" a venal, spiteful and fundamentally incompetent government"
Robert Winter says Key is lying, and I believe him. Winter, not Key. Key's claim that National's proposed changes to employment law are minor is a lie, Robert says, especially with regard good faith bargaining. Here, Mr Winter says,
" The removal of that provision allows employers a latitude to pretend to bargain and then, deliberately and in pre-conceived fashion, to walk away from the table. It drives a coach and horses through the current intent of the ERA, and is a powerful reinforcement of employer power. Anyone who knows their employment law recognises this, and also recognises that it takes us significantly back to that most damaging piece of legislation, the Employment Contracts Act."
His post is a must-read for everyone who has been, is or will be employed or has children, friends, relatives who work. Mr Winter's " venal, spiteful and fundamentally incompetent government" seems an accurate call, based on what he describes here.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Sadly, without Shunda's common sense comments in here I just dont feel like arguing.
Go to Robert's blog and have a go - he's eminently sensible.
Thank you. I do become terse when I see measures such as this proposed by a government that is capable of the Hobbit legislation!
Terse, Robert?
Oh that you had one of the levers of power nearby to your hand. There'd be the sound of a trapdoor springing open and the tumbling of 'popular figures' into the bubbling vat of discontent and anxiety below (figuratively speaking, of course).
I had a look, the red background turned me off. Didnt bother to read anything as I may as well go and read one of Helens blogs, she still controls the Labour party doesnt she.
Ah, Towack! Willful ignorance, it's a defining characteristic of many fundamentalist thinkers. Best you don't look then, 'case your hurt your eyes. Mr Winter won't be offended.
But yes, the red is a bit much.
RG - have you ever been employed in the private sector?
Employment law is so strong in New Zealand the changes are still minor. An employer just can't unilaterally reduce an employees wages. It is you and your red mates that are being disingenuous.
The Employment Contracts Act freed up and created much of what is good for New Zealanders. Liabours sop to the unions that controlled the party took us backwards.
Paranormal
RG - have you ever been employed in the private sector?
Employment law is so strong in New Zealand the changes are still minor. An employer just can't unilaterally reduce an employees wages. It is you and your red mates that are being disingenuous.
The Employment Contracts Act freed up and created much of what is good for New Zealanders. Liabours sop to the unions that controlled the party took us backwards.
Paranormal
Ah Mr Paranormal, you have hit the nail on the head there, more importantly, has RG ever actually employed people on a long term basis who are emplyed to work for him, the answer to both will be no, not recently. But then most socialists havn't. Check out Clarke, never worked for the private sector yet was happy to manipulate it.
RG - why am I a fundamentalist?
Towack, you silly billy - I employ people right now and have done so for years and years! I'm generally 'employed' in resolving any disputes between our governing body and the employees, as well as serving on the Human Resources committee, interviewing for the positions etc. Also, as a councillor, I've been very closely involved in hiring, as you may know, so I'm puzzled as to why you don't think I know what it is to be an employer ("has RG ever actually employed people on a long term basis who are emplyed to work for him, the answer to both will be no, not recently.".)
Why are you a fundamentalist, Towack?
I don't know, why are you?
Paranormal - I had my own business for a while (it's latent presently). Does that count - self employed? I've also been an employee in the private sector for much of my early working life, so I've a glimmer of what it means to be both employed and employer. Hope that helps.
Annom ..Having laws are one thing policing the laws is another ...
Re reason why we need labour inspectors ...I suspect we have no LI re Govt cutbacks in public service these days..... which is why we have abuses NOT been reported in the workforce and
Yes I have been an employee and a employer
Understanding and protecting your basic employee rights is why we need good strong unions
An employer needs to get his head around the reality you treat your worker like shit he/she will get revenge one way or the other !!
A happy worker who is treated with respect paid a reasonable and livable wage leads to higher production
Pailinem - The real problem we have is - to use your terminology - we have strong unions but not good ones. The unions are all about the egos and careers of the unionists. They are the ones exploiting workers to save their own outdated reason for being.
We don't have 'bastard bosses' any more because those that are soon lose their workforce. And government labour inspectors? God help us. The last thing New Zealand needs is more beureaucrats getting in the way. We have extremely strong labour laws that only the foolish go against.
The worst places I worked were where the unions acted as bully boys. I was a member and I don't accept bullying at all so it was not a happy fit.
The best places, particularly post ECA are where the boss and staff are allowed to get on with it. If either have an issue there is an open door policy and they are able to talk through the issues. Something Unions get in the way of to justify their existence.
Paranormal
Paranormal - "We don't have 'bastard bosses' any more because those that are soon lose their workforce."
Talleys much?
" And government labour inspectors? God help us. The last thing New Zealand needs is more beureaucrats getting in the way. We have extremely strong labour laws that only the foolish go against. "
Mine safety inspectors - more bureaucrats getting in the way? Can we rely on employers to ensure worker safety as well? Seems not.
Those extremely strong labour laws you mention - are they the ones National has been actively 'changing'/weakening/destroying over the past three years?
Robert Winter's explaining it well, para.
"The ERA was amended in 2004 to provide modest protection for particularly vulnerable workers, particularly during the sale or transfer of ownership of a business. The amendments were bitterly opposed by Business New Zealand, which feared the imposition of a European-type acquired rights regime. The 2004 amendments were modest because the then government were still reeling from the threat of "a strike of Capital" in the period around the introduction of the ERA.
Now, the current government has reviewed those modest provisions, using, and here's the rub, Graham Scott as the reviewer. Mr Scott is a fierce neo-liberal, ex Treasury Secretary and ACT candidate and a man who would see protections of vulnerable workers as amongst the worst of labour market distortions. Pity the vulnerable worker in this case, especially given the government's evident intention to gut the collective bargaining process."
Not at all RG.
Only in the eyes of unions are Talleys a 'bastard boss'.
How about the theme the rest of New Zealand (ie those without the red blinkers on)sees when a union is involved: Hard working employer trying to restructure their business to ensure ongoing viability AND employment, when self serving unions get in the way to try to break the business and stuff their members future employment.
Again the question comes to the fore: have you experienced private workeplaces in recent times and do you understand how the legislation works?
Mine safety inspectors? Like they would have ever stopped Pike River from exploding? Did they stop any previous explosions from occuring - here or overseas?
You've missed the point that the company, directors and the CEO are held personally responsible under the legislation for their actions. That is the best way to ensure safety. Mind you that doesn't suit you authoritarian types that want to tell all and sundry how things are to be done. You miss that history has shown that just doesn't work.
As an aside, most of the time Safety Inspectors are justifying their existence rather than actually ensuring safety. In a sad but true example a construction site I was involved with was plagued by an out of control power freak safety inspector. He completely missed anything that was a safety issue that, when discovered by management was instantly corrected. Meanwhile the inspector spent his time castigating people parking incorrectly. The end came when he went overboard for the removal of an extremely dangerous highly toxic chemical substance from site. He went berserk about this chemical and produced screeds of research and was just about frothing at the bung about it. He was quite rightly told to F.R.O. when the realisation hit he was up in arms about the little blue smelly cakes used in the urinal.
Paranornmal
And RG - what a lovely tale you tell about the wonderful ex government that put in such modest considerations as the 2004 amendments - purely thinking of everyones best interests.
What an absolute crock. Even the most partisan lefty knows the 2004 amendments were a sop to the unions.
You obviously have no idea who Graham Scott is and just what a deep thinking gentleman he is. Yes I do know him. Your partisan character assasination merely shows you up as a useful idiot for the left. Instead of being a repeater why don't you try and understand the issues involved. Graham Scott, a true gentleman, is actually concerned about the protection of all workers.
The balance has swung too far towards workers at the peril of continued business viability. What you lot always miss is that when business viability is jeopardised, it is the vulnerable workers that are hurt.
Paranormal
"Only in the eyes of unions are Talleys a 'bastard boss'."
As you wish, para.
As you wish.
"Mine safety inspectors? Like they would have ever stopped Pike River from exploding? Did they stop any previous explosions from occuring - here or overseas?"
You don't believe mine safety inspectors ensure the safety of miners?
Wow.
"And RG - what a lovely tale you tell about the wonderful ex government that put in such modest considerations as the 2004 amendments - purely thinking of everyones best interests. "
You are fantasising, para.
Post a Comment