90-day workplace probation

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Just to clarify my own point so Fixed_truth can't wiggle out of it or pretend that he never made the assertion at issue. My problem is with the fact that FT somehow just "knows" that the NZBORA applies to private schools. Nothing more; nothing less.

You can have your opinion that a school has a right to fire someone for being gay. When a teacher gets fired for being gay and doesn't get his grievance settled, let me know.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You can have your opinion that a school has a right to fire someone for being gay. When a teacher gets fired for being gay and doesn't get his grievance settled, let me know.

That is not the point I was debating, you dishonest, words-twisting fuckwit. At the heart of any intelligent debate is the ability to not put words into your interlocutor's mouth. ALL that I've been disputing is your nonsensical "NZBORA applies to private school because I said so" approach when you are (1) thoroughly unqualified to make such an assertion and (2) unable to actually go beyond merely asserting an opinion as truth.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

In fact in this very case we are talking about (which would have involved legal advise that was actually specialized in this area) the religious body didn't even attempt to protect it's rights. They realised and admitted what they did was wrong, paid the price, and said it won't happen again. Guess their lawyers agreed with me huh?

No, I wasn't talking about that case, you ignorant fuckwit. We were talking about s 3 of the NZBORA and your context-insensitive, unqualified over-reliance of a LC report to back up your assertion-as-truth that s 3 of the NZBORA applies to a private school.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by cyc

Can you actually get involved in the debates at issue or just shut up? Repeating yourself over and over is a good sign of mental disturbance.

Yeah maybe when you stop wanking off to the fact that you're a lawyer (you and a shitload of other mediocre individuals). I've already posted my point here. I work closely with people who have issues in the workplace (and, I'm far smarter as you, penis). Based on what I've seen, the 90 day bill is a disaster for employees, even those who aren't 'lazy'/'useless' (as people like David would like to assume them to be). It's most disastrous for the already dis-empowered groups - youth and ethnic minorities.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

(and, I'm far smarter as you, penis)

Yeah I am so impressed by that demonstration of intelligence. Look, why don't you find the nearest mental asylum and admit yourself?

[MrTTTT]

u smell of poo

[cyc]

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Surely you can fuck off and call cyc an arrogant cunt in another thread, MrT?

I was getting into this one - I have *no* idea what cyc is talking about, but he sounds so authoritative, it makes me feel all squidgy inside - and I always get the impression that at the end I might've half-learned something. This process is always interrupted when His Lordship takes a break to call someone a retard, so please, just fuck up for awhile.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

ALL that I've been disputing is your nonsensical "NZBORA applies to private school because I said so" approach when you are (1) thoroughly unqualified to make such an assertion and (2) unable to actually go beyond merely asserting an opinion as truth.

I'll clarify. I think that in the context of a teacher being fired solely for being gay, this is not a 'justified limitation' on freedom from discrimination. In this context I don't think that the right of religious bodies to practice their beliefs would be given equal protection under the NZBORA or HRA with a person's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

I think this because being against homosexuality is not even a universal or essential Christian belief. New Zealand's largest evangelical Christian state-integrated school, when having their right to practice their beliefs challenged, admitted that they did not have the right to fire someone because they are gay.

[David]

Got to love people who don't realise they're prone to moving goal post arguments and continue to argue without realising how fucking stupid they look.

Original argument: "The new laws will allow discrimination in the workplace, such as Christian schools being able to get rid of gay people"

Original response: "They can already do that, due to the school being private and setting it's own Ethos, so it makes no difference based on the proposed changes to the ERA"

Next response: "NO THEY CAN'T (even though they have and continue to do so), HERE IS ONE INSTANCE WHERE THEY REVERSED IT BUT THE COURTS DIDN'T TELL THEM TOO"

Continued response: "I'm going to argue and argue and argue and argue without having any relevant fact to the original discussion, further perverting the idea that the changes to the ERA will be used only for evil"

The sad thing is? Any argument with someone who considers themselves left wing/socialist/liberal tends to go down this line.

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Surely you can fuck off and call cyc an arrogant cunt in another thread, MrT?

I was getting into this one - I have *no* idea what cyc is talking about, but he sounds so authoritative, it makes me feel all squidgy inside - and I always get the impression that at the end I might've half-learned something. This process is always interrupted when His Lordship takes a break to call someone a retard, so please, just fuck up for awhile.

maybe u could lick his bumhole in another thread?

[fixed_truth]

Actually David, my original argument was this:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Under the 90-day trial the Principal could have just let him go & not even brought up the fact that him being gay was a problem.

I stand by this.
Had this been under the 90-day trial, the Principal would of had gained the option of just letting him go without even bringing up that it was because him being gay was a problem (which the law didn't allow for yet in the case of the CHCH school). And whats more, the guy who was fired would not have been able to bring a claim of unfair dismissal as the Principals right to withhold a reason would give him no evidence to base it on.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10660122

[David]

You're still missing the point. The ERA as it stands will not have any further impact on Christian schools firing/refusing to hire gay teachers. That already exists and is already in play, with legal precedence proving the ERA will not stand in the way.

Now unless you want Cyc to completely destroy you from a legal standpoint again, I'd suggest you return to what the discussion was about and stop being such a semantic git.

PS, your article even ensures that people "Will have to tell them why they're fired"

* To tell a worker of the decision to fire them.

* To provide information that led to the decision and allow them a response before a final decision is made.

* To give them a written statement of why they were fired within 60 days, if requested.


- If you believe that this will be "invalid" - what makes you think it wouldn't be invalid in the current system.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by cyc

I have no desire to get involved in your debate

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

maybe u could lick his bumhole in another thread?

It is a very, very dirty bumhole I must say. I will need at *least* another thread to get it rabbit-nose clean.

[MrTTTT]

can you blame him? he is too busy lawyering to wipe his bum properly.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by David

You're still missing the point. The ERA as it stands will not have any further impact on Christian schools firing/refusing to hire gay teachers. That already exists and is already in play, with legal precedence proving the ERA will not stand in the way.

No, it won't stand in the way of the practice of beliefs where there is a justified limitation on sexual orientation. I don't believe that being 'against the acceptance of homosexuality' is valid religious belief here. As the CHCH case showed that belief was not essential, the dismissal was found not to be justified and the same guy was even offered to be re-hired.

Originally Posted by David

PS, your article even ensures that people "Will have to tell them why they're fired"

You might have to get cyc to help you read that.

The Government plans to extend the scheme - which applies to small companies of less than 20 workers - to all new workers.

Outside the trial period, employers are obliged to give workers a consultation process:

* To tell a worker of the decision to fire them.

* To provide information that led to the decision and allow them a response before a final decision is made.

* To give them a written statement of why they were fired within 60 days, if requested.

But these protections are excluded from the trial period, as explained in an article tabled in Parliament by Lawlink, a network of 18 law firms from around New Zealand.
"Under a trial period an employer does not have to tell an employee of any pending decision to terminate employment,"
"Trial period employees have no right to comment on the proposed termination before it happens, nor are they able to request [a written explanation].

[chubby]

Unions are to capitalism what opposition parties are to politics.

http://www.kiwipolitico.com/

[Ab]

I used to have kiwipolitico in my morning reading but 99% of it is abstract navel-gazing. It's just academic waffle and I CBF wading through it. Especially Buchanan's posts, they all inexorably come back to SOCIALISM IN SOUTH AMERICA, yeah we get it buddy, move on.

[MrTTTT]

i rage at many left wing blogs for being so utterly retarded. is that blog of the leftist persuasion? I'm actually all for workers' rights and the woes of capitalism the left and all that. but fuck the right just have it down-packed when it comes to logical argument/debate. i would love to see the left come up with a rational counter that can match along the lines of the systematic nature of neo-classical economics, then they wouldn't look like such chumps. and for fucks sake i hate how anyone left buys into this big 'left package' where it's all about fucken freedom of speech and democracy and down with police and legalize drugs and fuck. no wonder they look like such a bunch of clowns. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be considered part of the 'left'.

By the way, no one fucking tell me the left do have such a systematic theory as the right do with neoclassical economics. I'm telling you now, THEY DON'T (but they could certainly create one if they got their heads out of their arses)

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

i rage at many left wing blogs for being so utterly retarded. is that blog of the leftist persuasion?

Not overtly, more taking a realistic middle ground on the issue. Worth a read if you have 2 minutes spare.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

i rage at many left wing blogs for being so utterly retarded. is that blog of the leftist persuasion? I'm actually all for workers' rights and the woes of capitalism the left and all that. but fuck the right just have it down-packed when it comes to logical argument/debate. i would love to see the left come up with a rational counter that can match along the lines of the systematic nature of neo-classical economics, then they wouldn't look like such chumps. and for fucks sake i hate how anyone left buys into this big 'left package' where it's all about fucken freedom of speech and democracy and down with police and legalize drugs and fuck. no wonder they look like such a bunch of clowns. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be considered part of the 'left'.

The root of the problem with neo-classical/Austrian economics is precisely that they are rational, and when people try to apply these theories they tend to ignore, or at the very least allow rationality to trump, empirical observation.

By the way, no one fucking tell me the left do have such a systematic theory as the right do with neoclassical economics. I'm telling you now, THEY DON'T (but they could certainly create one if they got their heads out of their arses)

True, but if they did it wouldn't be "correct". The only way to progress our understanding is to utilise both rational and empirical methodology. Of course not enough people actually understand what that means, most are still stuck in a modernist mindset.

Reality is not rational. This is a simple fact that a lot of people would scoff at, mainly because the concept of rationality is so misunderstood, despite the fact that we all learn what it means in school. The easiest way to explain it is by citing an example, the concept of Pi. Pi is not a rational number. It exists somewhere between 3.14 and 3.15, it potentially has an infinite number of decimal places. Rational basically means compartmentalised, so the way we divide up reality ends up being entirely arbitrary. We create abstractions like language to represent reality, but to think that language equals reality, which is not just potentially infinite in size, but infinitely complex, is where modernist arguments fold. They're educated guesses, nothing more, Immanuel Kant called them "useful fictions".

I'm not saying there isn't an element of truth to Austrian economics, but what we've learned about human behavior in the past 50 years pretty much kills any thought about it being a good basis for an economy.

What does it all mean? It means economics=sociology, and most major economic schools are between 70-200 YEARS (conservative estimate) behind the times. I think in a few hundred years people will look back at our understanding of economics in the same way we look at religion from a few hundred years ago, they'll wonder why we were so easily duped by such BS, and why we allowed them so much influence.

This guy pretty much sums up what's wrong with right wing politics -

http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/26/why-we-fight-the-power/

Libertarian Socialism - not a contradiction terms as some people might believe.

[MrTTTT]

yeah my word choice was poor using the word 'rational', i should of simply said 'systematic', and by using the word 'rational' you've understandably associated it with something I did not want to mean. I mean that the left needs a SYSTEMATIC[not rational] theory of economy/society, along the lines of neo-classical economics but obviously not THE SAME as neo-classical economics (i.e. the left theory woud place importance on the fact that people are irrational and to social/environmental factors, not just rational homo-economicus and all that shite). Also, it bugs me slightly that you name-dropped Kant into your post to give it a greater air of intelligence - you were doing fine without that!

i associate neo-classical economics, particularly the brand seen in the 80s-90s, with the Chicago School (Friedman and all that), tho i know Hayek from Austrian school had a big role in what happened there.

Also, I don't like the idea of a libertarian socialism, because I think the state apparatus is completly necessary - and will always be.

Also, what do you mean by 'being stuck in a modernist mindset', and how is that disadvantageous (and, for that matter, when did modernism exclude empirical research and rationality - isn't that its call to arms moreso than post-modernist thought?) From what I've seen of the so-called 'post-modernism', it is a total crock of shite and is of no use to economics/politics/sociology beyond furiously masturbating over how intelligent we are.

To say economics/sociology is 70-200 years behind is a bit off. It assumes every other field is 'not behind' - or that there is some inherent level at which knowledge SHOULD currently be at, which there isn't. Economics/sociology is about as far 'behind' as any other field. No field of knowledge is perfected, it is a (probably eternal) 'work in progress', which is advanced as new findings come to the attentions of people.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by adonis

Pi is not a rational number.

Au contraire, pi expresses the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is the absolute epitome of a RATIONAL number because its sole purpose is to describe the RATIO of one value to another.

Next up, I will discuss "decimate".

*ducks rotten vegetables

*retreats off stage

Philistines!

[crocos]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

70-200

Is it sad that the above was the first thing that leapt out of TTTT's post and made me wonder how he was working photography into a political discussion?

[David]

The problem with Leftist blogs at the moment is that most of them are militant about how well National is actually doing considering the circumstances, most of which are due to how badly Labour performed.

Because of this, you see meaningless "BUT WHAT ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL TEACHERS IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS?" arguments or "Those fucking farmers, raping the land in order to provide us the food we need to survive"

[adonis]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

Also, it bugs me slightly that you name-dropped Kant into your post to give it a greater air of intelligence - you were doing fine without that!

I haven't read a lot of Kant but explaining the relationship between empiricism and rationality was something he did pretty well.

Also, what do you mean by 'being stuck in a modernist mindset', and how is that disadvantageous (and, for that matter, when did modernism exclude empirical research and rationality - isn't that its call to arms moreso than post-modernist thought?) From what I've seen of the so-called 'post-modernism', it is a total crock of shite and is of no use to economics/politics/sociology beyond furiously masturbating over how intelligent we are.

It's a really bad idea to lump all post modernists into one group. Most post-modernism is a crock of shite - but the idea that underpins it, that there is a contradiction between rationality and empiricism is pretty important. Kant tried to bridge it, and I think for the most part he did a pretty good job of that, In fact I even heard a person refer to him as a kind of proto-objectivist. Most post-modernists became a little too fixated on the unobtainable nature of objective truth to have useful ideas, which is probably why so few people understand it now. On the other hand, modernist epistemology is just well - wrong - and having a flawed understanding of the nature of reality isn't terribly useful.

To say economics/sociology is 70-200 years behind is a bit off. It assumes every other field is 'not behind' - or that there is some inherent level at which knowledge SHOULD currently be at, which there isn't. Economics/sociology is about as far 'behind' as any other field. No field of knowledge is perfected, it is a (probably eternal) 'work in progress', which is advanced as new findings come to the attentions of people.

What I mean is that economics is way behind the field of sociology/psychology - which is exactly what economics is (or rather- should be), the study of human interaction, from one particular viewpoint.

Oh, and AB pwned me Pi may not have been a great example (or at least the "concept" of pi, concepts are rational after all, that's the entire point of them) but my point stands, reality is not in the strictest sense of the word - rational, at the very least it's not nearly as compartmentalised as our languages would suggest.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by David

The problem with Leftist blogs at the moment is that most of them are militant about how well National is actually doing considering the circumstances, most of which are due to how badly Labour performed.

Firstly, Labour did fine. There were plenty of things that I disagreed with and plenty of things I would have liked to see them do, but the reality is that they were the first government we've had in 2 decades that didn't fuck over the economy.

Muldoon - Fucked the economy.
Douglas - Fucked the economy.
Richardson - Fucked the economy.
Cullen - Big question mark over buying back the trains (I'm a lefty- and an environmentalist, and I still can't say whether it was a good idea or not), but otherwise - Did not fuck the economy.

Secondly, you mustn't read that many blogs, because aside from KB and maybe no minister - NO ONE WHO BLOGS ACTUALLY LIKES NATIONAL. JK's a closet lefty according to the righties and a capitalist pig according to the lefties. The only reason they're doing "well" is because there's no opposition.

[David]

Originally Posted by adonis

Firstly, Labour did fine. There were plenty of things that I disagreed with and plenty of things I would have liked to see them do, but the reality is that they were the first government we've had in 2 decades that didn't fuck over the economy.

See, I feel that this view is short sighted, because I don't feel it takes into account the lost opportunities that Labour squandered during their time in power. Eight of the nine years they were in power, they saw a worldwide economic golden period where all countries managed to prosper but while other countries took the money they were receiving in surplus and reinvested in their local economies either by investment in the infrastructure, investment within their local sharemarket or investment in the people in the way of tax cuts/incentives - Labour invested in American companies and watched their surplus disappear overnight without any of the gains they could have had through local investment.

I can see why people feel Labour did OK considering we had "good" years during this time period but you guys need to understand, it was relative to the international strength at the time, not due to how Labour performed - by all indication, they performed weakly, they had very high government spending and a "perk" culture that we've seen through some of the credit card receipts that have recently been made available.

Talking about "Labour didn't fuck over the economy" when eight of the nine years they were in power were the best economic golden period for the world in recent economic history is akin to saying "Well, at least he saved $10k out of the $1m he got in Lotto winnings" and saying that's an achievement.

Originally Posted by adonis

Muldoon - Fucked the economy.

Agree.

Originally Posted by adonis

Douglas - Fucked the economy.
Richardson - Fucked the economy.

Disagree.

Douglas and his reforms were highly unpopular and no one hates Rogernomics like my household did. My father was involved heavily in the Labour party at the time and resigned his seat in Hawkes Bay due mostly to Rogernomics and how the party was at that time.

But.... despite that, no one can propose a better solution than what he ended up doing in order to get rid of crushing interest and inflation rates which severely stunted the economy and made it impossible for us to make any headway. His reforms were continued by Ruth Richardson, again - unpopular decisions but decisions that needed to be made in order to "right" the ship so to speak.

Originally Posted by adonis

Cullen - Big question mark over buying back the trains (I'm a lefty- and an environmentalist, and I still can't say whether it was a good idea or not), but otherwise - Did not fuck the economy.

Did not fuck the economy? See above. Unlike the other ministers you've mentioned, he entered at a time where the reforms had already taken place and he could hide behind them for his evils, while not taking advantage of the resulting good situation he was left within.

I say he fucked the economy worse than any of them because for the first time (in many many years), he had favourable conditions to make NZ as solid as Australia has now become.

Originally Posted by adonis

Secondly, you mustn't read that many blogs, because aside from KB and maybe no minister - NO ONE WHO BLOGS ACTUALLY LIKES NATIONAL. JK's a closet lefty according to the righties and a capitalist pig according to the lefties. The only reason they're doing "well" is because there's no opposition.

I don't read many, because they're shit. Colin Espiner is definitely pro-National however and Tracy Watkins is quite impartial.

The thing is, opposition or not, National have done exceedingly well in the time they've been in power. Free trade agreement signed with China, economic reforms that put money back into business and the economy, Free trade closer than ever with America, distancing ourselves from England and America on the war front to create better social relationships with countries worldwide and despite a very tricky period to govern, they've done better than Labour did in the golden periods.

It's all a matter of perspective, sure - but then I've never felt people on the hardline left actually have any to begin with

[fixed_truth]

Your old man William David Sutton?

[adonis]

The thing is, opposition or not, National have done exceedingly well in the time they've been in power. Free trade agreement signed with China, economic reforms that put money back into business and the economy, Free trade closer than ever with America, distancing ourselves from England and America on the war front to create better social relationships with countries worldwide and despite a very tricky period to govern, they've done better than Labour did in the golden periods.

You do realise they basically picked up where Labour left off with all of that.. right? It was Phil Goff who signed the original FTA with China and Winston Peters who put us on good footing with the US. If JK was PM when 9/11 hit we'd have gone into Iraq according to his own words.

As for your other claims, there's not much evidence to back up your claim that Roger/Ruth didn't fuck over the economy. The current economic gap with Aus widened between 1985-2000, that's a long period of time for lagging indicators to account for. Most of the support for the reforms were ideological with very little empirical evidence to support them. Adding a component to the tax system to make it more consumption based rather than income based was a good idea IMO, but all of Roger's reforms were sold off that idea, rather than looking at the whole picture.

Actually Roger's whole approach to politics I find to be incredibly distasteful. The man intentionally exploited our system to make it as undemocratic as possible, blitzing through changes so people had no time to respond, and it was the speed of a lot of the changes that helped put the country into such a large ditch. Then, when people were on the ground trying to get up.. Ruth came along and put the boot in.

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Your old man William David Sutton?

<<cricket chirp>>

[David]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Your old man William David Sutton?

No, my father only ever represented that seat in opposition, he gave the seat away in 1979 when they were polling as high as 75% in the region.

[xor]

89 days and OWWWWWWWWNEED. Burgerfuel saved about $400 worth of wages on that one. Nice

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4044...union-campaign

[cyc]

To be fair, the franchisee of Burger Fuel Mission Bay. But that one looked pretty blatant. Shame on that employer, really.

[xor]

It's real shit imo. I love chowing down on BF but I don't think I'll be going back there again.