I love a good protest. I come from a union that was often left with no other option other than to protest. It makes you feel like you are doing something, it certainly helps with the anger and gives some hope that there are still people in the world who care about others.
I went along to the protest outside Skycity last Sunday to show my support for my union. I left when the storming of the wrong building began, feeling pretty certain that the pictures that were showed later on TV would actually help the National Government, rather than deter it.
And in the week since, I’ve had numerous conversations with people about how they view proposed changes to employment law and why they will affect everyone’s ability to earn and make a decent living. I’ve also talked with a lot of workers (of all kinds) about the protest.
So John Armstrong’s piece in the NZ Herald today makes a lot of sense, especially where he says :
The storming of the hotel might have fitted the finest tradition of the labour movement – and McCarten warned of more to come. But it is not itself that the labour movement needs to communicate with if it is to roll back National’s planned changes to employment law.
The Labour Party has worked that out. If the debate is only about what the unions think and want, then it is all over before it has begun. The strategy is going to have to be a little more sophisticated than that.
I can hear the radical left calling me a sell-out already, but I remember the 1990’s and the Employment Contracts Act and the glorious defeats of those years. There were many in the union movement then who thought that if workers were treated badly enough, the flag would go up and there would be fight back. There wasn’t. Workers got screwed, and New Zealand has never recovered.
There will be radical protests, the CTU will mobilise their members and take action. That’s fine – that’s what they should do.
But Labour has to reach out to the hundreds of thousands of workers who aren’t in unions, who don’t get why everyone is so upset about the proposed labour law changes, and who have no experience of the 1990’s.
John Armstrong’s right about that needing a lot more sophistication than we’ve seen so far.
“I went along to the protest outside Skycity last Sunday” Yeah man
There is coming a time – when radicalism will be all we are left with.
The delicate, elegant minuet that is MMP neo-politics is a joke. Guys like Minto were laughed at once …. now we all applaud the end of apartheid.
Is the Labour Movement like some neo-conservative Centrist do nothing pile of doo-doo these days? I’ve often disliked Sue Bradford … but on the day she was a hero.
The days of the elegant political MMP Mating Dance are over. Globalism has achieved nothing – time for New Zealanders to stand up for New Zealand.
Yeah right. So while the underpaid and underemployed and underclass protest…you need to sit back, have another wine and get sophisticated. Then you can plan your revenge on the 1990’s.
Me, I’m with Sue Bradford. She gets things done.
D_arien – I was with you most of the way until you said:
“…who don’t get why everyone is so upset about the proposed labour law changes”
Be truthful. Everyone isn’t against these changes. In fact there’s a huge amount of support for them in the country. Not amongst hardend Labour supporters or unionists, I concede that, but in the population at large.
You can debate the reason for this – it may be that these poor unenlightened wretches don’t understand the implications, or they’re all fascist rednecks, but don’t understate their numbers. To do so will be bad for the Labour Party in the long run.
By all means take principled minority opinions wherever you have the conviction, but be prepared to admit when you’re doing that.
Peter Martin …. you are so right.
So we have sophisticated MPs in parliament – or MPs with special interests in particular international Blocs of influence – the labour movement needs to decide what and who it actually stands for. There is a reason (and not a good one) why special interest groups and minorities have targetted labour for ’support’ … and it has nothing to do with founding principles.
I nearly hurled when i viewed the footage of the young Nats interviewed on The Nation and by Maori TV at the conference for the Nats … is this what the Labour Movement wants to become also?? We seem to be heading in that direction.
Bring back tim shadbolt and the progressive youth movement …
Peter / unionman – perhaps what you see as a perversion of the Labour cause is down to too many Labour MPs suffering from the ‘Aging Leftie’ effect?
See the BBC article entitled ‘Are Ageing Lefties in Denial?’ if you haven’t already:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10633782
Oh G.eorge, just wait and see what happens to your putative support when your so called ‘population at large’, the ones who currently believe that the 90 day law doesn’t affect them because they have been in their job for longer than 90 days, or because they hold specialist professional positions suddenly figure out*:
1) The moment they look at changing jobs, get ‘promoted’ or their workplace looks to restructure with new contracts, they are immediately vulnerable.
2) That its their kids and grandkids who in their first low skilled jobs or even as new grads, who will suffer the most from this increased job insecurity and vulnerability to bad management.
*And with Labour, the Greens and all the unions pushing these consistent messages, it should only take a couple of months
Loota you old leftie.
George – it isnt the aging leftie effect …. the aging leftie doesnt have much truck with the nonsense that passes for the labour movement these days. its all become watered down and thanks to MMP its now just a beauty contest with any ideology left to Act – the only ones who seem to have an unapologetic agenda. And god help all of us as they attempt to enact that agenda.
Labour MPs are selling out – they started selling out in the Lange and Douglas government and the watering down process hasnt stopped since.
So we end up with MPs who leave protests because they dont want to be compromised by the press, Ethnic unelected Labour MPs attempting to indulge in nationalism for a foreign power governed by a totalitarian government that jumps on anyone that dares to criticise its illegal and immoral actions … where is the real labour movement.
Certainly not currently in parliament.
Phil Goff is our last hope for sanity and a return to first principles. If Labour depose him as leader in favour of some ’star player’ or ‘thruster’ then Labour will see a drop off of its constituency and will be applying to beijing for support and funding.
unionman – I’m not saying that the research is correct. I just found the article interesting. It does seem to suggest explanations for a lot of what we see in the way people behave politically these days.
In many ways I totally disagree with you and would claim that in the sense that the article seems to use the term the ‘aging leftie’ is the Labour Party. (Which is why you have issues with the policies of today’s party, perhaps). The notion of better off, older, left wingers who have swung to the right but refuse to accept this fact so cling on to slogans and engage in ‘right on’ tokenism seems a credible explanation for what’s going on with the likes of ‘Earth Hour’, ‘Band Aid’ and other such ‘we really do care, honest’ nonesense.
I knew I was setting myself up with this post, but this is an issue so serious, we need to win for the sake of all workers and their families. The post is about how we win, not about who is the most radical or who is the real labour movement. We have to be prepared to have a conversation about this, without the “I’m stauncher than you are” kind of conversation we had last time there was a serious attack on workers, which never got us anyhere.
@Peter Martin – I’ve never sat back on workers’ rights. I’m simply saying that we need to ensure we win support across all workers. I have no problem with you sticking with Sue – sure she got things done as an MP, but only with Labour’s support and votes. There will be no one way that will win in this fight and we need to be open minded about that.
@Unionman :”Bring back Tim Shadbolt” – you mean the Tim Shadbolt that sat in the gallery of the parliament recently and clapped John Key?
And BTW, I didn’t leave the protest because I didn’t want to be compromised by the press. I left because I didn’t agree with the tactic – and I was very concerned about the security guards at the doors who were pushed and shoved. Those security guards are most likely union members at Skycity.
@George – well, I’ve never been called conservative before. Does that mean you are an aging rightie? I’ve met plenty in the National Party who started out left and now are committed John Key accolytes. Think Paula Bennett and Wayne Mapp for starters – I think the article is probably a lot more relevant to them.
Actually, Darien, reading the article suggested to me how I was the stereotypical ‘aging leftie’, at least until a couple of years ago, in denial and hanging on because it was too uncomfortable to accept the truth.
I was seeing with my own eyes things that I’d blindly rejected ever happened in my youthful idealism, yet kept clinging to the mantras and slogans of the past. Perhaps it was because I’d hated those who quoted that phrase about being socialist at 20 and a tory at 40 and was determined not to fit into the stereotype.
So where am I now? Certainly not as committed a ‘rightist’ as I was a leftie a couple of decades ago.
I suppose I want a genuine fair go for everyone. I don’t want to see anyone ripped off, but that includes taxpayers being ripped off by those who play the system, or employees who take their employers for a ride as well as the other way round. I want to see hard work rewarded, whether that’s for those who set up businesses or those who put in effort as employees. And I want to see sloth, and fecklessness, and anti-social behaviour discouraged. (Sounds very wishy-washy, I know. About the only thing that isnt there is being kind to animals).
I’m probably wandering around in no mans land at the moment, but nearer to the tory lines than the Labour ones at least for the time being. It’ll take less sloganising and more common sense from the old trenches to get me wandering back in that direction. And from the responses that a number of posters to Red Alert have made to me in the past you probably wouldn’t want me back anyway. You can afford to be that choosy, apparently.
@George- oh well, it happens to some. Glad you want a genuine fair go for everyone – that’s something we agree on.
the problem with the “storm the barricades” types is they do what makes them feel better, not what will be effective at achieving their aims. It is no good saying “it worked before with Apartheid”, there are many more (and more recent) occasions when it has NOT worked. The leadership of the labour movement need to walk one step ahead of the workers, not one mile. Sadly the barricade-builders usually finish up blaming the unions – who are just reflecting the reality of the situation on the ground – rather than examining whether their own tactics are counterproductive.
Plus the political situation worldwide has undergone a profound transformation since the 1980s, and not for the better. Anyone who hasn’t adjusted their strategy accordingly is wasting their time – and ours.
George:
What ‘truth’ is that pray tell? Did you at least review the new policy ideas from the international progressive left about inter-generational equity and sustainability before switching codes? Or did you just rely on the slogans from yesteryear?
That’s sweet. Apparently despite what you said you still hold on to your ‘youthful idealism’ of the past, its great to see.
Oh I think you’ve already crossed the Tory lines. I do hope some of your youthful idealism will rub off on them.
“Be truthful. Everyone isn’t against these changes. In fact there’s a huge amount of support for them in the country. Not amongst hardend Labour supporters or unionists, I concede that, but in the population at large.”
My two cents on this topic, in terms of why everyone is not against the changes, is, from my observances, that quite a large group of the public just do not understand the ramifications. There is still such a big love affair with smile and wave boy, that he could preach all sorts of nonsense and the public at large is still so tuned into seeing it that they don’t always see the wider implications – the media perpetuates this, esp the Herald and Tv1 – who are so right wing its almost embarrassing. Its a bit like seeing something that has a big scratch on it – when you dont expect the anomalie, your eyes (or ears) are not tuned into it – and you dont see it. (if you expect something to be clean, that is what you see – conversely, if you expect to see some mud – you will) It is like the illusions – often you dont see what is front of you – it is not saying the public is stupid,or even ignorant, but if something is not pointed out, you buy the spin. There are many policy examples of this – esp in education, where there are quite a few smokescreens put up that cloud the underlying agendas.
Darien is right in that we need to be smarter in helping the populace see through the smokecreens and smile and wave rhetoric – unfortunately, without appropriate media reporting that is objective and responsible, its a hard task.
I understand while the majority of the public would prefer to keep their head in the sand – to raise it and see through the smoke makes them look like they made a mistake voting in Nact – not something people are keen to admit, and frankly, Labour made a lumpy bed for itself in the last term when they arrogantly took the publics support for granted and did some stupid things. It will take time to fix these mistakes. the public still really do not have a viable labour alternative in terms of some key areas – I know its being worked on – but there is still work to go before the public will fully trust Labour – Winston did no favours in this regard, as an example.
Loota : “What ‘truth’ is that pray tell?”
As an example – I was embarrasingly over-idealistic about people’s motivation to work and would declare that everyone would work as hard as they could because of the ‘dignity of labour’. Hence we didn’t need to reward anyone for working harder (because everyone already worked as hard as they could, didn’t they), or for taking on additional responsibility, or for being more skillful or innovative.
Once I joined the workforce I learnt the truth that this ideal world doesn’t exist. Some people will do the minimum. Some people shirk responsibility in favour of the easy option. Some turn down every opportunity to advance themselves. It’s not a criticism of ‘der workers’ or anything like that, just a reflection on the varying nature of human beings.
Another area was how I viewed businesses. As far as I was concerned business owners extracted surplus value to turn the labour of others into their fat cat profits. They clearly needed to be treated with the utmost disdain and suspicion, and to be taxed to the hilt.
I’ve never run my own business (apart from as a freelance consultant employing only myself), but I know plenty of people who have. I’ve seen how they’ve struggled to get their businesses started, how they’ve sometimes had to work incredible hours to see their companies survive, and sometime, unfortunately, fail with huge economic consequences for them. None of my friends have become millionaires, although some have achieved a very comfortable standard of living. As employers the labour of others is clearly an element of the profit they make, but none of them fits into the stereotypical unscrupulous capitalist so often portrayed here.
I also had an idealistic view of how people related to one another. All people were basically very good and only did nasty things because of the evil capitalist society which had alienated them. Now I recognise the truth that some people are pretty nasty beings, and would be whatever society they existed in.
A wider experience of life than I had as a student has left me seeing both sides of the fence. At the moment I get the feeling that Labour is blinkered by philosophy into refusing to see all sides of many issues.
Ah G, I too had an idealistic view of life – and while I still would like to think on a positive wave length, you are right that there are those who are pretty nasty – but in my experiences, when a workforce is treated well, and relationships between employer and employee are responsible and appropriate, then the few bad apples are easily (usually) dealt with and productivity is high. Where it breaks down is when recruitment/retention (HR stuff) systems are not robust, leadership is lacking and policies that undermine productivity are in place.
There does seem to be a real issue of lack of robust leadership and relationship management practices out there – the reports of work place bullying and useless management are very high – combined with outdated systems for advancement and employee rewards (often lacking robustness and often pinging employees such as woman and migrants – the glass ceiling is very much alive in NZ) – perhaps these are the real issues that should be addressed, as opposed to taking a very narrow approach.
George, you told Darien you realised the ‘truth’ about people and business only a couple of years ago, then you told me that you realised the truth about people and business as your idealism was shattered on entering the workforce.
Since you say you are a senior manager today I can only imagine this was at least 15-20 years ago.
George, if you’re spinning a yarn about your life you have to be more consistent than that.
Loota – it was / is an on-going process. Strongly held views don’t change overnight. (I’ve been in the workforce for more than 25 years, BTW).
I’d say the first stages were where my views were gradually challenged with evidence which went against my beliefs. At first anything that didn’t back up my views, I suppose, was dismissed as a freak anomoly. It’s only with the passing of time that a weight of evidence to counter such idealism was built up.
Next, I suppose, is what (in the light of that article I cited) could be described as the ‘aging leftie’ phase. I was increasingly concerned with some of the stances taken, particularly by the more radical wings of the party (which often was made up of the younger element who were just as extreme in their outlook and certainty of the world as I had been), but still wouldn’t consider any option than the Labour Party. Why? Now, I’m not sure. At the time it just seemed unnatural to support any other party, and so I suppose I took comfort from the frequently espoused view that the Labour Party was a ‘broad church’ and that although my views weren’t in the mainstream of the party it still didn’t mean I didn’t support them. Wierd, perhaps, but there we are.
I remember as a graduate student in the early 1980s going to hear David Marquand (an academic and former Labour MP who’d defected to the SDP) speak. He told us how he’d been uncomfortable with how Labour had been moving for years. I asked him why he hadn’t left earlier, in that case, rather than remaining as a Labour MP. He conceded that this was a fair question, and said it was difficult when you’d spent your whole life serving a particular party and had so many personal friends in it. He said when the realisation came, you “felt like a bit of a sh1t”. (His actual words).
I suppose I felt a bit like that too. I’d worked hard for the party at a local level since I was about 14. A lot of people back in my old CLP who’d given me a great deal of their time as I was growing up would be very disappointed in me if they knew I’d ‘turned’. I still have a great deal of respect for these people, some of whom would now be in their 80s if they’re still around, and ‘failing’ them would still be an embarrasment for me despite the fact that I have to do what I think is right. That sort of thing makes splitting hard to do.
But finally the break does come. Experiences build up like a flood behind a dam, and eventually there’s too much. Perhaps moving to the other side of the world helped this process as I certainly didn’t have any emotional attachment to individuals within the movement down here as I did back in England.
I get the feeling that somehow you’re trying to catch me out and reveal me as a National Party plant. You only have my word for it that I’m not. The process, as described is how it was. Thousands of people have crossed from having strongly held views for one side to supporting the other. I doubt whether it is ever an easy process, at least from a personal point of view, and I’ll wager that for most there are many years of increasing discomfort before finally jumping ship.
@George 7.46 and Paul agreed
Your last post George is interesting.
Correct.
George, you’re a ’senior manager’ with ‘25 years working experience’ in over ‘20 countries’ who didn’t know that you could ask a staff member who has been taking sickies on Mondays and Fridays for proof of illness.
I had been in management for 6 months and I had already figured that out.
You have also not successfully concluded that there is no ‘evidence’ backing one party’s perspective versus another. There is only a world view and a value system – whether you hold people as esentially equal alongside issues of fairness and equity, or whether you hold capital more dear with issues of “whoever is fittest and strongest is the fittest to lead and survive”.
With your institutional knowledge of the party (’worked hard for Labour since 14′) you cannot have any excuse for not having observed years of politics, envy, conflict and personal maneuvering before entering the work force.
I see a simple issue in your life story. You never thought through the Labour party values you were told in order to synthesise your own understanding. You simply hung on to the slogans of old – your own comment – until they became so dissonant and disconnected that you had to give them away and become a ‘turncoat’.
Without your own reflections on issues of fairness, opportunity, equality, and social justice it is not difficult to see that you had nothing personal to lean on when you saw discrepencies in the behaviour of the party.
Maybe you should’ve been a poet and left politics behind.
Again, it’s nothing unusual for young Marxists to become middle-aged neo-cons – especially in America – what do remain constant are the hardline beliefs. Those who begin as moderates usually remain moderates.
And in rare cases, conservatives can turn coats too. Francis Fukuyama and Arianna Huffington are the most obvious examples.
Sorry Loota, but that’s me with all my imperfections.
I suppose I’ll just have to live with the shame at the failings in every aspect of my life whilst striving for the perfection you expect (and, I hope achieve yourself).
George, look mate, we’re talking about business not family shame for goodness sakes.
Both you and I have been in business long enough to know that you don’t strive for perfection, most of the time satisfactory performance is all that is needed.
And I wouldn’t have brought up any management type stuff but you were very clear and explicit about your senior management position, your extensive 25 year international business experience, and your knowledge from working across more than 20 countries.
But still weren’t sure how to ask a staff member for proof of sick leave, and thought that National’s labour law changes were a positive thing.
Too many glaring discrepencies my friend.
Loota – I’m sure that no-one wants to read a to-and-fro between the two of us, so however/whatever/if-ever you respond this’ll be my final take on this.
1. I think I’ve reacted as I did because I read your response last night as doubting my honesty. It hurt when I read it and still does. My motives for posting here are genuine and I take exception to anyone suggesting otherwise.
2. I didn’t suggest I had 25 years experience in international business. I said that I’d been in the workforce for 25+ years, which is entirely different. I’ve travelled overseas extensively in about a third of the jobs/assigments I’ve had, to a small extent in another third and not at all in the rest. That has given me a view of working for and within clients in >20 countries. I only used this fact to respond to someone’s posting, stating that my view, based on this first hand experience, was that NZ wasn’t such a nose-to-the-grindstone place as was being suggested.
So Labour is now taking policy advice from partisan hacks like John Armstrong and David Farrar?
Turn out the lights, this party is over.
Surely its a good thing that Labour can see merit in a point being made regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from, yeah?
@ George, thanks for your response.
I agree with what you say
Another fizzer?
(I may be stupid and evenly hopelessly naive, but I was hoping for at least a bit more).
Especially since the Greenpeace led campaign to save schedule 4 land from mining has sign posted in giant flashing neon lights, (that even the CTU leadership could hardly miss), on just how to mount a campaign to force a change in the government’s direction.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10659967
According to Stuff.co.NZ at the CTU meeting on Thursday, the CTU decided against a nation wide mass action union campaign to challenge National’s changes to the ERA .
Instead of a co-ordinated nation wide campaign against the changes; according to Stuff, the unions represented at the meeting decided to take a harder line in contract negotiations. And rather than mount a campaign against the changes, have instead decided on a campaign around the more nebulous concept of “fairness at work”. Possibly a repackaging of the mainly informational “Work Rights are Our Rights” publicity campaign.
I think that this strategy is already playing out with the CTU’s informational leaflet on the changes, which apart from stating the obvious, is notable in leaving out any conclusions, and offers no lead or direction to working people at all.
Not even, ‘vote Labour’.
Helen Kelly did say there was “an issue of the ongoing relationship between the Government and the union movement.” In her own words, her worry is that, “We can’t be an ongoing social partner with the Government and have our ability to represent workers undermined.”
Kelly’s worry about the relationship between the unions and the government doesn’t seem to concern Key and his mates, who without any real opposition from the unions are steamrolling over them, while Helen Kelly piteously bleats of this harsh treatment of an “ongoing social partner”.
Kelly has warned National that their attacks.” will do serious damage to their reputation among working people.”
As if they could give a damn. The National Party’s real “social partner” is not working people and their unions, but rich people and their corporations. National knows that most working people and particularly union members don’t vote National anyway, on what evidence does Helen Kelly think that National cares about “their reputation among working people”?.
The CTU leader’s ineffectual and worried hand wringing in response to these attacks from those she considered her “social partner” is hardly likely to bolster workers confidence in the union movement to protect their interests and consequently fail to stem the continuing nation wide decline in union influence and membership.
I would like to ask the CTU and the union leaders present at Thursday’s meeting a few questions.
No doubt, on behalf of their real ’social partners’ more attacks on the union movement and working people will be coming from National.
At the next inevitable attack, will the CTU continue to advise unions to put up only a minimal rearguard resistance?
Or will the CTU as the overarching trade union body, takeing a page from the environmentalists, pledge to co-ordinate a united nation wide fight back?
Is the CTU putting it’s faith in a returned Labour Government, to reverse the union movement’s declining fortunes?
Does the CTU think that working people can afford to wait that long?
And as the unions will probably be a much shrunken and weakened lobby by then, (especially as compared to the high powered organised turbo charged business lobby), aren’t you just a bit worried that a future Labour government may not be able to take your concerns seriously, even if they wanted to?
From Stuff.co.nz:
The CTU national council met on Thursday night and agreed to a “fairness at work” campaign targeting the Government’s employment law plans and warn there are likely to be some heated collective contract negotiations, along with spikes in industrial action.
Ms Kelly says she believed the CTU and the Government had agreed it would quarantine workplace access from the proposals. Mr Key had promised to come back to the CTU if that changed, she says.
That did not happen, meaning it has now become a matter of trust.
“There’s an issue of the ongoing relationship between the Government and the union movement.
“We can’t be an ongoing social partner with the Government and have our ability to represent workers undermined.”
Polarising the environment in this way raises questions about the long-term impact of the changes on industrial relations, she says.
“We’re not going to put up with it. The union movement and working people feel betrayed by a government that pretended it was moderate but turned out to be the same as any other National government.
“They can pass any legislation they like but they need to know it will do serious damage to their reputation among working people.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3953489/Parties-clash-over-labour-law-plan
@Jenny2 : Well to be fair, the CTU only had two days last week to organise that protest outside Skycity. Yes, the Mining campaign had wide support, a great march up Queen Street and 32,000 submissions. I remember something like that when the Employment Contracts Act came in, but there were 100,000 people protesting, thousands of submissions, public meetings, workplace stopworks and other actions and the National government went ahead anyway.
The difference between the mining issue and employment laws is that there were many National voters who were opposed to the proposed mining on conservation land – and a lot of “middle New Zealand” voters. I imagine there would have been a lot of consternation expressed at various National Party events. However, with the Employment Law changes, National is playing to their core constituency – and doing it to keep faith with their big business backers and funders and we’re up against a large number of people who don’t think or understand there’s a problem anyway.
That’s why it’s so important that this campaign reaches out beyond union members because it does affect everyone, not just vulnerable and union workers (in fact, most union members will be protected by their union agreements). And hey, there’s a long way to go on this one. The announcement’s only just been made – you can expect to see a campaign reaching right into the middle of next year and into the general election.
I’m looking forward to Greenpeace and other environmentalists returning the support to working people who got out and supported the campaign against mining in national parks.
Reading through the comments I can’t escape the feeling that people are lining up, fingers pointing and jabbing in condemnation, as they fight over what should be the ‘official’ line of the left and who should deliver that line.
The curse of coalition politics.
I’m hoping that the sophistication you speak of Darien is, at the very least the beginnings of the realisation that coalition/one voice political organising is a dead duck.
The simpering John Armstrong will never count as a serious commentator for me, too partisan.
The CTU leadership needs to switch to an “action” footing promptly. Flexible tactics, involve customers, consumers, communities and non union members along with union members. Media stunts, budget You Tube videos, boycotts, bans, publicity campaigns and short sharp industrial actions and working to agreement where appropriate.
Work Rights should be A) to rev up employers and the Natz B) as a recruitment and education campaign
True Wheel you’re talking a political campaign counter-insurgency here lol, n1, as D.arien said the call needs to go out to the widest possible representation in the community.
Darien …If tim shadbolt Unionman. I think you’ve been warned. Can you moderate your language and expressions. Clare. Remember – the Tim of today is a crawling populist local body politician – and remember that local body pollies are always clapping whoever is in Gummint who supports what supposedly supports their little slice of reality.
At the local body level – they have to be two headed Janus’s … lets face it …
The excuse about the security guards – nup – dont buy that Darien.
@unionman – up to you. Either we’re all in this together or we end up dividing the movement because some of us think we know best. If that is the case, the labour movement will lose. If you’re really a “union man” perhaps you and this union woman need to have a talk sometime, but please, without the insults.
Unionman you are banned for three months. Clare
if you wish to meet – indicate this in the comments and i will email your parliamentary email address to arrange to meet.
This is dependant on you allowing my comments to be posted in full.
We don’t make those sorts of bargains unionman. We have a clear moderation policy of no personal attacks, no offensive comments, no lies or diverting the conversation off thread. Clare
There is a modicum of reality that comes out of union-mans rants. Perhaps if the financial crisis had turned into a world wide depression reminiscence of the the 1930s with soup kitchen lines and 1000s of evictions. The old school labour movement might have got invigorated.
I’m waiting for the first environmental catastrophe to occur. At the magnitude of the South Ocean Krill dying off and the collapse of the oceanic food chain. I wonder how well the Greens would do out of that disaster?
I wonder what the tipping point for ordinary NZer on employment law? A reduction in annual leave?
@Darien
If some people reckon that dismissal should be easier for small employers but are against the basic thrust of the 90 day bill while others think there should be no compromise vis a vis small employers, then how does a coalition deal with the matter?
I know how a movement accommodates different views. But your comment that “Either we’re all in this together or we end up dividing the movement because some of us think we know best.” is indicative of a coalition mind set and so I’m curious as to your thoughts on such differences might be dealt with.
dave2 said:
You speak as if the World Financial Crisis is actually over? My take is the car crash is still in progress. E.g. Stress tests of European banks.
Am more concerned with how well any of us is going to do out of a disaster of that magnitude or bigger.
Too many seem to have been conditioned to take a hiding and not stand up for themselves, its a toxic mix when put together with apathy, I was amazed reading the article of that girl who had her lip bitten off by the dog, she blamed herself and wanted to apologise to the dog owner but didn’t seem to think that such a dangerous animal should not have been in contact with the public. Just imagine what would’ve happened if a little 6 year old had run over to pat the dog on the head instead.
@Loota – I don’t need nightmares tonight and fair enough
@Bill – I was referring to the strategy in how we oppose National’s labour law changes, not how we reach agreement or otherwise on the detail.
Darien
you misunderstand. I too am concerned with the strategy we use. And I’m genuinely curious as to your thoughts seeing as how you indicated a need for sophistication.
Very briefly and somewhat inadequately…
One organisational strategy would be to create coalitions of pre-existing groups, orgs, parties etc. Or alternatively we build a movement.
If we use coalitions as an organising strategy, then disagreements inevitably become amplified and have the potential to assume an importance beyond that of the matters that brought us together in the first place.
Why? Because coalitions both exist within and promote, an environment which is competitive.
Each component of the coalition (group/org/party etc) is driven to seek primacy for its agenda or list of priorities over those of the other components of the coalition. Each strives for power, to elevate itself above the other components of the coalition in order to set the agenda and the priorities and ‘be the voice’ of the coalition.
As such, coalitions tend towards friction and factionalism.
In short, if we use coalitions we might win a skirmish here and a skirmish there, but the internal zero sum games coalitions encourage ensures that we will ultimately lose.
Movements on the other hand, by their very nature, encourage solidarity as opposed to competition and unlike coalitions, do not have agendas that can be set down or captured.
Disagreements on tactics or strategies are not managed or ‘nutted out’ but are embraced and incorporated instead in the name of diversity. Further, the environment that movements create is one of solidarity, one that continually generates a sense of power and empowerment , rather than one where power is seen as a prize or goal to be fought over and coveted.
In conclusion.
Many people. One voice. ( Whose voice?)
Or… Many people. Many voices.
I prefer the strategy that embodies and encourages empowering democratic ideals rather than the one that acts against democratic ideals and the one that will persist through the long term rather than the politically expedient short term arrangement.