Forced licence progression

[Coolz]

The Northern Advocate's version of the quota memo and new test including another rebuttal: http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/ne...rners/1701233/

In the second paragraph of that article it states the national average is 59% failing the test. In the second to last paragraph NZTA spokesman Knackstedt says "The fact of the matter is that more than 50% are passing the test" Go figure?

[mhm]

interesting,read page one,skipped to page 7 and doesn't seem like I missed much. I've been on my learners coming up 12 years.only reason I haven't upgraded is because I haven't owned a bike for the past decade. doesn't mean I lost any of my skills.nor to say I haven't ridden other peoples bikes.those ranging from 50-1000cc. a licence holder simply has proven they've passed a test 1 day in the past.like with welding tickets you can pass one year fail the next by missing a slight inclusion,resit the next day and pass.its all here nor there. I will never judge a rider by the license they hold, I judge them by how they ride plain and simple,hell we all know riders with licenses that ride illegally

[FJRider]

Excuses ... excuses ... excuses ...

Even more excuses ...

Yep ... sounds familiar ...

[Ocean1]

Why ... nothing illegal there.

It is just a condition of employment. Either the information they require is provided or they employ somebody else.

Those that refuse are free to find employment elsewhere.

Employers are not free to require their employees accept conditions that are unreasonable. If, in this case the employee complies with the requirements of the law with regards to his licence then I suspect he'd have the right to tell the employer "no thanks".

It was given in writing from day one,,,,what's your point ?

See above. If you signed the agreement or you're happy to do so then you don't have a problem, good for you.

But what about these guys:

Those that have said "no thanks" have been told their contracts will not be renewed after March this year.

They deserve to lose their jobs because they object to government imposing unreasonable constraints on it's people?

[Ocean1]

Implementation of a personal ID card would be easy. But totally optional.

Step 1. Mandatory issue to all Government employees. In most cases it already is.

Step 2. Personal ID card required for any person requiring (and prior to) ANY Government departmental assistance.

Step 3. Personal ID card for those (prior to) appearing in court. (a large percentage of step 2.)

Step 3. Wait for the rest to apply for their personal ID card.

Simple ... eh .. !!!

Yes. Just to refresh your memory:

As I said ... the more that try to flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen. That simple.

Any government that finds it has to force compliance to arbitrary regulation on it's people has already lost the battle. It's not a government to which I'd feel the slightest hesitation in applying a little gunpowder.

[Zedder]

In the second paragraph of that article it states the national average is 59% failing the test. In the second to last paragraph NZTA spokesman Knackstedt says "The fact of the matter is that more than 50% are passing the test" Go figure?

The Advocate article was written several months after the original "drama" though. Knackstedt said the pass rate was better now ie: December.

[FJRider]

Employers are not free to require their employees accept conditions that are unreasonable. If, in this case the employee complies with the requirements of the law with regards to his licence then I suspect he'd have the right to tell the employer "no thanks".

Contracts work both ways. Employers are free to award contracts to whomever it is their best interest to get the contract. Lowest tenderer is not always awarded any contract. The employee/tenderer is free to accept the contract if legal conditions of employment are offered ... or not accept the conditions. Conditions regarding any license he/she may (or may not) hold is not on any ILLEGAL list I know of. Care to point out which of it is .. ??

They deserve to lose their jobs because they object to government imposing unreasonable constraints on it's people?

It is not a "job" ... it is a contract to do a job. Contracts previously completed ... do not imply future award of all (or ANY) future contracts.

AND ... See above ...

[FJRider]

Any government that finds it has to force compliance to arbitrary regulation on it's people has already lost the battle. It's not a government to which I'd feel the slightest hesitation in applying a little gunpowder.

No force required. As I said ... ALL totally optional.

Booked your one way ticket yet ... and don't forget to wave goodbye.

[Ocean1]

It is not a "job" ... it is a contract to do a job. Contracts previously completed ... do not imply future award of all (or ANY) future contracts.

AND ... See above ...

You're comprehensively wrong.

He's employed by the company, he's an employee, they don't, for example have the right to insist he wears a tutu.

[Ocean1]

No force required. As I said ... ALL totally optional.

Booked your one way ticket yet ... and don't forget to wave goodbye.

Why would I be going anywhere? I'd much rather stay here and require any unreasonable and arbitrary law be repealed. By force if nescessary, and I've no doubt I'd have help.

You seem to have a problem with authority, you respect it far too much.

[FJRider]

for example have the right to insist he wears a tutu.

If it's the company uniform ... perfectly legal to be required

[FJRider]

Why would I be going anywhere? I'd much rather stay here and require any unreasonable and arbitrary law be repealed. By force if nescessary, and I've no doubt I'd have help.

You still here ..


You seem to have a problem with authority, you respect it far too much.

I have more success using authority to my advantage ... than you obviously ...

And I've probably had more to do with "unreasonable authority" than you have ...

[Coolz]

The Advocate article was written several months after the original "drama" though. Knackstedt said the pass rate was better now ie: December.

The figures quoted were up to September 14th. Nowhere in the article did Knackstedt say the pass rate was better in December.

[Zedder]

The figures quoted were up to September 14th. Nowhere in the article did Knackstedt say the pass rate was better in December.

I took it to be because the article was dated 31 December and also they stated the memo was leaked last month ie: November.

In the second to last pargraph Knackstedt said: "The fact of the matter is that more than 50 percent are now passing..." was then referring to December.

[Coolz]

I took it to be because the article was dated 31 December and also they stated the memo was leaked last month ie: November.

In the second to last pargraph Knackstedt said: "The fact of the matter is that more than 50 percent are now passing..." was then referring to December.

I find Knackstedts' quote interesting if true and interesting anyway.