever cost including hospital maintenance, housing shortages, children living in poverty and so on

    .

  18. Well , interesting topic, when I was in security the company we worked for had a policy of instant dismissal if we joined a union. Believe it or not. And so we were parceled out to various contracts. One job I was at there was around six of us. We worked 12-14 hours when needed, on flat rates on the minimum wage , night shift was barely anything more. We had 2 days off and one was for sleeping , – the other to frantically try and get things done on the domestic front all in one day.

    And when one guard left it was deemed cheaper not to replace him and more attractive to their customer and thus make us work longer hours, and fight over who does weekends , nights etc. I didnt have a weekend off for a year , and worked 12 hour night shifts. Alone.

    Most of these men were ex Police, and military personnel who saw active service. Not some wet behind the ears 'pretend cops'. And we were paid around $13.00 per hour. Less than the semi skilled factory workers at the premises. That was around 3-4 years ago. I am qualified to be head of security myself. Which I paid for out of my own pocket for over a year of studies.

    There were also 3 other senior guards at the same place not of our company and they were unionized.They enjoyed excellent hourly rates, and only 8 hour shifts at that , always only working the sociable day shifts, ( while we got to do the bum boy shifts ) and their pay was such that they could frequently take time off for holidays, – often overseas. While we could barely pay our rents, food and power bills and the petrol to travel to work.

    There's the difference.

    Furthermore, when I was in my very early twenty's in the mid to late 1980's and working for the Auckland Regional Authority ( ARA ) I was earning at the time $20.00 per hour. After leaving there , I was appalled at the miserly wages private employers offered , the total disregard for hours worked and conditions, and the belligerent attitudes many of them had. Back then I was young. And I only caught snippets of the new 'far right monetarist policy's ' of Douglas.

    Then as we all know Ruth Richardson rammed through the 1991 Employment Contracts Act and it was then open slather on unions and coupled with an arrogant , anti democratic , absolutely obnoxious disregard for the massive protests and in particular, individual workers.

    There are now 650,000 New Zealanders who now call Australia their home and they will NEVER be coming back as a direct result of the above. That from a country of around 3.3 million at the time. That is a massively huge ratio,- almost reminding one of the diaspora of the Irish in the 19th century. And they will NEVER be coming home to this miserable , depressing post Roger Douglas low waged, poverty ridden , broken down infrastructure country where the parents of a family both hold down jobs ( if they can find them ) and STILL have to sleep their family's in a car under some dodgy parks street lamps because they cant afford the rents, cannot save and because of both greedy foreign and domestic housing investors, – cant even FIND a place to stay thats warm and dry.

    And by and large this is a DIRECT RESULT of 35 years of neo liberalism and its enabling of employers to drive down wages to the bare minimum they could get away with , – through legislation implementing individual contracts that effectively de- toothed the Trade Unions.

    And do you really , really , really want to know the REAL REASON John Key and all the other scumbags before him in prior governments wanted to flood this country with predominantly cheap labour  ??? ( and suspiciously always from the two largest country's on earth that BOTH have poor trade union representation , workers of whom many live on bare subsistence ) ,  it was not only to provide a cheap labour force ( and a preferably casualized workforce, – oh yes,- they tried that on until the dam burst and the Unions had had enough ) – it was ALSO to maintain neo liberalism's requirement to have around a 5% unemployment rate.

    In other words , to keep downwards pressure on wages to curry favour with their rich party political donors.

    That's why.

    Like the people who populate the NZ Initiative ,… formely calling themselves the Business Roundtable.

    Now here's a trick ; Over at The Daily Blog a point was made that there are around 450,000 unionized workers in NZ. A political party made up of 450,000 voters would make a sizeable dent in the NZ political scene as well as being a wake up call that Labour can no longer take working people for granted. And put the living shits up National. Perhaps then we would smartly start to see the end of whole family's living out of cars despite both the parents holding down jobs. Or having their children die of preventable third world illnesses in damp , shitty , moldy run down rentals that they cant afford to pay the damn bloody power bills to heat the place up in winter.

    OR , even have the cash to take em to the doctor like the ‘good rich folks’ can up on the hill.

    And as for those free loaders who ' philosophically' disagree with Trade Unions?

    Let them and their children enjoy their lower wages, salary's and conditions and quality's of life until the penny starts to drop.

     

    STORM OF THE CENTURY

    • And its because of this 3 decades of sheer greed and willfully ignoring the plights of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of New Zealanders that I feel this clip, ( less the one above ) describes the rotten to core , smug and brutal ruthlessness that 'Andre Lenoge ' is describing in this small ficticious town somewhere on East Coast of America.

      What NZ has become , now wears it well.

      You don't like knowing do you?

  19. Tony P 19

    In todays climate any teacher not in the union better have nest egg somewhere just in case lawyers are needed for accusations of misdeeds either true or false. As a local HB musician I happen know who this guy is and my opinion of him took a huge nosedive and I'm hoping I never have to share a stage with him.

    And in related news (because Seymour would also like to see the back of teacher unions)
    Act’s new education policy creates an education fund for parents with $185,000 for parents to spend across schooling years on whatever school they want to send their child to. Would mean school funding comes via parents not Ministry of Education.

    • Marcus Morris 20.1

      And you give credibility to Heather Du Pleases. She would be one of Nationals most consistent cheerleaders. Un biased journalism. I don't think so.

      • I Feel Love 20.1.1

        National supporters don't support a Labour Govt, colour me surprised! Most Labour supporters won't be disappointed teachers are getting a pay rise, keep trying RW agitators.

      • Shadrach 20.1.2

        I give credibility to the message, not necessarily the messenger.

    • Well, a great result for teachers if they accept the union's recommendation.  If they do, that means the government has successfully negotiated a deal with teachers that repairs at least some of the stagnation under the previous National government.  To Shadrach, that would constitute "failure," presumably because of some Asshole Culture thing about winners and losers that only a Trump enthusiast could follow. 

      • Shadrach 20.2.1

        The articles I referred to point out the failures.  Becasue you're c;ear;y too lazy too read them:

        "Is this a weak Government? Do they have a backbone? And can they say no? Because everything the Government said about no more money meant nothing.  When the education minister said it wasn't for him to get involved in negotiations, and said there's no more money, what he really meant was he'd get involved months too late, hear their concerns and hand over another $300 million."

        or

        "Remember when education minister Chris Hipkins said this? “We've been very clear that there won't be any further from the Government on salaries in this round.”   Or when he said this: “The latest offer that the Government has made is it. There is not going to be any more money, so they can choose to accept the offer, they can ask for the offer to be reconfigured, but striking in the hope that more money will eventuate is going to lead to disappointment.”  Yeah, he was really sure there wasn’t money. And suddenly there was $300 million spare."

        or

        " It’s awkward for the Government, because it’s now lost the upper hand in all future pay negotiations. Next time the Government comes out and says there’s no more pay – well, we know there probably is."

        or

        "So there’s a lesson for Hipkins in this one: don’t say there’s no more money unless there really is no more money. And if you say there really is no more money, then you need to have the mettle to outlast the strikes, until the other side gives up.  Otherwise, you embarrass yourself, and you make it that much harder for your colleagues to handle their own strikes."

        • Psycho Milt 20.2.1.1

          I'm aware that other people share your opinion. That doesn't give the opinion any more credibility.

          • Shadrach 20.2.1.1.1

            Oh I was just pointing out that you had misinterpreted what I meant by 'failure'.

            • WeTheBleeple 20.2.1.1.1.1

              'failure'

              I'll have a crack.

              Pretty much every smear attempt you make. 

              • Shadrach

                I'm not making any 'attempt'.   There is a long and growing list of this governments failures.  Their capitulation to the teachers unions, after declaring there was no more money is just one of them.

  20. millsy 21

    At the local RSA, anyone can go down there and drink and socialise, but if you want to play the pokies (and keep your winnings), etc, you need to be a member, signed in with dues fully paid. Everyone accepts this, and there is harmony in the world.

    Non union teachers, should realise this. 

    • mikesh 21.1

      I thought this discussion had to with how people earn a living, not how they spend their leisure hours.

  21. Herodotus 22

    Why should non union teachers be paid the same as those who are part of the union ? Because their Individual Employment agreement states so. 

    Not sure how the union can have additional terms eg "3 months earlier" when the agreement that the individual signed states that the terms are the same as the collective. refer below There could be an issue there 😱But I am no lawyer

    "New employees who are not members of the union and who perform the work covered by the Collective Agreement must be offered an individual employment agreement which, for the first 30 days of employment, contains terms and conditions of employment of that collective agreement."

    https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/School/Individual-Employment-Agreements/Primary-Teachers-IEA-2019.pdf

    • Craig H 22.1

      The IEA states "The terms and conditions of employment under this agreement are those applicable terms and conditions of the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement 2016-2018".

      The Collective Agreement 2016-2018 will be replaced by a new Collective Agreement most probably called Collective Agreement 2019-2022, so those conditions can be delayed because it is a different agreement.

      Also, this letter of offer is out of date because new employees now start on the Collective Agreement for 30 days, not an IEA based on the Collective Agreement.

      • Herodotus 22.1.1

        So Craig, then as a lay legal person. Those union members also are excluded from any pay rises, as you pointed out the agreement makes no mention to a new agreement, only the 2016-18 agreement and there are no provisions in the agreement for a replacement agreement.

        • Craig H 22.1.1.1

          Correct, teachers are not eligible for a pay increase until they settle. Once their union has settled, all members within the coverage clause of their Collective Agreement will be eligible to whatever they agreed as the new Collective Agreement will override their previous terms and conditions.

          Non-members are not covered so are eligible for whatever they can negotiate with their employers after the expiry of the relevant Collective Agreement.

  22. Chris 23

    Unions used to represent workers.  Now they represent for the employed.

    • In Vino 23.1

      Umm, Workers actually are the employed.  Were you meaning the employers?

      • Psycho Milt 23.1.1

        To be fair, workers may find themselves unemployed, and Chris is suggesting that unions cease representing them when they do.  Which is pretty insulting to everyone who works for a union, but fortunately it's still legal to hold an opinion that offends someone (and long may that last).  

    • Craig H 23.2

      To a large extent, unions created the Labour Party, one purpose of which was to look after unemployed workers.

  23. This a short but very interesting vid on the 1912 Waihi Strike. It was followed later by the Great Strike of 1913. The same bullying, overbearing and dictatorial elitist conservative govt was in control , headed by William Massey of 'Masseys Cossacks' fame. The 'Cossacks ' were usually rural workers who were sworn in by the Police, who used meter long manuka batons to attack the striking workers from horseback.

    If you , – or any far right wing alarmist fears strike action today , – they are NOTHING compared to what happened in this country 100 or so years ago. Mangere Bridge was a gentelman's affair by comparison. Furthermore, nothing has changed whatsoever in the attitudes of many of the upper  middle classes and ESPECIALLY the wealthy power brokers with their sense of pompous self entitlement in this country and how they view the working people.

    And the only reason creeps like John Key didnt create a temporary constabulary to bash workers over the head with sticks was because now we have the Bill of Rights and a United Nations to enforce it. But that didn't stop creeps like him selling out to the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry's threats to take their business elsewhere and undermining the NZ Actors Union… or pulling a workers ponytail either and never getting charged with common assault.

    I have taken the liberty to type out some of the narrative on the clip and to illustrate that 100 years on , things haven't really changed. Strikes were made virtually ILLEGAL barring jumping through hoops except through having proceedings going through the courts not so long ago , and Union leaders could be barred from stepping on an enterprises premises. And along with that ? , – 29 working men died in a mine on the West Coast and whose family's were fobbed off for around a decade while the manager was let off Scot free by making a 3.4 million dollar deal with WORKSAFE.

    Despicable.

    —————————–

    ' In May 1912 the Waihi Trade Union of Workers, affiliated to the militant NZ Federation of Labour ( 'Red Fed' ) go on strike against the Waihi Goldmining Company. They are on strike to protest the formation of a company – inspired breakaway Union , to improve their working conditions, and to challenge the Arbitration Act of the day.

    Designed by William Reeves , the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1894 OUTLAWED strikes in favour of compulsory arbitration , usually on the employers terms.

    —————————

    Sound familiar?

    Strikes being OUTLAWED except through by court? With the then 1894 Act designed to enforce that? ,- Similar to Ruth Richardson's Employment Contracts Act 1991 and a while later strikes in the 2000’s having to go through many conditions for it to be deemed legal . History repeats, or rather, greed and avarice never changes. With the whole motive being to weaken collective bargaining and drive down wages.

    This is WHY workers need to have Unions with which to protect themselves from many of these vicious political and elitist business class parasitical leeches.

     

    Black Tuesday and the 1912 Waihi Strike

     

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    9 hours ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 day ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 day ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    1 week ago