Comments on: Dear Mr Speaker

By: Tracey

Tracey — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:34:54 +0000

““Well, let’s talk about why we blamed National. The effect of their policies in the 1990’s were devastating to cleaners and other low paid workers.”

Yet Tracey pulls me up for holding Labour to account for not having improved the plight of the workers in their last term!”

Luke, not quite the same thing, but point taken. Not quite the same thing because although Labour may be seen to be blaming National for needing to raise wages, Labour did respond by, actually raising wages over its term while balancing that with other economic factors (I assume). WFF I assumed helped improve the plight of workers in the last term?

Whereas you seem to be saying National doesnt need to give the cleaners a pay rise because Labour didnt give them a pay rise up to $14.62 despite significantly raising their wages (with opposition from National every time).

Given the actions of labour, resulting in an increase for the cleaners to $14.62 – HAD NATIONAL GONE THROUGH WITH THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT WHEN IT BECAME GOVT – it seems natural and consistent it would berate National for essentially reneging on an agreement to bring the cleaners into line with other public service workers?

Essentially you are arguing that National can do nothing and not be criticised for it, because labour didnt do enough of what they DID do?

By: madas

madas — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:09:00 +0000

Go Darien!!!!!!!!! Dear Luke did you actually read what Darien said? Under National the minimum wage increased by 75cents over 9 years! Darien and her fellow Labour MPs in Government did more for low paid workers than any National Government would ever ever do and of course it took time. National and their supporters instead probably wish the ECA was still in place and that the minimum wage was still $7 something. Yes there is more to do however sadly some voters decided they wanted a “change’so the momentum stopped. Change is coming alright now we have had a year of Mr Nice Guy Key the true colours will emerge and NZ is not going to like it.

By: Darien Fenton

Darien Fenton — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:32:46 +0000

@James – sorry don’t know the answer to that but will let everyone know.
@Luke – I’ve tried to explain how this works. What the government can do is provide additional targeted funding for parliamentary services, who contract with Spotless and make it a condition the cleaners are paid more – just as Labour did in hospitals and schools. The Speaker is the Minister in charge of parliamentary services. Of course parliament could employ its own cleaners along with catering staff and others who are employed by contractors. Wish that would happen, but not holding my breath.

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:00:24 +0000

“Well, let’s talk about why we blamed National. The effect of their policies in the 1990’s were devastating to cleaners and other low paid workers.”

Yet Tracey pulls me up for holding Labour to account for not having improved the plight of the workers in their last term!

Darien, lets face it. Labour had from 1999 to 2008 to sort this out. Harking on about what National did in the 1990’s just makes you look petty and rather opportunistic!

It is my understanding that the cleaning is provided by a private contractor, not employees of Parliament. What can the Government do to a private company to make them raise wages (aside from the obvious of raising the minimum wage).

As an aside, surely Parliament is big enough to justify employing its own cleaning staff?

By: James

James — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:55:33 +0000

How long does it usually take for the Speaker/his office to reply?

By: Darien Fenton

Darien Fenton — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:17:34 +0000

Well, let’s talk about why we blamed National. The effect of their policies in the 1990’s were devastating to cleaners and other low paid workers. They lost pay, hours, conditions and rights. Unemployment went through the roof, and the minimum wage increased by just 75 cents in nine years. They caused devastation for families and communities, and I, for one, will never stop reminding them. They need to be held accountable for the havoc they caused to so many people’s lives.
Labour went to huge efforts to fix the issues for low paid workers. Firstly, we had to get rid of the evil Employment Contracts Act and replace it with something fairer – and what a fuss about that from National, even although they’ve now largely accepted Labour’s changes, apart from some fiddling around the edges. Next we had to stop the situation where repetitive contracting was driving down wages (where it didn’t matter what the wages were with the first contractor, because a second contractor could come in and drive those wages down, either through pay cuts, or cuts to hours, or by sacking all workers). That happened under National again and again and again. That took more legislation in 2004, which again was opposed by National. Next problem : addressing the three way relationship where workers are contracted out and figuring out how to deal with this. What had been happening is that government buildings and parliamentary services were shoving off responsibility for low wages to the contractor – saying in effect “its not our problem, we don’t employ these people”. What the Principles Agreement Mea’ole refers to was about the state, as the client for cleaners in government buildings, (including parliament), along with the contractors and the union taking responsibility for delivering higher quality and better wages in the industry. Labour signed up to this. National, as the government is also party to it, but has chosen to ignore it and nothing’s changed since they became the government.
In Hospitals and Schools, Labour provided additional funding and targeted to ensure the cleaners wages were increased. Cleaners were next on the list for a pay jolt, but they’ve been in bargaining for a year under National and what’s happened? Nothing.

By: bikerkiwi

bikerkiwi — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:19:55 +0000

@ anne – I have been asking fair questions. attacking the person is not particularly nice and I thought red alert was better than that.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:41:24 +0000

@Grant.
I accept your request totally but it makes me angry when commenters like bikerkiwi and Luke use the plight of some of the lowest paid workers in the land to indulge in inane political point scoring.

By: Richard McGrath

Richard McGrath — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:22:59 +0000

Are the Labour Party going to put their money where their mouth are, dip into their own pockets and top up the cleaners’ wages to a level they consider appropriate? Or is charity something extracted from productive people at the point of a gun?

By: Karil

Karil — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:49:43 +0000

Awesome work! Definately full support here!