|
10th March 2012, 18:54 | #81 |
Anas Latrina
|
Or they could do what everyone else does and find another job somewhere else.
Last edited by TD : 10th March 2012 at 18:56. |
11th March 2012, 03:37 | #82 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
11th March 2012, 08:56 | #83 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
11th March 2012, 08:59 | #84 |
|
|
11th March 2012, 10:48 | #85 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
Hell, you like workers so much eh and love your wildcat strikes? What about the prospect of innocent workers who work in distribution or wherever else whose jobs and livelihoods are put at risk because a few fuckwits at various ports are ANGRY and refuse to unload ships? Do some people's jobs matter more? Sleep on that a bit, you selfish twit. |
|
11th March 2012, 13:19 | #86 | |
|
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/03/...-distribution/
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
11th March 2012, 19:44 | #87 |
|
You seem to take the most extreme interpretation of my opinions. Militant unions who ask for unrealistic gains and strike to gain them can get fucked, but IMO, in this instance that's not what we're discussing.
Unions that strike as a result of pay and conditions being eroded beyond what it reasonable shouldn't cop the blame for the incompetency of their employers. Workers banding together to make the small of problem of a few people striking a bigger problem that can't be ignored should be viewed as a necessary evil when dealing with a system that has failed to deliver a fair outcome. The pressure strikes such as these create are the fault of the employers, workers have one thing to negotiate with, their work. They can work, or not work, are you suggesting they should be forced to work? Maybe you think their other option should be to do as TD suggests and find another job? Well guess what? That creates a huge disruption to other workers in the supply chain as well, so unless you're advocating slavery your position is pretty weak. |
11th March 2012, 20:07 | #88 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
Hard concept to grasp, eh? |
|
17th March 2012, 13:07 | #89 | |
|
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/loca...-plans-halted/
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
17th March 2012, 13:48 | #90 | |
|
Quote:
I don't ask this in relation to the port workers or mean to suggest I condone their actions, I simply don't know enough about the situation to hold an opinion on the issue. It just seems to me that your statement requires the legal system and how one can petition it to also be completely decent, and I am not sure this is ever the case.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
17th March 2012, 14:42 | #91 |
|
That's such a BS straw-man argument that I wouldn't have expected it, even from you.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
17th March 2012, 14:47 | #92 |
|
Rosa Parks was protesting against an unjust "one law for you, another for me" scenario.
The Wellington dockworkers are not protesting any such thing - they're part of the same union (or a related one anyway) as the Auckland workers, so despite the fact that they are happy with their working conditions, they're fucking things up for their employers and the jobs of everyone else who is dependant on the business flowing through the Wellington port. Striking is meant to be a tool to protest about YOUR job, not the job of someone that is completely unrelated and in a completely different company but fills a similar role. Net result for the Wellington workers is a hell of a lot of bad feeling and bad publicity aimed entirely right back at them, while they actually made THEIR employer look even better. Whichever Union "genious" thought up that strike achieved the OPPOSITE effect of what a union is meant to do.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 17th March 2012 at 14:51. |
17th March 2012, 17:57 | #93 |
|
Sorry, my question was meant to be a question, not an argument. Please read my post again as a question, not an argument. Please read the whole post, the part I suspect you missed is where I say how I don't ask this question in relation to the ports issue. As such I will not relate any response back to the ports issue.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
17th March 2012, 18:57 | #94 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
I take it as given that reasonable people of good will who otherwise behave decently can legitimately disagree on whether the law should permit wildcat strikes in the name of solidarity with other workers. Different people in our society will clearly have different views. In cases where choosing either option is not necessarily more right or moral than the other, society simply must rely on a process through which people can legitimately participate to determine what ought to be the chosen option. The process happened and a law was passed and this is why it ought to be obeyed. This simply isn't a case where the law is demanding of anyone something that is obviously immoral, like discriminating or even physically harming another human being for no reason other than her skin colour. |
|
17th March 2012, 19:14 | #95 | |||
|
Quote:
That being said, I'm not going to defend these other strikes using the basis that they're having the kind of impact I'm suggesting in the hypothetical situation I've described above. Their effectiveness is questionable. I will however defend their right to choose to work or not, regardless of legal implications. The idea that their alternative is to, Quote:
If you really don't like strikes, offer a real alternative. Because under capitalism there is no other. Cyc, I actually agree that, Quote:
|
|||
17th March 2012, 19:27 | #96 | |
|
Quote:
If you want to discus the merits or lack thereof of the clash of value-systems vs legal systems (as after all, Rosa was asserting that she was decent and equal to whites by her value-system vs the laws based on the dominant value system of the time declaring Negroes as second-class citizens), then I recommend starting a thread to that effect.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
|
17th March 2012, 19:31 | #97 | |
|
Quote:
I'm trying to get a handle on how much weight I should put on your characterisation of this group of people. So are they scumbags because they're really just trying to get away with it, or are they scumbags because any time the label "lawbreaker" is attached to a group cyc can only see them as evil and can easily conjure up some legalistic frame which proves this to be so. This is why I asked the question I did. To find out how crazy cyc is, so I can get a slightly clearer view on this whole ports issue. Cause the fucking media isn't providing any clarity.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
17th March 2012, 19:38 | #98 | |
|
Quote:
It was meant to be like "Look, here's someone breaking the law to change it, rather than petitioning parliament, what do you think of them?" Why is this so fucking hard?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
17th March 2012, 19:47 | #99 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
17th March 2012, 20:04 | #100 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
17th March 2012, 20:15 | #101 | ||
Objection!
|
Quote:
Section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (at least cite the name correctly if you're gonna rely on it) actually clearly states that where another statute is clearly inconsistent with any right guaranteed under the NZBORA, the inconsistent statute prevails. In any event, this point assumes that there's a legitimate jurisprudential, common law-based argument in support of the proposition that the right to freedom of expression under the NZBORA requires the government to permit wildcat strikes by people protesting in relation to matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with their own working conditions. This is an argument that you have not made, nor are you qualified to make and develop it. Oh there's another thing that's in the way of your little NZBORA-based fantasy: Some of the wildcat strikes occurred in places like the Ports of Tauranga (PoT). By way of an example, PoT is a listed, limited liability company majority owned by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. However, a company is a distinct entity in law that is entirely separate from its shareholders under the Companies Act. Guess what these facts combined with s 3 of the NZBORA do to your little fantastical argument? Quote:
|
||
17th March 2012, 20:56 | #102 |
|
I withdraw the implication that the law would protect such actions as a political protest, but the rest stands. Normally I wouldn't offer a comment of something that requires specialist knowledge when I have only a lay-mans knowledge of it, but in reality my position isn't in any way reliant on it, so meh.
|
18th March 2012, 10:21 | #103 |
|
Mediawatch has an interesting analysis of the media coverage of the POA dispute on at the moment (downloadable on RNZ of course).
If anyones interested in that sort of thing that is... Pixie
__________________
Civilised is as civilised does and civilised people walk among us. |
18th March 2012, 13:06 | #104 |
|
^^ Pro-tier.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
22nd March 2012, 17:25 | #105 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
If you were MUNZ and you'd just managed to get Ports of Auckland back to the negotiating table, and the Employment Court specifically asked you to "exercise appropriate discretion and restraint regarding any media statements in relation to this matter given the continuation of bargaining", would your next move be to:
A. exercise appropriate discretion and restraint regarding any media statements in relation to this matter given the continuation of bargaining or B. go straight to the news media proclaiming victory and criticising PoA for being unable to work constructively (Hint: Helen Kelly is involved) |
22nd March 2012, 17:39 | #106 |
|
Well silly, that depends, am I rational human being who believes that the rule of law should apply in this situation, or ... Helen Kelly
|
22nd March 2012, 17:51 | #107 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Basically the union placed its penis on the table and handed Ports of Auckland a hammer while saying "fuckin' dare you cunt".
...aaaaaaand whack. Ports of Auckland locks out wharfies That's some damn fine negotiating there Lou. |
22nd March 2012, 18:08 | #108 |
Stunt Pants
|
I love it. I love it so much. The incompetence of the CTU and MUNTZ, the hammering given out by the Port. It's so great and I love it.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
29th March 2012, 01:15 | #109 | |
|
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/port...rocess-4799216
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
29th March 2012, 14:30 | #110 |
|
Uh, yes? What's your point? Casual employees - by the very nature of their contract - have no guarantee of work-availability, and so you don't make them redundant - you just stop employing them.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
30th March 2012, 20:10 | #111 |
|
Well that took an interesting turn. I wonder if the opinions in here will soften too
|
30th March 2012, 22:19 | #112 |
Love, Actuary
|
Once my new sofa has been delivered I am happy for the PoA to fire the lot of them.
|
1st April 2012, 12:31 | #113 |
|
*crickets*
|
1st April 2012, 12:57 | #114 |
|
Damn that pesky Employment Court!
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
1st April 2012, 16:07 | #115 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
1st April 2012, 16:21 | #116 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I've had my head down in local matters here, someone want to give me a quick summary of the past week's developments?
|
1st April 2012, 17:14 | #117 |
|
Board level politics has resulted in a back down by the PoA.
Basically a director named Rob Campbell has been beating his chest with fanciful ideas of creating an asset that returns as much as a fortune 500 company and pushed it too far. PoA received some advice during the week saying their position was weak, that forced a settlement, the director walked and here we are. Wasted productivity aside they're down one director who probably didn't suit the role and now everyone can relax on their newly delivered couches. Last edited by GM : 1st April 2012 at 17:16. |
1st April 2012, 18:40 | #118 | |
|
Also the Employment Court judge believes that "arguably" POAL contracting union members work while bargaining would seriously undermine bargaining on a new collective agreement and so would "arguably" be in breach of the Employment Relations Act.
The judge granted an injunction against the port getting rid of union members or using contractors. Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|