Congratulations 48%

[oldrider]

Actually I dont Know Sue Newberry , but Jane I have had correspondence with ( She HAS to be a lesbo ! ..not sure that has anything to do with the current argument , but it cant hurt )

I had a quick read of the link you posted and would be a balanCING view , still inst gushing with praise about privatization
even Paula Bennett on prisons, concedes that it would not be cheaper, to privatise

But on the other hand neither were the old institutions. The thing about those old work schemes such as benmore , the railways, it was WORK , abet subsidized work, but work , and work gives the man worth . ( meaning full work that is )

Unfortuantly once those shares go into private hand , then control is lost so, even in SOE form they still have responsibilities to perform

State owned assets have multiple functions, the balance of which will differ in each case. They include ( imho)

• Preventing excess profits in important services which are a monopoly or are otherwise less than
fully competitive;
• Ensuring essential services are provided equitably and affordably
• Providing security of services;
• Social solidarity mechanisms such as ACC (or equivalently perhaps, providing services which
are considerably more efficient to provide universally than individually)
• Providing services in the public interest which the private sector is unlikely to provide;
• Providing additional income to the government.

which is reduced or lost in the search for shareholder profit. IMHO

Stephen

Ta for link that gets printed and into the notes folder..........

Finding the balance between the two (private and public) should be the goal ... like utilizing the power band on a two stroke motor!

The problem lies with the difference of a private utility running on on public service employment principals would fail eventually simply for that reason!

Too much government interference and political tweeking would add to the utilities demise as well ACC for instance!

Other than the methods of operation ... ownership is not such a big deal ... it is the service that the utility provides that is important, IMHO!

[Ocean1]

The problem lies with the difference of a private utility running on on public service employment principals would fail eventually simply for that reason!

And private utility running the usual private business principals will allways provide the least amount for the greatest income. Fact is neither public nor private has worked very well beyond the first few years of a systems foundation. I suspect that's because the original brief and funding are aligned for just so long as politicians don't fuck with the details.

It's not a problem you'll solve unless you write a charter for the service that politicians can't fuck with. Seems pretty basic don't it? write a description of what's to be delivered and a budget to match... and we can't do it.

[Winston001]

The thing about those old work schemes such as benmore , the railways, it was WORK , abet subsidized work, but work , and work gives the man worth . ( meaning full work that is )

I know I know and at first glance that appears to have been good for our society. Big government departments like Railways, Mines, and Ministry of Works employing hundreds of thousands of Kiwis funded by the rest of the population. Supporting each other.

The problem was that a guy earning the average wage at the time ($25,000) was paying tax so his brother-in-law could earn $40,000 wandering around the railway yards. It simply was not fair to the majority of the population. It is easy to talk about subsidised work but when you boil it down and discover the average person earned less than those in some government jobs, that was wrong.

I do respect your belief that NZ should hang on to ownership of as much of our economy as possible. In fact most of us would agree with that.

[Oscar]

I know I know and at first glance that appears to have been good for our society. Big government departments like Railways, Mines, and Ministry of Works employing hundreds of thousands of Kiwis funded by the rest of the population. Supporting each other.

The problem was that a guy earning the average wage at the time ($25,000) was paying tax so his brother-in-law could earn $40,000 wandering around the railway yards. It simply was not fair to the majority of the population. It is easy to talk about subsidised work but when you boil it down and discover the average person earned less than those in some government jobs, that was wrong.

I do respect your belief that NZ should hang on to ownership of as much of our economy as possible. In fact most of us would agree with that.

So true.
Raglan had four wharfies, paid God knows what, to load and unload a maximum of two ships a month...they probably considered it a hardship because they didn't get enough opportunity for pilfering.

[Ocean1]

So true.
Raglan had four wharfies, paid God knows what, to load and unload a maximum of two ships a month...they probably considered it a hardship because they didn't get enough opportunity for pilfering.

Gretta point slipway had just one item of traffic for several years after it was officially closed: the van carrying the wages for the slipway greaser. Nobody had told him or the WIC his services were no longer req'd. True.

WIC. There's a blast from the past that'll send a shudder up many an old spine.

[Brian d marge]

Have you seen the pay rates in chch at the moment for ECQ

Stephen

[Grumph]

Gretta point slipway had just one item of traffic for several years after it was officially closed: the van carrying the wages for the slipway greaser. Nobody had told him or the WIC his services were no longer req'd. True.

WIC. There's a blast from the past that'll send a shudder up many an old spine.

Well, maybe....are you saying that the privatisation of port labour has worked ?? There's a lot of people around the shipping industry who tell me it hasn't. Wouldn't surprise me if eventually something similar comes back. Auckland at present could be a case in point.
I left the industry when the WIC closed despite being head hunted by the Lyttelton Port co - I could see what it would go like and the stress levels I see in old friends prove I was right to get out.

[Ocean1]

Well, maybe....are you saying that the privatisation of port labour has worked ?? There's a lot of people around the shipping industry who tell me it hasn't.

Worked? For some ports the demise of the WIC allowed good management to make both employees and the board happy. Wellington was a case in point a decade ago, less so now I understand.

I left the industry when the WIC closed despite being head hunted by the Lyttelton Port co - I could see what it would go like and the stress levels I see in old friends prove I was right to get out.

Yeah. Jobs in the public service, particularly institutions protected by rigid labour laws and unionism were largely stress free, some remain so. That's invariably because there's no link between effort and reward, you could fuck around all day with impunity. Easy it might have been, but it don't amount to pulling your own weight.

Not suggesting everything worth doing has to be stressful, but nobody has the right to be completely free from the consequences of their professional performance.

[Grumph]

Okay it worked for some ports - Tauranga seems to be the shining example.

The WIC wasn't public service - it was a Quango as it was industry funded - no state services overview ie no protection...

Responsibility...Pay office supervisor at Lyttelton - try having a payroll of over 1000 potentially baying for your blood if you let a cockup through the system....and as for the shipping companies if something was charged wrong....pure poison.

The last 3 years of waiting for parliament to set a shut date were hell trying to keep staff...no security at all.

Labour relations certainly at Lytt are worse now than when the WIC shut....looks like Akl is much the same.

[Ocean1]

Okay it worked for some ports - Tauranga seems to be the shining example.

The WIC wasn't public service - it was a Quango as it was industry funded - no state services overview ie no protection...

Yes. There's a problem with any such arangement. DHB boards are a classic example, a high percentage of local professional bureaucrats individually utterly clueless about the industry and collectively squabling over resource assignments not perfectly aligned with their constituents. Chaos. I'm not absolutely sure that you can't run a business or a public service by committee, but I'm fucking certain that you can't run one by a committee with as many objectives as there are members.

Labour relations certainly at Lytt are worse now than when the WIC shut....looks like Akl is much the same.

Meh. Unhappy employees are sometimes caused by poor management, but sometimes they're caused by unhappy employees. Don't know which is the case in Lytt or Orks, don't much care, it's not my problem nowadays.

[Grumph]

[QUOTE=Ocean1;
Meh. Unhappy employees are sometimes caused by poor management, but sometimes they're caused by unhappy employees. Don't know which is the case in Lytt or Orks, don't much care, it's not my problem nowadays.[/QUOTE]

I'll drink to that.....

[Swoop]

How soon we forget.
NZR was fucked when it was sold and was probably never viable in its history.
It had been nurtured through the years with copious amounts of taxpayers money, overmanning which was effectively a way of disguising unemployment figures and most of all by draconian rules on freight transport (IIRC a 100km limit on road freight). This enabled NZR to operate a monopoly which choked local businesses whilst holding them to ransom and made sure that economic development anywhere more than 100km from a railway line was impossible. The final indignities were the endemic theft and graft by staff, constant industrial action and "service" which was provided by Stalinist officialdom.

Ahh yes, the old NZ Snailways monopoly.

As the saying went (with good reason) "If you want something crushed beyond recognition, send it via rail".