Labour troffers - underpants, golf clubs, wine and private planes - all on our money.

[BoristheBiter]

That's not the way I see it... I understand what you mean about Unions destroying themselves, as in they kept asking for, what began to be seen as, tiresome demands... but that was the perception put forwards by the media... oh look they're moaning again (sound familiar)... BUT, what really killed them were the employers... loss of control, loss of productivity etc... and primarily because the employer didn't want to give in to the demands of their employees... the blue politicians agreed and started to dismantle the unions from the top... imho that's what's happened... death by business case.

lol, they may still be there, but they have the morals of politicians and don't seem to back any other union in their cause, even when sharing a common goal... that isn't a union to me, that's a social club.

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

[MisterD]

Plus the see-saw between two choices. MMP is not the best, but it does introduce the concept of having to work together with another party. With FPP it is a case of "elect us so we can shaft you with ALL of our policies and ideas"...
Muldoon certainly did that.

At least with FPP you get the policies of a government decided before you actually vote for them. With MMP the parties shove a random bunch of stuff down on paper and then the politicians decide amongst themselves what they're going to do after the election...

[Bald Eagle]

Always makes me laugh when union leaders talk about members striking, it's not them that won't be able to pay the bills 'cos they still get paid - ironically by the people who aren't getting paid because they are on strike.

[Woodman]

I know you mean extreme right wing policies. I just want you to sell them to me, rather than assume as an article of faith that they will work (when they haven't here, or elsewhere, in the past).

I love change, but NZ doesn't do it right (understatement!). Labour undoes the mess National left, National undoes the mess Labour left, and both fritter around with things aligned to their ideologies. No-one has the balls to look at the real situation (hint: it's changed since the late 70's), come up with a workable way forward, sell it it the electorate, and then implement it effectively and accountably.

And the reason they don't is because we don't make them do so.

For this wonderful place not to end up some impoverished backwater we have to do some very smart things very soon. A good start would be understanding that there's more to change than just ticking a different coloured box on the voting paper.



I think you'll find most humans are actually terrified of change, but anyway. We don't like what we have been given before, but instead of demanding real change we allow the media to lead us around the fripperies of the day (expenses, since we're staying on topic). Far more comfortable than actually thinking about what is needed to fix things, and discussing it with and open-mind.

Flip.
Flop.
Flip.
Flop.

someone needs to start blowing shit up.

[Swoop]

At least with FPP you get the policies of a government decided before you actually vote for them.

Hmmm. Debateable.
No party has really stuck to what they promised, under either system.







*waits & listens for the sound of line screaming off of the reel...*

[mashman]

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

The unions you speak of dissapared in the 70's. As so when unions started paying union reps it became about protecting there jobs.
I'm not talking about the reps in a business but the stirrers that would come round every month just to so there face and pick up new members.
I watched as my family, and lots of others missed out on heaps of stuff due to being on strike. and watching the union reps pull up in there big flash cars and say shit like "keep it up " we have them where we want them" . they couldn't give a fuck about the working man/women.

Yes when they were needed they were good, as in when there was no emmployment act, but now like FPP they should just fuck off and die.

Ahhhh the good old days when reps were elected because they gave a shit... I agree to a certain extent... there were still plenty of reps that were doing things that the members required of them (my Mum, 80's)... Those good guys got legislated out, perhaps not completely destroyed, but with the introduction of compulsory strike ballots, it slowed the whole striking process... pickets became illegal... and compulsory union membership was also outlawed... hardly surprising that gave rise to these "new" reps... having to be legally savvy, not communicating with their members other than at AGM's, negotiating behind closed doors, keeping the workforce happy? (more like a business round table liason officer) I think not... beating them into submission more like, take it or get out... WRONG...

When people went out on strike, there was a reason for it... you don't just cut the income to your household for no reason... people felt strongly about the way businesses and employers were treating the workforce... at least in the 70's your neighbour could be trusted and most likely would help you out food wise etc... but as time went on and "rights" eroded away, cost of living shooting through the roof, mass unemployment etc... unions lost their bite because noone could afford to fight for their rights... and all because employers wanted to stop employees from complaining about work conditions, treatment, equality etc... we can't argue with our employers any more, because they tell you to fuck off, the law protects business from the individual... Once upon a time you had backing, the financial burdon of taking your employer to court was covered, you had professional help that came as part of your membership... now!!!! fuck all. STFU or get yourself another job... aye, brilliant for staff retention, excellent way to dienfrnachise the workforce, or get them to focus on them getting theirs... it destroyed a way of life and our parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends, everyone that did and could around that time, stood up for their rights... most of which we don't have today...

The Government killed the unions on behalf of the Employer. I'll never see it any other way. My family and their generation fought for theirs and our rights and got the royal FUCK OFF... What's changed since then? smaller unions are completely toothless, large unions are bound by laws and procedures to protect the livelyhood of the shareholders, employees are indeed numbers, nothing more than a perishable asset... And to top it all off, the rules that they make are flouted by just about every single MP that we have elected... and they get to keep the perks for LIFE waaaaaaha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... that's what the unions were fighting for... and that's what we'll never see again! but that's just the way i've seen it...

[BoristheBiter]

Ahhhh the good old days when reps were elected because they gave a shit... I agree to a certain extent... there were still plenty of reps that were doing things that the members required of them (my Mum, 80's)... but that's just the way i've seen it...

The main problem was the fact that they wanted the employee to have everything whether the company could afford it or not. That was what happened to the mines in the UK, just became too costly to remove the coal.
Like I said with the new employment act basic conditions are met and cannot be changed.
When I started work I was in a union, then as an apprentice I was covered by the apprentice act, then after I was with a company that had its own collective contract. This was run by the work force in that company alone. We had better work conditions, wages and time off then any union could have got us. Yes this was a very good employer and everyone was happy to be there and if worked harder than the rest you got a bonus. In the end in my case I have seen the unions as money hungry labour lackeys that only care about themselves and nothing anyone can say will change that.

[mashman]

The main problem was the fact that they wanted the employee to have everything whether the company could afford it or not. That was what happened to the mines in the UK, just became too costly to remove the coal.
Like I said with the new employment act basic conditions are met and cannot be changed.
When I started work I was in a union, then as an apprentice I was covered by the apprentice act, then after I was with a company that had its own collective contract. This was run by the work force in that company alone. We had better work conditions, wages and time off then any union could have got us. Yes this was a very good employer and everyone was happy to be there and if worked harder than the rest you got a bonus. In the end in my case I have seen the unions as money hungry labour lackeys that only care about themselves and nothing anyone can say will change that.

Not in my eyes... the main problem was that the employers would not cut their profit margins to allow their workers to have what they deserved/required in regards to their job (usually more money, i don't blame em, they do the work)... fair pay, fair conditions etc... safety suffered, people got injured, jobs went left right and centre (3 million+ at one point) and the destruction of a lifestyle that will most likely never be seen again... families went without money to protect that "lifestyle" and to protect their futures and got nothing but the "shaft" from the government... Coal was plentiful, we had stockpiles of the stuff (shame really or life may have stayed that way for a while longer), nuclear power was already on the scene and the kinks were starting to be ironed out (cost tens of millions to build, which would keep how many miners in a job?) and which would run with minimal maintenance overhead (aye that'll be shinin brite)... the problem with our coal was that it cost too much to export (cheaper to ship it from South America/Russia... something very VERY wrong there), the government coal/steel/transport etc... chiefs were getting paid far too much for doing an attrociously bad job with the industries of the country and the people let them know about it... only to be told to FUCK OFF because the govt had nothing constructive to counter with... pathetic.

Any Act is a waste of paper (especially the employment act as it doesn't deal with what is truly fair, only what is lawful)... there's always someone who tries (and succeeds) to work their way around it for their own purposes (it was a legitimate business expense, aha)... and it's never usually in the favour of the little guy (because it costs too much for that kind of advice)... Unions protected the little guy from this sort of bullying... hardly surprising business wanted them gone.

But i completely agree as to what the unions have become... there probably was a smattering of that back in the 70's/80's too... but i'd say that they were/are more right than left as they're protecting their jobs and not serving their people (even though they're as bad as each other, at least one pretends to care lol)

[BoristheBiter]

Any Act is a waste of paper (especially the employment act as it doesn't deal with what is truly fair, only what is lawful)... there's always someone who tries (and succeeds) to work their way around it for their own purposes (it was a legitimate business expense, aha)... and it's never usually in the favour of the little guy (because it costs too much for that kind of advice)... Unions protected the little guy from this sort of bullying... hardly surprising business wanted them gone.

But i completely agree as to what the unions have become... there probably was a smattering of that back in the 70's/80's too... but i'd say that they were/are more right than left as they're protecting their jobs and not serving their people (even though they're as bad as each other, at least one pretends to care lol)

You expalin to me why four weeks holiday a year is fair.
and if you think the act is a wate of paper, try getting rid of some worker that is shit at their job.

Everything else we aggree.

[rainman]

if you think the act is a wate of paper, try getting rid of some worker that is shit at their job.

Not difficult if you follow the process fairly. I have done this before, no problems. I have also rehabilitated several under-performing team members. The trick is not to assume at the beginning that you're going to fire the person, but rather to solve the problem that exists. Don't say "they're shit at their job", say "can I fix their performance problems, and if so, how?" It's much harder work but that's a manager's job - a point often forgotten by our lazy captains of industry.

It's all about respect and justice.

The case that resulted in dismissal I see as a failure on my part - I hired him, I managed him, I dealt with his performance issues, and I fired him. Had I done those better it would not have ended as it did.

[JimO]

perhaps its you who is shit at their job then

[BoristheBiter]

Not difficult if you follow the process fairly. I have done this before, no problems. I have also rehabilitated several under-performing team members. The trick is not to assume at the beginning that you're going to fire the person, but rather to solve the problem that exists. Don't say "they're shit at their job", say "can I fix their performance problems, and if so, how?" It's much harder work but that's a manager's job - a point often forgotten by our lazy captains of industry.

It's all about respect and justice.

The case that resulted in dismissal I see as a failure on my part - I hired him, I managed him, I dealt with his performance issues, and I fired him. Had I done those better it would not have ended as it did.

WTF has justice got to do with it. your paid to do a job. if you do it well you get paid more, if not you get your arse kicked. if a company doesn't see the good work you do you fuck off and get another job.
I don't need someone telling me what i should be paying my employes.

[rainman]

WTF has justice got to do with it. your paid to do a job. if you do it well you get paid more, if not you get your arse kicked. if a company doesn't see the good work you do you fuck off and get another job.

Justice in the sense of treating fellow humans fairly, rather than as labour units/semi-slaves in a neo-feudal system. And "if you do it well you get paid more"? Bwhahahahahahahaha! Mostly to get more cash you have to move to a different role at a different company. (And I suspect to get non-monetary recognition you have to move to a different country).

I don't need someone telling me what i should be paying my employes.

Yeah, you should have the right to pay $1 per day if you want! Wait a sec, you can, if you outsource to the third world.

If you are typical of the caliber of NZ managers no wonder you struggle with basic employment law.

[Woodman]

When people went out on strike, there was a reason for it... you don't just cut the income to your household for no reason... people felt strongly about the way businesses and employers were treating the workforce.....

Not in all cases, a lot of workers went on strike through fear. Fear of being blacklisted was the least of their worries. There were many cases of violence being threatened and used against non strikers, and non members. unions became a law unto themselves and deserved to be depowered. The current employment laws are all we need now. The process is fairly simple and fair.

[oldrider]

Politics....New Zealand style!

In the "left" corner, Heinz 57 varieties of socialism. In the "right" corner, Heinz 57 varieties of capitalism.

Spot the difference!

At least our children have clear choices now!