Merchant Bankers don't change their spots or Hawaiian Mansions
Protest 'first shot' in fight over changes
Unions will hold a war council this week to decide how to fight sweeping changes to employment laws. The move comes after protesters stormed security and police cordons outside the National Party's annual conference at the SkyCity Grand Hotel in Auckland yesterday. They entered the hotel shouting slogans against the Government's changes, which include making it easier to fire workers, extending the 90-day trial for new staff and tightening union access to workplaces. Despite protesters repeatedly charging the police line, shift commander Wayne Kitcher said there were no arrests or injuries to officers.
Now that the CTU have just learned that John Key is not their friend (they were very slow in criticizing the 90 day right to sack when it didn't concern their members, now they're beside themselves because National predictably expanded it to their work places as well). Unite always saw where this was going and protested it but protests will need to get much sharper, and now the gloves are off, that protest will only build, but it was a nice start on Sunday.
The hilarity is that the merchant banker is telling you the little work ant that he's giving his rich prick mates the right to sack you, because the merchant banker loves you the little worker ant. Forget the fact that this system fired one in five workers, forget the fact 300,000 workers are in the first 90 days at any one time during the employment cycle, forget that we have one of the highest unemployment rates in a decade. Oh no, those issues don't matter, the merchant banker is doing this because he loves you the worker ant.
Banning Unions from the work place, creating the pressures that will force workers to hand over their 4th week of holiday (only rich people have a right to holidays, workers don't), gutting the training and education budgets for Unions and of course expanding the right to sack from just companies of 20 people to all companies.
Remember the excuses given to us from our right wing friends on line in favour of this right to sack? That in a small business a person who didn't 'fit in' could damage productivity, that argument was just a trojan horse to get the right to sack implemented because expanding this power to ALL companies clearly walks right over the top of the first argument the right wing used to defend the 90 day right to sack.
And what is the evidence the Merchant Banker is trying to use to con you the worker ant that it's all for you? A bullshit Department of Labour report that asks the boss man how he is liking his new powers to sack at will, well shit me sideways, the bosses all seem to love it. Why not ask the workers being sacked, the 22%, the one in 5 workers who were sacked without reason if the system is working? Apparently the Department of Labour decided only to ask the boss man, not those being impacted by the boss man.
At the protest I watched as some Young Nats walked across the road. Listening to their smug and abusive comments towards the protesters was the most eye opening event of the day, their contempt at the concept of workers rights was a great insight into the next Tory leaders of tomorrow, based on their abuse that tomorrow ain't no friend to social justice.
This declaration of war on the workers by National is aimed at raising funds from the Auckland Business Mafia who bankrolled the last election and want to see some right wing flag waving and nothing boosts the war chest through anonymous donations into the Waitamata Trust than some old fashioned class war union busting.
This Government's vacant aspiration Daddy State is not moderate, it's hard right economic policy being sold as social policy.
posted by Bomber @ 7:19 am
22 comments
22 Comments:
At the protest I watched as some Young Nats walked across the road. Listening to their smug and abusive comments towards the protesters was the most eye opening event of the day, their contempt at the concept of workers rights was a great insight into the next Tory leaders of tomorrow, based on their abuse that tomorrow ain't no friend to social justice.
Imagine a bunch of young nats or act on campus kids making a huge scene, trying to barge their way into the next green party conference, scuffling with cops.
You'd be fine with that would you? You wouldn't have anything but kind praise to heap on them? Thought not.
Who owns my house?
So who decides what and who goes on there?
Who owns the telephone network?
So who decides what and who goes there?
So who owns the workplace?
The employer or the workers in it?
Duh!
Mikenz
@ above- better than being a capitalist fascist pig
Nine Hagen's new album has a song i dedicate to you fascists
"all you fascists bound to lose"
check it out
those young nats would have to be the sorriest group of young people i have ever had to watch on tv
made my eyes bleed
baaa baaa baaa morbid and pathetic
Imagine a bunch of young nats or act on campus kids making a huge scene, trying to barge their way into the next green party conference, scuffling with cops.
You'd be fine with that would you? You wouldn't have anything but kind praise to heap on them? Thought not.
Hungry Bear, could you possibly expand your imaginary scenario you are pulling out of your arse to make your point and just explain to us all exactly what was the issue these imaginary ACT Party activists were breaking into the Green Party conference?
Motive justifies the civil disobedience action Hungry Bear, I'm surprised you attempted to launch an analogy without thinking that through.
So who owns the workplace?
The employer or the workers in it?
The workplace may be owned by the bossman, but the bossman has to allow Police on their workplace if a crime is happening, so the bossman does accept intervention on his worksite under certain circumstances, pretending that the workplace is suddenly some sacrosanct special place where Unions can not enter based on your ownership model is a debate better placed in the 18th century Mikenz.
And of course finally, this charming little gem from an anonymous poster claiming to be a young nat there on the day...
Did you catch me calling you a fat socialist cunt?
...thank yo so much for showing readers what you are made of young nat.
Motive justifies the civil disobedience action Hungry Bear, I'm surprised you attempted to launch an analogy without thinking that through.
Well you would say that wouldn't you? And that is the exact sort of thinking that drives nutters to burn down abortion clinics "My beliefs are the universal truth, so what ever I do is justified"
I'm not surprised in the least that you completely avoid the point I was making: The protesters were being being predictably obnoxious hence the lack of respect they were getting from the young nats.
Hilarious how you guys tried to storm the WRONG building.
Not off to a good start.
THE NATs are RATS-
why we will fight back!
short film by SA's Billy Hania
http://socialistaotearoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/nats-are-rats-why-we-fought-back.html
and as for the who owns the Land
Maori own the land and its time to pay for it
"Who owns my house?
So who decides what and who goes on there?
Who owns the telephone network?
So who decides what and who goes there?
So who owns the workplace?
The employer or the workers in it?
Duh!
Mikenz"
So are you suggesting ownership justifies exploitation?
Employers and employees need each other, one cannot exist without the other...it should be an equal relationship. Nats proposed legislation has moved the power so far towards the employer that protests are inevitable.
The relationship between employer and employee should never be left to correct itself, as it is unequal to begin with (especially at the moment with high unemployment).
To all you young nats who inherited daddy's business and believe you have as God given right to degrade the lives of those you employ beware....
-If I get given a bad employment contract then I won't give a shit about my job,
-I won't give a shit about your family business that has been going over 100 years,
-I won't consider taking a few freebies from work to be stealing,
-I will have no qualms about lying to the boss to take sick days etc,
-I will do the least amount of work possible,
-If your business starts to strain I will not put in extra work,
-And when your business goes bankrupt and you owe tens of thousands I will be the one laughing, you'll be the loser and I'll move on to my next disposable job.
Or you could create a fair employment environment and the opposite would happen....its your business....do you think anyone cares about anything for $14 per hour?
"Employers and employees need each other, one cannot exist without the other...it should be an equal relationship."
Sure if this risk is spread willingly. The employee should therefore have to contribute to half the capital of the business through compulsory garnishing of their wages and subsequent salary should be linked directly to the profitability of the business - if the business' profitibility suffers then the employee takes homes less pay.
I have no problem with an equal relationship on this footing whatsoever.
@ fatty,
You are entitled to behave that way already. Of course if you do so then you will likely get sacked eventually, especially if it ahppens with the 90 day probation period.
It could also make it difficult to get another job but once again if you don't want to make it easy for yourself that is your right.
"Move to China if you don't like freedom of speech or civil rights."
China's idea of socialism is to make people work so that they have sufficient money to survive.
If that is 'socialism' then it should forthwith be implemented in NZ by having the unemployed work.
Transmission Gully would be a good start.
The imbalance between the rights of workers and employers is interesting.
Workers have plenty of rights - the right to be paid an agreed wage on time being the biggest. In return, surely it is fair for an employer to have the right to expect a certain level of competency etc. After all, the risk is theirs.
What many on the left dont get, or dont want to get, is that there are sometimes occasions where the employee is simply rubbish. The employer, in any equal relationship, should have the right to protect themselves be dismissing staff that, within a trial period, dont work out. It is, after all, their capital on the line. Its their risk.
Businesses can fail because of 'crappy' staff. The staff walk away, often the owner cant.
Bomber,
I we send Key back to Hawaii in the wrapper he came in, do we get our money back under the Consumer Protection Act?
KiwiM
War council!!
I love it, best laugh I've had in a long time.
"Sure if this risk is spread willingly. The employee should therefore have to contribute to half the capital of the business through compulsory garnishing of their wages and subsequent salary should be linked directly to the profitability of the business - if the business' profitibility suffers then the employee takes homes less pay.
I have no problem with an equal relationship on this footing whatsoever."
That's exactly the way things should happen, if each worker had a vested interest within their employment, you wouldn't have so many shitty workers. Treat workers like disposable farm animals and they will do a shit job for you.
@Gosman-
I know I can work like that now, I did at my last 2 jobs. Was as lazy as I could be, milked sick days, helped myself to "leftovers" and generally didn't give a f*#k about the job or the family's business. Fortunately the boss was stupid enough to not figure it out. They were temp/seasonal jobs and I moved onto the next one.
90 day jobs do not create better workers, they create a revolving door of uninspired, pissed off workers who have nothing to lose - who cares if you lose a McJob?
"Of course if you do so then you will likely get sacked eventually"
Is that the threat? - That I may lose a shitty job, with shitty pay and shitty worker rights.....you gotta give me something worth losing first.
This is all just a return to the ECA 1991 where individualism trumps collectivism leaving the poor to get abused by the rich which will result in massive social problems. They have used an economic downturn to justify deregulation and increase the power of a few.
Its a brave move from Key as his popularity has slipped over the last couple of months, this could create a slide that is impossible to stop.
There is an interesting take on the proposed labour reforms over here: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/the-blues-go-black.
The discussion in the comments thread addresses many of the substantive issues raised here.
Anon 8.28, aren't you missing the point, isn't it your support for this type of employer that creates that type of employee?
And I'm sure that there would be very few employees who would turn down the opportunity to share in a businesses risk if they also got to share in it's profits. But then the poor CEO's would probably have to work for less than $4m, I imagine it would be them who would have the problem with that model. I'd love to share in the profits of the Ozzie corporates I work for, can anybody organize that for me?
No AAMC you are missing the point by automatically assuming - as the left seem to do- that business owners are earning millions of dollars.
I doubt you have ever run or own a business so you probably aren't aware that most NZ businesses are small businesses, most don't even have a turnover of 4 million, let alone "CEO's" getting paid anything like that.
Many small business owners - myself included - pay themselves less than their employees for the first few years to get their companies up and running but again, you wouldn't have a clue about any of that.
"And I'm sure that there would be very few employees who would turn down the opportunity to share in a businesses risk if they also got to share in it's profits."
Oh I'm sure they would love to AAMC, it's just that everyone wants share's in a business once it is up and running successfully.
I would love to see you try and find employees willing to share the risk in the first few years when the business is running at a loss.
The reality is that most employees aren't buying into the companies they work for because they simply can not afford the risk in the first place.
"Anon 8.28, aren't you missing the point, isn't it your support for this type of employer that creates that type of employee?"
I employ 10 people, 4 of them have been with me for over 12 years, the latest guy we took on 4 months ago when one of my original guys left to start his own business.
How many people do you employ? Have you ever employed any?
And the Right tend to assume anybody with an ounce of Humanity is some sort of loser prole. You are very wrong Anon, I do and have run a very successful business for a decade and am one of the busiest in the country in a highly competitive and over catered for industry.
I agree in most instances small businesses will endeavor to maintain the best relationships they can to hold good staff and compensate them in a way that will motivate them, but it's not the shining examples in society that the Government is supposed to protect us from is it. If you haven't noticed the world is increasingly owned by fewer and fewer corporations - my business deals directly with them - and they don't play the sort of game your talking about. I think you'll find a large portion of New Zealand workers have employers with very different motives to yours. It helps I find to try to view the world through a vision slightly extended beyond my bubble.
I see, so in one post you claim you work for Australian corporates and would love to share the risk of business with them and in the next post you actually own the business?
Which is it?
"I agree in most instances small businesses will endeavor to maintain the best relationships they can to hold good staff and compensate them in a way that will motivate them, but it's not the shining examples in society that the Government is supposed to protect us from is it."
Fair call but consider this:
In most instances employees will endeavor to maintain the best relationships, take the initiative, work hard and treat the business as if their own livelihoods depend on it, but it's not the shining examples in society that the Government is supposed to protect business owners from from is it?
"I think you'll find a large portion of New Zealand workers have employers with very different motives to yours."
Really? What "portion"? What are you basing this on? Your claiming to have a vision beyond your own bubble, but this seems to amount to you assuming the worst of every one else - not much of a vision.
Yes I do own my own business and like most businesses it interacts with other businesses. Simple really. Prior to owning my own business I managed restaurants where i dealt with both good and bad staff and prior to that i grew up in a small family owned business, I see no inconsistancies in my statements and dont see how that effects the belief that employees would like a stake in their workplace profits.
Most of the companies MY business interacts with are Australian corporations and based on my experience with them and my interactions with their employees I believe that there need to be appropriate protections in place as their motivation is their quarterly shareholder payout.
It's also possible to both own a business and see the benefits of participating in an equitable society, or do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Post a Comment
<< Home