the progressive workers' strike

[Swoop]

and make sure she attains the 'right' targets. ie ones that keep the company profitable but not so good that they have to pay bonusses.

So she works for ASB Bank then???

[WINJA]

I didn't pre judge nuffink. I gave this person an equal opportunity and learnt that because of their race, I had to provide them with special treatment such as giving them extra time off to attend funerals for some people they'd never met. It's not fair on other staff or the company.

That's why I won't hire anymore until they are treated equally. In fact it was an MP who asked "with special treatment for maori, why would anybody employ them?"

This government is doing maori a huge disservice.

AND I GOTTA AGREE WITH FINN , SPECIAL CONDITIONS LIKE THAT ARE JUST LEGALISED RASICIAM

[WINJA]

Infact I Agree With Finn So Much Id Go As Far As To Say If I Was Him I Wouldnt Employ Any Females , It Might Not Sound Reasonable But Woman Are Generally Useless Compared To Men Eg , Employ A Man In The It Industry For Instance And Ask Him To Lift A Few Heavy Things And Shift A Desk And It Will Happen With Woman It Wont, Woman Generally Cant Be Used For Dual Purposes In The Work Place, Woman Get Pregnant And Woman Are More Likely To Raise False Sexual Harrasment Cases Which Sux Cause It Makes It Hard For The Genuine Cases, Forget All Of The Above For The Sex Industry Tho

[chanceyy]

Infact I Agree With Finn So Much Id Go As Far As To Say If I Was Him I Wouldnt Employ Any Females , It Might Not Sound Reasonable But Woman Are Generally Useless Compared To Men Eg , Employ A Man In The It Industry For Instance And Ask Him To Lift A Few Heavy Things And Shift A Desk And It Will Happen With Woman It Wont, Woman Generally Cant Be Used For Dual Purposes In The Work Place, Woman Get Pregnant And Woman Are More Likely To Raise False Sexual Harrasment Cases Which Sux Cause It Makes It Hard For The Genuine Cases, Forget All Of The Above For The Sex Industry Tho

Winja .. shut up get back in the kitchen & cook me dinner

[Skyryder]

The worst example of any Union that I have had any association with is the Seaman's Union, 1960 to 1965.

I think the parasite consumed the host in this case and lead to the demise of New Zealand shipping industry.

I would be afraid legally to post about my experiences with this organisation!

F P Walsh of the Seaman's Union was the first President of the Federation of Labour.(that I am aware of)

His true history would make very interesting reading, "fear" , say no more!

Poor old Ernie, they never caught the bomber because........?

There is an old saying, "hoist with his own petard" , makes you wonder, what really happened?

You are quite correct about Henry Ford but it was, like does, as like does, back then, the birth days of the union movement for which I have a lot of appreciation and sympathy but it has outlived itself today!

When compulsory unionism was legislated out, they almost disappeared, because nobody really wanted the extra cost burden of paying for them to exist and add no value to their lives. Market forces in action!

The only union that I have total respect for and believe that they did a good job, was the cleaners union.

My wife was a school cleaner and while she was a member, she did not ever actively participate but I used to read all their material that they sent to her.

I rated their integrity, performance and dedication to their members very highly, I even believe they added value to the industries they were associated with.

I still think the people involved in the action that promoted this thread are being used for something far greater than their immediate action. Poor buggers! John.

I have little knowledge of the Seamans Union or the background of the NZ shipping industry.

However I can recall a time when I was an 'observer' during talks when the tanker drivers were on strike I think it was about the mid eighties.

The Drivers Union were concerned about the prolonged effect this would have on the general public...............the response from the Oil companies cheif negotiator was and this is verbitm "I don't give a fuck about the public." Such was my introduction to the other side.


I could lump the Aussie Painter and Dockers Union in the fear catogory too, but this and the seamans Union are not representive of the union tradition. Fear and intimidation are and have not been employed as a union tactic. A tactic that your first post implied. The collective bargaining is the only way that any union can advance the cause of it's members. This is well known within buisness circles and was the main reason of the demise of the unions through the employment Relations Act. Destroy the collective bargaining position and the workers as indaviduals have no power to advance their cause.

The union movement in this country has been denigrated through succesive National Governments and it is because of this, and an anti union press, (before TV) that New Zealsnders have such a low opinion of unions. Yesterday this was called propaganda but today there is a new word for this; spin.

One only has to look at the history of the trade union movement http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/story_frms.html to understand the violence that has charectorised the early trade union movement.

Walsh does have this association but he was before my time. I have seen some things myself in the trade union movement that has made me ashamed of belonging the a particular union but as I said in my earlier post this does not alter the underlying principle of the trade union movement of which I am proud to adhere too.

The ultimate problem today in industrial relations is that management does not acknowledge the contribution that shop floor employees contribute to their buisness. They are seen only as a componet as a cost analysis figure for the production of a unit or a service. While this may be acceptable in purely financial terms it falls way short of acknowledging their true contribution to the companys profitability.

This to me is the heart of the Progressive lockout.

I suppose at the end of the day we can agree to disagree.

Maybe one day we should go for a ride and meet in the middle.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

Skyryder, the point that we do agree on is the lack of trust between parties and it is not like that without reason.
I have been in the position of having turned that around and it is so rewarding to everyone concerned when you can achieve it.
I believe that collective bargaining prevents that from being achieved at all because the ones making the decisions are too far removed from the point of action. Even the best will and intentions can not bridge that gap when the decision makers are too many steps away from the action.
The authority to make change or agreement has to be vested in the parties at the closest point of contact to build a meaningful working relationship.
The word bandied around in the late eighties, early nineties was "empowerment" and while it was misused and abused by some it really did work well for those that embraced it.
Even an individual employment contract with little room for fiscal movement can still be affective as long as both parties feel that they have "their" hands equally and firmly on the reins and have a true agreement within the bounds agreed upon.
I dislike Unions because they have nearly always proved to me that they have more interest in their political aspirations than they do for their members and prevent progress because of ideology, even when it is not in their members own interest. The same can be said for employers too that do not delegate and empower their managers to take responsibility for their own work environment.

You are so right about going for a ride, lets sign an "individual agreement" on that right now and "empower" ourselves to do it! We can even decide how much to spend! If it was left to those ladies indoors to decide, it might not get done at all because they don't share our immediate interests at heart! John.

[Lou Girardin]

Over far to many years of working for bosses, and being an employer. I've come to the conclusion that as long as your face fits, most bosses are ever so nice. As soon as there's an issue, even of a minor nature, you'll see their true colours.
I will no longer accept, "sure, it says that in the contract. But we'll never actually enforce it". I want my rights and conditions of employment protected in writing.

[Skyryder]

Skyryder, the point that we do agree on is the lack of trust between parties and it is not like that without reason.
I have been in the position of having turned that around and it is so rewarding to everyone concerned when you can achieve it.
I believe that collective bargaining prevents that from being achieved at all because the ones making the decisions are too far removed from the point of action. Even the best will and intentions can not bridge that gap when the decision makers are too many steps away from the action.
The authority to make change or agreement has to be vested in the parties at the closest point of contact to build a meaningful working relationship.
The word bandied around in the late eighties, early nineties was "empowerment" and while it was misused and abused by some it really did work well for those that embraced it.
Even an individual employment contract with little room for fiscal movement can still be affective as long as both parties feel that they have "their" hands equally and firmly on the reins and have a true agreement within the bounds agreed upon.
I dislike Unions because they have nearly always proved to me that they have more interest in their political aspirations than they do for their members and prevent progress because of ideology, even when it is not in their members own interest. The same can be said for employers too that do not delegate and empower their managers to take responsibility for their own work environment.

You are so right about going for a ride, lets sign an "individual agreement" on that right now and "empower" ourselves to do it! We can even decide how much to spend! If it was left to those ladies indoors to decide, it might not get done at all because they don't share our immediate interests at heart! John.

I have worked in many jobs over my working life. I have never seen an employer, one who has control of the fiscal accounts, even remotely concerned about the indaviduals working conditions or wages. These are people that in your words are where the ones making the decisions are too far removed from the point of action.

This is different from the shop floor manager who often sympathiszes with his employees due to the close working relationship. But he is not the accountant........the one making the costs of wages etc

As for negoteating on your own behalf..........all I can say it is a foolish lawyer who tries to defend himself. He may have the skills but emotiaons can cause mistakes. Self empowerment. Looks great in writing but the practacalities for the wage and saleray earner are usually insurmountable for him to negotiate successfully on his own behalf. And as for the indavidual useing the greivance clauses in the Employment relations act.........believe me I've tried that one on my own and got fucked up good and proper.

Most companies have a standard employment contract for their staff. This may vary with middle and senoir managment but for Joe Blogg it'a a take or leave situation. There is no negotian whatever.

The simple fact is, collective bargaining and national unification of workers brings a better return for the wage and saleries earners investment by way of union fees. Management know this and it's why the Progressives have locked out their employees.

Skyryder

PS My sige says it all.

[Skyryder]

Over far to many years of working for bosses, and being an employer. I've come to the conclusion that as long as your face fits, most bosses are ever so nice. As soon as there's an issue, even of a minor nature, you'll see their true colours.
I will no longer accept, "sure, it says that in the contract. But we'll never actually enforce it". I want my rights and conditions of employment protected in writing.

So do I Lou. It's when the meaning of what's written comes into dispute the indavidual will in most cases back down because of the employers power. Indavidual bargaining places the employee on a tilted playing field where the boss takes the high ground because he not only calls the toss, he tosses the coin, as well as owns the coin. It will be a one headed coin too. Collective bargaining reduces the game to a semblance of a level playing field but the half way line will always be in a position of favour too management. e.g. Negotians are nearly aways conducted in the environment of management. The retention of the status quo or a given answer of 'no.' is an easier course of action for managment than the Unions who are always in a position of having to ask. That is the way of things and any lawfull measure that will alleviate that problem can not be judged a bad thing. This is essentialy what the Good Faith clauses in the Employment Realtions Act address.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

I have worked in many jobs over my working life. I have never seen an employer, one who has control of the fiscal accounts, even remotely concerned about the indaviduals working conditions or wages. These are people that in your words are where the ones making the decisions are too far removed from the point of action.

Hay pay scales incorporate a margin for flexibility within the range for the job. An incentive range agreed upon and managed by both parties to the contract.

This is different from the shop floor manager who often sympathiszes with his employees due to the close working relationship. But he is not the accountant........the one making the costs of wages etc

That's just the gutless bastards excusing themselves from any responsibility, fucktards should not be managers or they have not been trained adequately.

As for negoteating on your own behalf..........all I can say it is a foolish lawyer who tries to defend himself. He may have the skills but emotiaons can cause mistakes. Self empowerment. Looks great in writing but the practacalities for the wage and saleray earner are usually insurmountable for him to negotiate successfully on his own behalf. And as for the indavidual useing the greivance clauses in the Employment relations act.........believe me I've tried that one on my own and got fucked up good and proper.

I have personally sent employees to training venues to learn how to negotiate on their own behalf. Adds value to them and to the company.

Most companies have a standard employment contract for their staff. This may vary with middle and senoir managment but for Joe Blogg it'a a take or leave situation. There is no negotian whatever.

I agree with you but that does not make it right. We are talking about industrial relations here, some do it right and some don't that is why there is an employment court.

The simple fact is, collective bargaining and national unification of workers brings a better return for the wage and saleries earners investment by way of union fees. Management know this and it's why the Progressives have locked out their employees.

Collective bargaining is just bullying from the employees position, just as locking out is bullying from the employers position. This is just a show of strength from both sides. A lose/lose situation in the making.

They are supposed to be negotiating in "good faith" that could be done by empowering for individual contracts. Any dispute is actioned without having to influence and inconvenience the business or fellow workers! I rest my case, look at the disruption to everyone that the case in question is causing

Skyryder

PS My sige says it all.

It must be windy at your place too, I guess that's why we are not riding our bikes! well stuff the wind I am going to go for a wee ride some where. Cheers John.

[mstriumph]

.................. It's worse if you hire maori's. Years ago, I had one maori person in my company that went to 6 funerals in one year, had 36 sick days off, was always late and was useless when they made a guest appearence. We went through a process to get rid of this person and they took us to the tribunal. We lost because the person was maori and were told to pay $5000 for wrongful dismisal. Of course we didn't pay and never will but that's beside the point. This person affected everybody around them and caused many problems.

So what did we learn from this? Never hire a maori and we never have since then.

people who generalize should be shot ......

[mstriumph]

.........................I Wouldnt Employ Any Females , It Might Not Sound Reasonable But Woman Are Generally Useless Compared To Men Eg , Employ A Man In The It Industry For Instance And Ask Him To Lift A Few Heavy Things And Shift A Desk And It Will Happen With Woman It Wont..................

you've obviously never worked with anyone like me

i have spent my working life doing three times the work of my male colleagues in half the time and to twice the standard for between 75% [in south africa] and 95% [here] of the pay

in the course of that i have shifted desks, changed lightbulbs, mopped up occassional vomit and a dozen other things that are so far removed from my job description that it's laughable

now - all that may make me stupid, but it CERTAINLY doesn't make me part of YOUR stereotype - so think again, please

..... and where were my MALE colleagues when the a 'here and now' problem required immediate action???? hmmmmmmmmm mostly out the back having coffee or a smoke and living vicariously thru the exploits of their local footy team .........

oh and i have NEVER laid a sexual harrassment charge against ANYONE [but i have to plead guilty to damaging one person who couldn't take no for an answer with an old imperial upright typewriter ....... altogether MUCH more satisfying, dontcha think?? ......... sheesh, those babies pack a wallop ........ ]

[chanceyy]

you've obviously never worked with anyone like me

i have spent my working life doing three times the work of my male colleagues in half the time and to twice the standard for between 75% [in south africa] and 95% [here] of the pay

in the course of that i have shifted desks, changed lightbulbs, mopped up occassional vomit and a dozen other things that are so far removed from my job description that it's laughable

now - all that may make me stupid, but it CERTAINLY doesn't make me part of YOUR stereotype - so think again, please

..... and where were my MALE colleagues when the a 'here and now' problem required immediate action???? hmmmmmmmmm mostly out the back having coffee or a smoke and living vicariously thru the exploits of their local footy team .........

oh and i have NEVER laid a sexual harrassment charge against ANYONE [but i have to plead guilty to damaging one person who couldn't take no for an answer with an old imperial upright typewriter ....... altogether MUCH more satisfying, dontcha think?? ......... sheesh, those babies pack a wallop ........ ]

LMFAO ^5 girl .. yes us woman certainly can put more into our jobs than the male counterparts

[Finn]

people who generalize should be shot ......

Same for people who can't spell generalise and use spell checker set to US English.

[WINJA]

LMFAO ^5 girl .. yes us woman certainly can put more into our jobs than the male counterparts

YEAH YEAH WHATEVER , I HEAR WOMAN TALKING ABOUT MULTI TASKING BUT WHATS THE POINT OF DOING 4 THINGS AT ONCE BUT NONE OF THEM PROPERLY , WOMAN ARE JUST LEACHES TAKING CREDIT FOR THE EFFORTS OF HARD WORKING MEN