That 70's Show

[Ab]

Otherwise known as "Labour's industrial relations policy"

• A 15.3% increase in the minimum wage, including for youth.
• Labour will appoint those union bosses who fail to make their caucus to a new Workplace Commission that will have the power to determine Industry Standard Agreements for entire industries – unionised or not.
• The Workplace Commission will be able to set a standard for an industry for “union rights”. This could mean anything, from employers forced to fund unions themselves directly to guaranteed access to any workplace at anytime for recruitment purposes.
• The Government will fund unions (“provide resources”) so they can better understand the new law and “build capacity for negotiations”.
• Workers who are not in unions will be “provided with information and advice about joining the relevant unions”
• Labour will repeal the 90 day laws
• Labour will legislate to allow contractors to collectively bargain, as the Australian actors union demanded.
• State agencies will be told to blacklist companies who tender for work if they are seen as anti-union ("not respecting the right of their employees to join a union")

Proof of the mainstream media bias against Labour:

NZHerald: this is a joke, right

Dom-Post: facepalm

Press: Are you shitting me

[ChaosWulf]

Ooh, I might have to vote Labour this year then! :>

[Jodi]

I know how to solve NZ's problems!

Raise minimum wage to $100/hour!

There, fixed!

[Ab]

The Labour Party's vision for the future of work and wages is virtually identical to a unions' wishlist outlined at the party's annual conference a year ago, prompting questions about their influence.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10760579

[ZoSo]

prompting questions about their influence

Hilarious. Like that's still a question.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Jodi

I know how to solve NZ's problems!

Raise minimum wage to $100/hour!

There, fixed!

Just keep giving money to poor people until they're no longer poor! Voila!

[fixed_truth]

NZ’s worker boss relationship has not been working for quite a while. It’s a fact that productivity and profits have consistently risen but for the majority of workers real wages aren’t improving. NZ has a low wage economy. Both Labour and National agree that for a strong economy workers need to be paid more but National just want to keep up the failed leave it to the market trickle-down theory BS. So while militant/useless unions (ie Hobbit debacle) worry me, I think it’s good that Labour are actually looking at solutions to fairer wages and conditions for workers.

[Deadmeat]

In contrast to National's give money to the rich to invest in property approach. Presumably this will be driving next years predicted 4% growth.

This shouldn't in any way be interpreted as me thinking that Labours approach is any less tragic.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So while militant/useless unions (ie Hobbit debacle) worry me, I think it’s good that Labour are actually looking at solutions to fairer wages and conditions for workers.

...By creating more Hobbit debacles?
No one international is going to want to touch NZ workers for temporary employment possibilities
No one nationally is going to want to give unskilled/untrained/unproven workers a chance, given that the workers have to be paid more than ever before, and they can't get rid of the workers easily if they end up being shite.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

No one nationally is going to want to give unskilled/untrained/unproven workers a chance, given that the workers have to be paid more than ever before, and they can't get rid of the workers easily if they end up being shite.

When unemployment is at 3% like it was towards the end of Labour's government, I don't think this will be a problem, given that employers will have the option of choosing unproven workers or no workers.

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

NZ’s worker boss relationship has not been working for quite a while. It’s a fact that productivity and profits have consistently risen but for the majority of workers real wages aren’t improving. NZ has a low wage economy. Both Labour and National agree that for a strong economy workers need to be paid more but National just want to keep up the failed leave it to the market trickle-down theory BS. So while militant/useless unions (ie Hobbit debacle) worry me, I think it’s good that Labour are actually looking at solutions to fairer wages and conditions for workers.

From what I can deduce from your ramblings is that all companies in NZ are colluding together and keeping wages low?

Riiiiiiight

[Lightspeed]

Business leaders don't need to collude together, they just need aligned values. I don't think you lack the cognitive abilities to understand that post, I suspect you just don't want to understand it.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

given that employers will have the option of choosing unproven workers or no workers.

And.. this is a desirable outcome?

[Lightspeed]

Depends on how you feel about unemployment I guess.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Business leaders don't need to collude together, they just need aligned values. I don't think you lack the cognitive abilities to understand that post, I suspect you just don't want to understand it.

/fuck it. As you were shitcunt.

[Lightspeed]

Hahah, as CCS would say you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

[Ab]

It'll be awesome to relive my childhood again, having the whole country come to halt every school holidays because ferry workers/airport workers/caterers are on strike.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Both Labour and National agree that for a strong economy workers need to be paid more but National just want to keep up the failed leave it to the market trickle-down theory BS.

Maybe, but workers across the board need to be paid more. A government driven rise in wages for just the low skilled workers won't do much.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by xor

/fuck it. As you were shitcunt.

owned.

[xor]

"Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea:
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare,
In history's page let every stage
Advance Australia fair,
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair."

Oh hey, I'm just sitting here drinking Coopers sparkling ale planning my escape while I can.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

No one international is going to want to touch NZ workers for temporary employment possibilities
No one nationally is going to want to give unskilled/untrained/unproven workers a chance, given that the workers have to be paid more than ever before, and they can't get rid of the workers easily if they end up being shite.

Eh? New Zealands employment protection legislation is comparatively poor. Next stop China? Also we've consistently been in the top 3 in the world when it comes to the Ease of Doing Business (read: pre 90 day bill) so I'm not convinced that strengthening collective bargaining is going to be the end of the world.

Originally Posted by CCS

Maybe, but workers across the board need to be paid more. A government driven rise in wages for just the low skilled workers won't do much.

Research shows a “ripple effect" where wages of those earning above the minimum wage increase with a minimum wage increase ie, demand for higher-skilled workers increases when the wages of lower-skilled workers increases.

But meh, I'm not planning on voting for them Labour and I don't agree with everything about their policy; but imo there's some sensationalism going on and it's comparatively more attractive then what the other team's got concerning achieving fairer wages.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by xor

Oh hey, I'm just sitting here drinking Coopers sparkling ale planning my escape while I can.

Yeah none of those dirty unions dictating who is the PM over there eh?

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

It'll be awesome to relive my childhood again, having the whole country come to halt every school holidays because ferry workers/airport workers/caterers are on strike.

protip- if their refusal of service makes your life harder, mebbe they deserve the money.cant remember the last time a currency trader/laywer/credit agent/corporate CEO strike affected my life.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Research shows a “ripple effect" where wages of those earning above the minimum wage increase with a minimum wage increase ie, demand for higher-skilled workers increases when the wages of lower-skilled workers increases.

Was this research conducted in NZ based on our current economic climate or is it more of a generalised sort of research with quite general findings?

[fixed_truth]

^^
Most likely not conducted in NZ. But as I said it's consistent with standard supply & demand models. Also the effect is observed by NZ business lobby groups and it's part of their argument against minimum wage rises.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by chubby

protip- if their refusal of service makes your life harder, mebbe they deserve the money.cant remember the last time a currency trader/laywer/credit agent/corporate CEO strike affected my life.

But the question is how MUCH do they deserve? And the reality is that union striking simply holds a country to ransom until they capitulate. Nobody outside of a union has that power, they have to sit down civilly and negotiate - that's the point I assume Ab is trying to make...

[chubby]

'the reality' is that most of the people the unions represent NEED the collective weight behind them that a union provides.the idea of some deadhead McD's cashier "civily negotiating" is lovely on the surface.. but c'mon- you live on earth too right?
"plenty of people out there have the 'skills' and want the job"- no-one would disagree that this is pretty much true,so no bargaining power for you kid.
most of these sorts of industries are fine, nay, booming.plenty of money to spread a little more around.so why on earth not?
can it be right for working people to be unable to keep pace with costs?
"hold the country to ransom" nice emotive language there chum.if you dont value the service enough to pay for it....dont use it.
im sure that is exactly the logic that a free marketeer like gt would use- "want to save money?dont buy it."

the question is how MUCH do they deserve?

no shit?

[_Incubus_]

Originally Posted by Ab

It'll be awesome to relive my childhood again, having the whole country come to halt every school holidays because ferry workers/airport workers/caterers are on strike.

It's going on right now...the Qantas unions are fucking up all sorts of business in Oz atm...

[Deadmeat]

The research discussed in this article is broadly on topic.

Marmot, professor of epidemiology at University College London, found large health differences across the social scale. "There are two striking findings. The first was that there was about a threefold difference between the top and bottom in mortality. That's absolutely enormous," he says. "The second was that it wasn't just a difference between the top and bottom; it was what I called a social gradient. There was a stepwise relationship between your socioeconomic position and your health."

He adds, "Your readers who are not at the bottom [may want to know] that the second from the top had worse health and higher mortality than the top and the third was worse than the second."

We are hardly world leading in equality and this paper (pdf warning) from Statistics NZ has a good breakdown of wealth inequality in NZ, especially interesting was the figure on page 10 comparing inequality between ethnic groups. Non-european's being particularly affected with inequality within their own communities being even more apparent.

Key readily admits he's only made the situation worse.

[Golden Teapot]

How can you call that mortality finding striking? That type of affect has been known for more than a century.

[Lightspeed]

Well, I think it was Marmot, professor of epidemiology at University College London, that called the finding striking. Perhaps it was not that there exists health differences between social groups that was striking but that these health differences still exist to such a high degree despite knowing this effect for the last hundred years, as you say.

[Golden Teapot]

I'll guess without reading his post. Why is it, by and large, that life insurance companies don't run out of money?

[Lightspeed]

Is it any surprise GT wants to have his cake and eat it to?

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by chubby

'the reality' is that most of the people the unions represent NEED the collective weight behind them that a union provides.the idea of some deadhead McD's cashier "civily negotiating" is lovely on the surface.. but c'mon- you live on earth too right?

So your large scale operations get union protection while your small outfits are left out in the cold.

Originally Posted by chubby

"plenty of people out there have the 'skills' and want the job"- no-one would disagree that this is pretty much true,so no bargaining power for you kid.
most of these sorts of industries are fine, nay, booming.plenty of money to spread a little more around.so why on earth not?

That role is taken by the government, they control minimum wage.

Originally Posted by chubby

"hold the country to ransom" nice emotive language there chum.

What else do you call it when your rubbish is piling up with no collection, AND no where to take it.
What else do you call it when key infrasture builds are put on hold 'until resolution'
What do you call it when public transport to and from city centres is held?
Emotive? Not particularly, just apt... Goods or services held pending delivery of money. Sounds exactly right to me!

Originally Posted by chubby

if you dont value the service enough to pay for it....dont use it.

And you call me emotive? I'm not asking anyone to do it for free, but at the same time, i'm not going to pay my garbage man the same salary as my surgeon.

[Lightspeed]

While I don't necessarily take chubby's view, to say that unions simply hold the country to ransom is not reasonable. There's nothing simple about this at all.

And I don't believe the questions is how much does anyone deserve for their job. Where would you find how much people deserve for their work? The bible? I don't think so. "Deserve" is not part of the equation, unless somehow morals enter into the picture. If it is essential to me that my garbage is picked up weekly and no one is willing to do that for less than the salary of a surgeon, then either that's how much the garbage collector gets paid, or I have to find an alternative to getting my garbage collected weekly.

Right? Or am I missing something? I'm sure I am, like I said, there's nothing simple about this.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

i'm not going to pay my garbage man the same salary as my surgeon.

...then lucky thats not what they're asking for.
and the rest of your nonsense was self defeating.
in fact, it kind've sounded like you were arguing in favour of unions.