Thursday, October 10, 2013
Steve Bradley says:
Steve Bradley 11
10 October 2013 at 9:31 am
In response to David Cunliffe’s message from Labour to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions biennial Conference, basically, “Hang on, help is on its way”, Steven Joyce said for the TV camera, “You can’t raise wages by fiat”.
Steven Joyce? Have you ever seen him close up in the flesh? He actually looks a lot seedier and cheesier that the vast majority of the hard-working used car salesmen camped alongside Great North Road, New Lynn.
Let’s look at how this government has stood by while wages haven’t risen by any other means.
John Key made a personal promise to the electors that National would work to ensure that NZ wages rose to narrow the gap with Australian wages. That hasn’t happened. National has overseen a very weak economy with high levels of unemployment and short hours and there is no indication that the ‘invisible hand’ will lift market wages any time soon.
Bill English’s tax cuts benefited most the top tiers of capitalists and some high earners but the increase in GST reduced effective aggregate demand by sucking out the working class dollar. This has made costs higher for workers but also reduced their appetite for goods and service supplied in neighbourhoods – hair dressers, wet-fish sellers, dairies, have all been just surviving for several years now. Great swathes of retail and commerce just get by praying for their creditors to pay on time.
Critical unionised sectors of the essential industrial base of New Zealand have been allowed to close, or are skating on the edge with a succession of mass redundancies. That hasn’t encouraged highly skilled workers to try to extract more value from multi-national profit streams.
National has overseen critical weakening of labour legislation. Not just the 90-day day fire at will provisions, youth rates, and removal of continuity for vulnerable workers, combined with a hardening of attitude toward workplace accident assistance and benefit supports; but in addition, removal of the right to strike in favour of a multi-employer agreement on wages and conditions for whole industries. So National has made it harder for workers to negotiate wage increases.
So just how is Steve Joyce proposing to help workers increase their wages: perhaps by subsidising their emigration to somewhere else across the sea?
Of course you can increase wages by fiat; just as you can underwrite banks by fiat.
Fiat is government power. The Crown-in-Parliament can raise taxes, including excise, can issue credit, can build houses and rent them to citizens, can support earthquake victims, can employ health professionals, and can make war and peace, just for now, this side of the TPPA.
That’s why we have a government: – to do stuff, which helps our fellow countrymen and women survive and thrive.
Don’t let Steven Joyce and the rest of them use the ‘big lie technique’ to worm their way back into office in 2014. Labour, and all other popular social organisations striving to help people, need to say now that good labour law will help all workers — in a union or not. And will help all those small proprietors in the industries serving worker’s needs. We need to say it now; we need to say it loud; and we need to keep on saying it to Election Day and beyond – good wages and full employment are good for everybody. We know it’s true so make it a mantra.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Having been at the coal face of the repealing of the Employment Contracts Act I to am saddened to see the gradual return to such policies which were worse than just about every developed western economy of the time. CEO's of large companies have continued to take the short sighted view of cutting costs rather than driving business and to a large degree that shows their inability to manage people. Easier to manage by fear than by example and leadership. We created a new way of thinking under the ECA which made people think of themselves at the expense of the community they lived and work in. I see the old union stuff being rolled out again and it gets traction because people are afraid to think forward instead of backward. Yes there were things wrong inside the union movement just as there were things wrong in the finance, banking, employers federation etc etc.
However the general public should look around at the people who have held their wage rates and benefits. Strangely most are part of strong unions. Police, firemen, pilots, teachers, engineers, banking staff and the list could go on.
Lower wages will not solve the countries problems, that is one of the facts of life.
Excellent comment, Philip. Thanks.
What a juandiced outlook on life you must have Philip. No wonder we ended up with such a mess that is the ERA.
In an open and fair economy businesses and workers operate in balance to the benefit of both. The ERA swung the balance too far in favour of 'workers'. the unintended consequences of this is employers are loathe to employ people in case they get a dud.
The incentives increase unemployment whilst increasing the cost of currently employed staff.
Philip's responsible for ERA?
Crikey!
Philip's 'outlook on life' strikes me as both thoughtful and reasonable.
How curious that you should think his view 'jaundiced', para!
Its interesting that the ERA Employment Relations Act which replaced the ECA Employment Contracts Act has been in place for some years without issue apart from the odd company that wanted to lock workers out. How it could be called a mess confuses me but I will leave you with this thought.
NZ has more laws governing the rights and treatment of animals and pets than it does about the rights and treatment of school leavers. So while I am not jaundiced I am at times a little cynical. And when bank manager gets paid a multi million dollar salary for doing little apart from making sure there is a difference in investment rates to loan rates while rest home workers get paid minimum wages to look after our elderly day in day out I get even more cynical. And when those who argue that high salaries bring the right people I would point to Don Elder and say I can fully understand the thinking and the sun shines and the world becomes a better place.
I thought of Don as I drove past the briquetting plant yesterday, dodging tumbleweeds as I went.
PT's comment was "Having been at the coal face of the repealing of the Employment Contracts Act I..."
Neither of you have addressed the substance of my comment. The consequences of the ERA swinging the balance of power back to the employees to the extent that employers are stuck with any them regardless of their performance & behaviour.
Nonsense, para. I don't know of a single employee who boasts that they have the upper hand over their employer.
Do you?
Plenty. Just in my current employment alone we have three deadbeats who detract from the service we are trying to provide our clients. We cannot get rid of them under the current regulations.
One's behaviour is so bad in fact that he has driven away other excellent staff.
I need a career change then, paranormal. What industry, roughly, are you in?
My current employer is a multi-national consultancy and people are moved on all the time. Sometimes it's through process, other times it's more subtle than that, but whatever way, it's a tough business. If you are wondering whether a supposed liberal Green such as the Armchair Critic has ever been part of the process of dismissing an unwanted worker, the answer is "yes, of course, I've been the dismisser and the dismissed".
Which brings me on the a comment you made on the Enron thread, about how I need to get out to the real world. Here's the thing, in the real world it's easy to move a deadbeat or three on. Even I can do it, so it seems likely to me that the management at your current employment are hopeless, and not in touch with the real world.
The ERA does nothing more than give the employee the right to engage and ensure the employer follows the correct process in the case of a dispute. If an employer cannot manage staff they shouldnt be an employer, simple as that.Any non performing employee can be managed out of their job, it just needs to be done right and thats not hard. However lazy employers are getting caught and they squeal. We hear those squeals but the many who do it right found the laws perfectly satisfactory and we dont hear from them.
AC and PT, it is very difficult and costly to move staff on that know the system and do just enough to comply with the process. And therein lies the problem with the ERA. It is all about the process with no relevance to the substance of the issue.
What is consistently shown is that the ERA is not in any way reasonable in it's approach. Having moved on employees in other roles the only hope an employer has is that the employee gets sick of the hassle caused by the process and moves on voluntarily. My most memorable was a new staff member that was probably on P. Interviewed really well then it was all downhill after that. From starting the process it took only a week and a half for her to decide to leave. If, as we have at my current employment, individuals who know they have no hope of employment elsewhere, you're stuck with them unless you're willing to pay them out.
As for the 'right to engage', employees have always had that. The ERA takes it way further than a right to engage.
Interestingly I've found in provincial towns the ERA is followed less than in main centers.
BTW you are correct about the senior management here, but that's another issue.
As you observe, paranormal, lot of the laws are interpreted more liberally in the country compared to the cities.
I have no time for anyone who blames an abstract concept like "the law" for the much more tangible concept of "their personal failings." Once, many years ago, I came across a useless co-worker who could not be moved because he did just enough to stay employed. Three in in one place - hard to believe. I suspect the advent of GPS will have confounded my cunning co-worker.
Firstly jaundiced, now jealous Para. I wont resort to name calling but don't think either fit me. I have no issues with people making money. I just get annoyed when its spent on something that creates nothing. The next economic gurus will be the ones that show how much can be trimmed from the administration and put into the coal face. Hospitals would be the classic. Obviously I have missed something with MRP. Me and my parents paid for it through tax to create power. Would love to know how much extra it has generated since its shares were floated.
Post a Comment