the progressive workers' strike

[chanceyy]

Great so out of all that, how many days would you like to work a year? 5 or 10?

now thats a stupid comment finn


as for your previous post .. I have also worked hard for everything i have .. but I also know that such is the curve in the road of life .. & i sure want support if i find myself in their situation .., & yes the union certainly do care ... at least more than you

[Scouse]

well said Skyryder

[Hitcher]

This strike has gone on way too long. Any benefits Distribution Workers Union members may have hoped to achieve have well and truly been torched. And this strike was never about money either, rather it has been about a bunch of technical union stuff designed to increase their muscle in the longer term. I feel sorry for low-income families that are being badly hurt to salve the egos of their leaders. Why, why, why, dear Laila?

[chanceyy]

This strike has gone on way too long. Any benefits Distribution Workers Union members may have hoped to achieve have well and truly been torched. And this strike was never about money either, rather it has been about a bunch of technical union stuff designed to increase their muscle in the longer term. I feel sorry for low-income families that are being badly hurt to salve the egos of their leaders. Why, why, why, dear Laila?

hitcher ... it is not a strike .. the workers put in notice of strike action for 48 hours .. the companies response was to issue suspension notices to them .. so they are now locked out .. the only way back in is to lose all of their rights and accept what the company wants to offer ..

so the battle is far from over and yes the workers will win this one .. & in the long run it will benefit other workers ..

[oldrider]

It is a nonsense to suggest that industrial action is a no win situation. If you are to take this only on a financial exercise then this could be argued. However the trade union movement no only believes that a cause for strike is to benifit those that are active in the strike but also for those that are to follow. Socalism may be a dirty word but in it's purest form it's not the sacrofice of the present but the gains for tomorrow that are realy important. That was the underlying cause when the Carpenters Union gained a forty hour week for it's members. Strong active Unions lead the way for society to follow. Much of the legislation that is incorperated into the Employment Relations Act is a direct result of active unionism and these conditions we now take for granted. The same can said for the suffragettes. Scorned on by society at the time.........now many are considered heroines. We can slag the Lalia Harrys, the Sue Kedgly's, the Sue Bradfords etc.............but some people have the balls to stand up and go into bat for the underdog. HOW MANY HERE HAVE DONE IT??
Skyryder

Response to Skyryder's challenge above.

I think I could confidently claim to having "been there done that" from all the strategic positions in the spectrum and my conclusions are based upon that experience.

In all of my union years, almost all of the talk was generated on how to screw the "employer" but by comparison, I can not think of a time when managers gathered together to talk of how they could screw the "employee"!

This is the singular biggest surprise to me following the transition from the "shop floor" to a middle to quite high "management role!"

Nearly all of the focus of the management team with respect to employees, was to try to establish a satisfactory work environment.

Unions depend on disruption and spreading dissatisfaction, in order to create an environment of distrust towards "they" the managers and employers that are constantly trying to "screw" them. (The workers) This is the view cultured by the unions.

These strikes and actions are more about the survival of the unnecessary third party of industry, the "representative" and the bigger the union body, the more hungry they are to survive as unnecessary industrial parasites.

Unions are little more than another form of taxation, bleeding the workers for a share of their already overtaxed earnings and to make things worse the union pays a large portion of that money to the Labour party funding to make sure that the situation remains in their favour.

The weapon that the unions use against their membership is "fear!"

Lies and distortion of facts fuel the fear in the minds of their members, Labour governments pass legislation making Union membership compulsory and the grip on the unsuspecting worker tightens and tightens.

The part that astounds me is that there are employers who are so stupid and down right lazy, that they not only aid and abet this system by their inaction, they actually subscribe to it.

Ownership of the business or industry is only red herring thrown in by the unions as part of the fear factor, ownership onshore/offshore, is totally irrelevant.

This post is not intended to inflame this topic, I am just trying to share my life experience with those who care to think about it. Cheers John.

[Hitcher]

so the battle is far from over and yes the workers will win this one .. & in the long run it will benefit other workers ..

Single national collective agreements have never benefitted workers in the long term. There are all manner of differences between businesses operating in provincial centres and those in big cities. A national collective says all workers must be treated the same way irrespective of where they live. I disagree with this assumption.

Similarly cherry picking all of the good bits out of several collectives to form an uber-collective agreement, in addition to a wage increase more than double the rate of inflation was unlikely to ever find favour with an employer. I think that the union leadership has badly overplayed its hand on this one.

It started as a strike, it's now a lock-out. I feel very sorry for the affected workers and their families. I hope at some stage in the not-too-distant future they can find jobs.

[chanceyy]

Response to Skyryder's challenge above.

I think I could confidently claim to having "been there done that" from all the strategic positions in the spectrum and my conclusions are based upon that experience.

In all of my union years, almost all of the talk was generated on how to screw the "employer" but by comparison, I can not think of a time when managers gathered together to talk of how they could screw the "employee"!

sorry john i have to disagree with you .. I too have been a worker .. & a manager

@ no time have i ever come across a union who uses fear tactics

As a delegate we have a mutual respect with management & we are working closely with them to ensure that our jobs are secure .. & even though our negotiations took 10 months to settle we were complimented on our professionalism and knowledge of the issues at hand. (our call centre manager was extremely proud of our conduct & let us know it)

I have no hesitation in discussion current issues with our managers, & they have sure come to us to clarify points ..

being unionised mean we do have a democracy & can have a strong voice in matters of importance ... & be acknowledged and taken seriously

It is give & take on both sides with the same goals in sight it can be a pretty powerful thing

[terbang]

To all the bleading hearts, he's my view on the topic.

I've worked bloody hard for what I've got today and I wasn't a member of the lucky sperm club either. In fact I grew up relatively poor.

The reason I don't give a toss about those locked out workers is for the following reasons;

1) Don't like it - leave. Can't? Should have paid more attention at school.
2) Can't afford to feed their 9 kids, tough. Shouldn't have had them
3) Their unions don't give a fuck about them, why should I?
4) Where's my social responsibility? I pay it in taxes, that's enough.
5) While this Government is in power, my wallet is closed.

As an fair and reasonable employer, I've had enough of this environment.

Over & out.

6) Wish I could make 5'6"..!

[Scouse]

Response to Skyryder's challenge above.

I think I could confidently claim to having "been there done that" from all the strategic positions in the spectrum and my conclusions are based upon that experience.

In all of my union years, almost all of the talk was generated on how to screw the "employer" but by comparison, I can not think of a time when managers gathered together to talk of how they could screw the "employee"!

This is the singular biggest surprise to me following the transition from the "shop floor" to a middle to quite high "management role!"

Nearly all of the focus of the management team with respect to employees, was to try to establish a satisfactory work environment.

Unions depend on disruption and spreading dissatisfaction, in order to create an environment of distrust towards "they" the managers and employers that are constantly trying to "screw" them. (The workers) This is the view cultured by the unions.

These strikes and actions are more about the survival of the unnecessary third party of industry, the "representative" and the bigger the union body, the more hungry they are to survive as unnecessary industrial parasites.

Unions are little more than another form of taxation, bleeding the workers for a share of their already overtaxed earnings and to make things worse the union pays a large portion of that money to the Labour party funding to make sure that the situation remains in their favour.

The weapon that the unions use against their membership is "fear!"

Lies and distortion of facts fuel the fear in the minds of their members, Labour governments pass legislation making Union membership compulsory and the grip on the unsuspecting worker tightens and tightens.

The part that astounds me is that there are employers who are so stupid and down right lazy, that they not only aid and abet this system by their inaction, they actually subscribe to it.

Ownership of the business or industry is only red herring thrown in by the unions as part of the fear factor, ownership onshore/offshore, is totally irrelevant.

This post is not intended to inflame this topic, I am just trying to share my life experience with those who care to think about it. Cheers John.

I think your living in the 70's

[chanceyy]

Single national collective agreements have never benefitted workers in the long term. There are all manner of differences between businesses operating in provincial centres and those in big cities. A national collective says all workers must be treated the same way irrespective of where they live. I disagree with this assumption.

Similarly cherry picking all of the good bits out of several collectives to form an uber-collective agreement, in addition to a wage increase more than double the rate of inflation was unlikely to ever find favour with an employer. I think that the union leadership has badly overplayed its hand on this one.

It started as a strike, it's now a lock-out. I feel very sorry for the affected workers and their families. I hope at some stage in the not-too-distant future they can find jobs.

Well Hitcher .. I work in one of three sites that our company has .. we used to have a prob with a us & them mentality even though we all did the same work and worked for the same outfit .. a collective has certainly pulled the three sites together and we work to a common goal .. much better culture and relationships between sites are much better .. so sorry i do not agree with you

[oldrider]

I think your living in the 70's

Interesting comment, in the seventies I was a Union delegate! John.

[Lou Girardin]

This strike has gone on way too long. Any benefits Distribution Workers Union members may have hoped to achieve have well and truly been torched. And this strike was never about money either, rather it has been about a bunch of technical union stuff designed to increase their muscle in the longer term. I feel sorry for low-income families that are being badly hurt to salve the egos of their leaders. Why, why, why, dear Laila?

So, when does principle end and capitulation start?

[Skyryder]

Response to Skyryder's challenge above.

I think I could confidently claim to having "been there done that" from all the strategic positions in the spectrum and my conclusions are based upon that experience.

In all of my union years, almost all of the talk was generated on how to screw the "employer" but by comparison, I can not think of a time when managers gathered together to talk of how they could screw the "employee"!

This is the singular biggest surprise to me following the transition from the "shop floor" to a middle to quite high "management role!"

Nearly all of the focus of the management team with respect to employees, was to try to establish a satisfactory work environment.

Unions depend on disruption and spreading dissatisfaction, in order to create an environment of distrust towards "they" the managers and employers that are constantly trying to "screw" them. (The workers) This is the view cultured by the unions.

These strikes and actions are more about the survival of the unnecessary third party of industry, the "representative" and the bigger the union body, the more hungry they are to survive as unnecessary industrial parasites.

Unions are little more than another form of taxation, bleeding the workers for a share of their already overtaxed earnings and to make things worse the union pays a large portion of that money to the Labour party funding to make sure that the situation remains in their favour.

The weapon that the unions use against their membership is "fear!"

Lies and distortion of facts fuel the fear in the minds of their members, Labour governments pass legislation making Union membership compulsory and the grip on the unsuspecting worker tightens and tightens.

The part that astounds me is that there are employers who are so stupid and down right lazy, that they not only aid and abet this system by their inaction, they actually subscribe to it.

Ownership of the business or industry is only red herring thrown in by the unions as part of the fear factor, ownership onshore/offshore, is totally irrelevant.

This post is not intended to inflame this topic, I am just trying to share my life experience with those who care to think about it. Cheers John.

As one who has worked under a National Union Agreement and the Employment Contract Act which was chaperoned by the Buisness Roundtable you are once again wrong. The Employment Contract's Act was put in place by National with consultation by the Emplyers Federation, Federated Farmers and others that I now no longer recall. There has always been 'consultation by employers in how to look after their interests at the expense of those that work for them. It is why their are buisness associations across the broad spectrum of the buisness community. There are some buisness that go beyond the call of duty in this reguard.

I have no idea where you get the idea of fear from. I have been involved in the Trade Union movement for some time, those that disagree with Union policy have never been in fear. Certainly not in New Zealand. In fact I am of the opionion that the Trade Uniosts have been in fear of Management and their thugs. For proof of that I have only to mention the name of Earnie Abbot. For those that do not recall the name Earnie Abbot was the cleaner that was blown up by a bomb that was left in the Wellington Trades Hall. His killer has never been bought to justice.

Yes Or there has been Unions who have used the bat so too has managment. Henry Ford is one who first comes to mind. And it would be mindless to pusue this any further as to the rights and wrongs.

The Trade Union movement is about looking after those that for whatever reason do not have the skills to look after their own interests.

Contrary to what most people think trade union officials are not highly paid. It's an ideology that provides the 'working' incentive. Many might disagree with the ideology and that is their right, but make no mistake it's hard work spending all you life asking so that others may benifit. It's a commitment that few are prepared to make.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Well Hitcher .. I work in one of three sites that our company has .. we used to have a prob with a us & them mentality even though we all did the same work and worked for the same outfit .. a collective has certainly pulled the three sites together and we work to a common goal .. much better culture and relationships between sites are much better .. so sorry i do not agree with you

Without knowing the details of your "collective", or the location of your three sites, I have nothing to reference your comments against. We may or may not be in disagreement.

[Hitcher]

So, when does principle end and capitulation start?

Unless that's a rhetorical question, I guess we'll find out soon enough?