the progressive workers' strike

[Finn]

Finn your a capitalist and others are more socialist, get over it or catch the next plane out... Whilst your investment may be of some use to this country, your attitude towards other people isn't. I wonder if you would see other people differently if you were to be able to make 5 and 1/2 feet.
The progressive lockout is really about an AUSTRALIAN company that has been taking full advantage of a cheap labour market here in NZ, no doubt to the advantage of of AUSTRALIAN shareholders. They are obviously trying to make it cheaper (where do I buy some shares in them) by not negotiating with their NZ employees and locking them out. Once again an Aussie company thumps Kiwi's and they will win in some way or another. Kiwi labour gets poorer and as time goes by poor people can eventually become more desperate and whether it be jealusy or survival it makes little difference as our crime rates climb. The likes of Finn then gets a bullet betwwen his eyes, rather than just a verbal attack, for shooting his mouth off about motorway ownership. He has to build a bigger fence and up his security and his costs go up. Take look at where way our crime stats are heading in sympathy to our economic profile.

If you're going to talk market extremes, then Capitalism is the way of the world son. Either find a way to make it work for you and your family or you will suffer fighting a battle you'll never win. Socialism is just a theory and has NEVER worked in practice.

The Progressive lockout has nothing to do with Australia. It's about ideology, just like your post. Foodstuff's, the NZ Co-op pays their distribution staff a lot less. In case you aren't aware, most of NZ's large businesses are owned by Australian companies. Why? Because we don't have the skill, the knowledge and the funding to do it on our own.

Being poor in NZ is a life style choice. Saying we need to pay low life’s more money so they don't commit crime is a fool’s comment.

[ManDownUnder]

A common point of confusion is between what's desirable politically, and comercially.

Politically, it's desirable to have one person one vote - all equal blah blah blah... democracy. I'm not here to get into the merits or otherwise of the voting systems, electoral act or other ideologies...

Just remember this one thing - Demoncracy = equality of input to the running of the country

Now compare that to running a company. If everyone had equal say that company'd be fucked. It's hard enough to get 5 people to agree on most things, let alone all the complexities of running a company is it's various spheres of operation.

Not to mention the fact that people have put their time, expertise and or money into a company and rightly expect to have a say in who their money is invested.

If they don't like it, they withdraw their money and do something else with it. (Anyone else spot the parallel here... what if the workers withdrew their labour... and took it to the competition?)

On the other side of the coin, if a country was run with a mangement board in place that used the dictatorial style of a Board of Directors there would be a restrictive lifestyle, but probably highly competitive economy *can you say "Singapore"?)

[The_Dover]

*can you say "Singapore"?)

singer poor.

[ManDownUnder]

singer poor.

Nice one - now try "Far Queue"

[Ixion]

If you're going to talk market extremes, then Capitalism is the way of the world son. Either find a way to make it work for you and your family or you will suffer fighting a battle you'll never win. Socialism is just a theory and has NEVER worked in practice.
,,.

Incorrect. It worked very well in this country for 40 odd years. During which time, we had a robust economy, the highest living standard in the world, unemployment was virtually unknown, serious crime was notably rare, and we led the world on almost all the social indicators.

[ManDownUnder]

Incorrect. It worked very well in this country for 40 odd years. During which time, we had a robust economy, the highest living standard in the world, unemployment was virtually unknown, serious crime was notably rare, and we led the world on almost all the social indicators.

And then world became interconnected, air travel, internet, and it's demonstrated it's shortcomings in a competitive environment..

[Paul in NZ]

And then world became interconnected, air travel, internet, and it's demonstrated it's shortcomings in a competitive environment..

I think thats just one of the excuses offered.

My own experience was that the good times gave enough of a leg up to many people so that their children were better educated (essentially free university education like most of the current MP's) and decided they would be individually better off outside the system that was 'holding them back'. The only thing the interconnection did was allow the mass marketters to convince these selfish pricks that it was really in the countries best interest for them to have a nearly new japanese import or an Ipod.

Once the unions were destroyed it was all on and as a whole, I doubt that we are actually any better off than we were.

[Ixion]

And then world became interconnected, air travel, internet, and it's demonstrated it's shortcomings in a competitive environment..

That is a circular argument. The whole point of socialism is that it is cooperative not competative. So that is just to say that socialism had demonstrated its shortcomings as a capitalist system. Equally, I could point to the disintegration of New Zealand society and say that capitalism (or, more specifically, the globalised market economy system) has manifestly demonstrated its shortcomings in a cooperative environment. And I think that your shortcomings are worse than mine!

EDIT: BTW, we did have air travel in the 50s y'know! And BBS systems, the precursor of the WWW in the 60s

[ManDownUnder]

The only thing the interconnection did was allow the mass marketters to convince these selfish pricks that it was really in the countries best interest for them to have a nearly new japanese import or an Ipod.

In essence - yes. The marketplace went global, and with it were formed economic superpowers (EU being one of them - why bother forming up an EU if there is no advantage in having the bigger economy?)

That is a circular argument. The whole point of socialism is that it is cooperative not competative. So that is just to say that socialism had demonstrated its shortcomings as a capitalist system. Equally, I could point to the disintegration of New Zealand society and say that capitalism (or, more specifically, the globalised market economy system) has manifestly demonstrated its shortcomings in a cooperative environment. And I think that your shortcomings are worse than mine!

EDIT: BTW, we did have air travel in the 50s y'know! And BBS systems, the precursor of the WWW in the 60s

I see what you're saying and yes, capitalism will certainly polarise those with and those without, along the same lines as those who can and those who can't.

I'm lucky to be on the "those who can", thereby having more rather than less. I don't like seeing so much of my tax taken and given to "those that should" (get off their arses) and I'm fully in favour of support those who need it, not those who want it.

I've never been on the dole a day in my life, and I'm 100% certain I never will. I pay more tax annually than most people earn annualy (per Dept of Stats), and yet I'm working harder now than ever to improve my lot.

Why? Because I can, because I believe in the benefits of hard work, and because I know it's not a pie that gets sliced up such that a bigger bit for me means less for someone else. We can all have more pie. We just need to put more in to make it bigger. God knows I'm doing my bit.

I am 100% certain I'm better off socially and economically than I could have been in the '50s or 60's, and I disagree wuith your comment re air travel in the 50's and 60's. It's not so unusal for me to go to Oz for a day, or the US for 3 or 4 days. The costs of doing that in the 50's and 60's would have been prohibitive, and until the advent of the 747 in the late 60s - impractical.

BBS systems were the domain of the geeks and were rare to say the least. Telegrams and expensive (and awkaward) long distance communications were the norm.

Can you imagine finding and buying a pair of forks for your bike, unaided by anyone acting on your behalf, nationwide across the US, paying for them and having them shipped to your hotel and subsequently brought home to NZ for NZ$180, and taking a total of 45 mins of my personal time?

No - 2006 is a very very different place from 1950 and 1960. I'll don't believe your arguments to the contrary. The 50's and 60's had a different emphasis. More family, but also more cold war. 2006 is more a individual society... a global society. I'm working globally, selling globally, bringing millions of $$$ into NZ from all over the globe. My best friends (bar a few) are either in the US or Europe and I chat to them for free every day or two.

Society has simply changed.... and I don't think it's gone backwards. If family life has suffered it's because people have chosen to let it suffer. Mine hasn't.

[ManDownUnder]

So back to those poor suffering soles locked out of their employment. I wonder if any of them want to earn some money mowing lawns.

$10/hour.

[Ixion]

I see what you're saying and yes, capitalism will certainly polarise those with and those without, along the same lines as those who can and those who can't.

I'm lucky to be on the "those who can", thereby having more rather than less. I don't like seeing so much of my tax taken and given to "those that should" (get off their arses) and I'm fully in favour of support those who need it, not those who want it.

,,

It is not just a matter of those with and those without, or those who can and those who cannot. It is also a matter of those who accept or those who reject the central tenet of the capitalist system, that to survive every member of society must try his hardest to destroy every other member. A world where everyone is classified as either predator or prey is one we should have abandoned when we moved out of the jungle.

Socialism is not just the refuge of those who have not, or those who cannot. There are those who have, and can, but reject a societal model that sees others only in terms of how they can be exploited.

Arguably, the most pure form of capitalism in NZ at present, is the P "industry". Those running it are pure capitalists. The have, they can. They invest their money, and work hard to make more money.

But a society based on that model is not one that I want to be part of .

Do not ,please also, confuse socialism with welfarism. The genuine socialist is thoroughly in favour of hard work, and everybody pulling their weight.

[ManDownUnder]

It is not just a matter of those with and those without, or those who can and those who cannot. It is also a matter of those who accept or those who reject the central tenet of the capitalist system, that to survive every member of society must try his hardest to destroy every other member. A world where everyone is classified as either predator or prey is one we should have abandoned when we moved out of the jungle.

Capitalism is not about destrying others, it's about looking after ones own interests, and I argue it's in my best interests to look after those that need help, but not those that simply want help (hence my to that effect in my post above)

Socialism is not just the refuge of those who have not, or those who cannot. There are those who have, and can, but reject a societal model that sees others only in terms of how they can be exploited.

Exploitation is only possibly for those willing to be exploited. I'm not willing to, and I'm also not willing to do the exploiting.

Mine is a simple fair trade system. I offer $10/hour for anyone to do my lawns. If no-one does it, I either do them myself, let them grow, or offer more. Sounds more like market forces at work to me.

The lock out isn't exploitation. If the employer isn't playing by the rules and are exploiting the workers (per the historic grievance claim made by Ms Harry), the Union should have told it's members they'd be better off finding non exploitative work. Isn't the union there to protect the interests of the workers?

Would that warning not have been good advice?

Arguably, the most pure form of capitalism in NZ at present, is the P "industry". Those running it are pure capitalists. The have, they can. They invest their money, and work hard to make more money.

God point, well made. I also despise the US model where money is the cure and measure of everything.

If a poor man punches me and I sue him, I get $20 compensation, if Donald Trump did it I'd more liekly get $1 million... there's no sense in that! What makes one punch more expensive than the other?

But a society based on that model is not one that I want to be part of .

Me either

Do not ,please also, confuse socialism with welfarism. The genuine socialist is thoroughly in favour of hard work, and everybody pulling their weight.

Point taken - no worries

[terbang]

Saying we need to pay low life’s more money so they don't commit crime is a fool’s comment.

You said it not me. I was merely pointing out some observences in other parts of the world. Finn I am not really anti capitalist nor pro it and the same with socialist ideals. As the expert you are finn, show me some examples of capitalism or socialism really working..? I also dont judge or hold contempt for those that havn't made the same choices as me and choose to live in NZ for many reasons that you clearly overlook. Low life..? You need to expand more. Could it be a person who is loud, obnoxious and has no care or respect for anyone apart from themselves. Think back to your described motorway incident. You could have also acted in a courteous manner and given the guy some room, as confused as he was and vice versa. Instead it seems that both of you acted like a pair of morons on either end of the "LOW LIFE" spectrum.

[Finn]

You said it not me. I was merely pointing out some observences in other parts of the world. Finn I am not really anti capitalist nor pro it and the same with socialist ideals. As the expert you are finn, show me some examples of capitalism or socialism really working..? I also dont judge or hold contempt for those that havn't made the same choices as me and choose to live in NZ for many reasons that you clearly overlook. Low life..? You need to expand more. Could it be a person who is loud, obnoxious and has no care or respect for anyone apart from themselves. Think back to your described motorway incident. You could have also acted in a courteous manner and given the guy some room, as confused as he was and vice versa. Instead it seems that both of you acted like a pair of morons on either end of the "LOW LIFE" spectrum.

You said quote: "Kiwi labour gets poorer and as time goes by poor people can eventually become more desperate and whether it be jealusy or survival it makes little difference as our crime rates climb."

That translates to people with no money commit crime. Crap. As I said, poverty is lifestyle choice in NZ. Major crime in NZ doesn't include people stealing food to feed their families.

As for my little incident, I have zero tollerance for drivers in this country. I don't think you'll receive too much support on KB with a "courteous" attitude towards the morons on our roads.

[Ixion]

Mine is a simple fair trade system. I offer $10/hour for anyone to do my lawns. If no-one does it, I either do them myself, let them grow, or offer more. Sounds more like market forces at work to me.

That may be fair enough, if I , as a lawnmower pusher am able to say "Your $10 per hour is inadequate. There are those willing to pay $15. Mow your own lawn". But, what if all the lawn owners for miles around have gotten together and agreed that they will pay only $5 per hour. As a lawn mower pusher, I cannot survive on $5 per hour. But I (and my fellow lawn mower pushers) cannot find work at any other figure, because of the cartel of lawn owners. So, in effect the capitalist benefit of owning the lawn is used by the capitalists to force me into poverty. Of course you may say, well, in that case give up lawn mowing and take up other work. So I give up the work I spent years training for (well, not in the case of lawn mower pushing, but you get my drift) and take up hedge trimming. Only to find that the capitalists own all the hedges , too, and have clubbed together and agreed that none of them will pay more than $4 per hour.

If we still had, as we once did, a society where shops were individually owned, each run by the owner standing behind the counter, then that would be a different matter. I would say to the worker "Well, if Grocer George will not pay enough, then leave him and take a job with Grocer Greg. If none of them , without collusion between them, think that you are worth what you want, then maybe you need to rethink your position. Or work harder. Or start your OWN grocery store". But that model is long gone, replaced by the giant corporation. And the simplistic "get a better job" is no longer a valid solution for more than a small minority.

With respect (and of course I know nothing about you) I see you equating your own position with that of the corporations. I do not think they are likely to be the same. I imagine that , in fact, you are more akin to Grocer Greg, albeit with a virtual shop counter. Providing goods or services through your own endeavours. You say "I'm working harder now than ever to improve my lot" (a sentiment with which no socialist would quibble). But do you think that any of the directors of Progressive would say "I will work harder to improve the lot of Progressive". No. they say "You work harder"

The socialist has no argument with the entrapreneur. And classically there was much movement of people between the ranks of small businessman, and worker and back again. And where that model still exists there is seldom any industrial friction. When was the last time you heard of motor mechanics going on strike? It will seldom happen because the motor mechanicing industry is still one of independant operators (people like Mr Motu, for example). If a mechanic thinks he is undervalued by his boss, he can quit and seek a job with any of the many other garages around. Or hire premises and set up for himself. And in some cases, later on, close his business and go back to working for another. These options are not available to the Progressive workers. Can any one of them set up his own grocery distribution centre. Or even his own supermarket.

And the corporation is as much the enemy of the entrapreneur as it that of the worker. How many small businesses have been ruthlessly destroyed by some giant corporation moving in on them?