Roger Douglas couldn’t resist making a contribution to the Holidays Amendment Bill in the House last night. I’m not judging the quality of his speech – you can do that for yourselves – but I did find it remarkable how his comments echo those of the righties who plough in and defend “choice” on this blog.
Let’s get this clear : the only reason there is any discussion about a fourth weeks leave – tradeable or not – is because the Labour Government introduced it. Otherwise would Roger Douglas and his acolytes be arguing for trading the third weeks leave?
Oh that’s right. They did. And the first week and the second. In fact, why bother having holidays at all?
Did Roger Douglas really have an electorate office in his home and his wife was his secretary? Thats the reason Lockwood’s given for the old travel perks staying.
Darien, everyone knows that pesky workers taking holidays or even breaks slows productivity.
Who knows HOW the Germans have survived in industry with their annual leave of 6-8 weeks.
Tracey – the leave levels for Germany are the same 4 weeks – just like NZ.
But dont let the facts get in the way of hyperbole.
Roger Douglas, a man so freaky that John Key doesn’t want him anywhere near his cabinet. Probably because Douglas is so open about what he actually thinks – no secret rightwing agenda with him, the agenda is out there loud, proud, and barking.
Barking being the operative word
Did Roger Douglas really have an electorate office in his home and his wife was his secretary? Thats the reason Lockwood’s given for the old travel perks staying.
Tracey, that’s an odd story, and not one I’ve heard before. I believe that electoral offices have been fully funded since the mid 1980s. Why Roger Douglas would run his as a cottage industry is anyone’s guess.
Does everyone take all their annual leave every year – I can recall multitudes of staff who when changing jobs had accumulated years and years worth of leave and had to be paid out huge amounts – what’s the big issue with people being given a choice.
@ Darien: So Douglas said this, and so what? I can show you evil dictators supporting road-building for example. Frankly I don’t know what he said, because my connection is too slow to watch vids.
But I’ll tell you who was responsible for introducing the first, the second week of holidays, the 8-hour working day and the rest: the people. The people wanted it very much. Who signed the bill on their behalf is less important, so don’t talk like it was an undeserved gift from polititians to the people, ok?
I’d say more, but the title of your post caused me to imagine Roger Douglas in drag and I must now find a way to get it out of my head.
I think the issue is that people WON’T be given a choice. Actually, in recent times I’ve been in jobs where I have been pretty much forced to take annual leave, because the employers don’t want to pay me a lump sum instead.
It’s all about CHOICE for the workers, not just the employers.
@Sean I believe that electoral offices have been fully funded since the mid 1980s. Why Roger Douglas would run his as a cottage industry is anyone’s guess…
Remember that Roger Douglas is a Great Old One. He was elected to Parliament in 1969!
@Melusina – Yes, of course it was the people who brought about changes to an 8 hour day (what happened to that?), extra holidays etc but things don’t just happen because the people want it very badly. They happen because people get involved and active in pushing and campaigning for change. In the case of holidays, it was the people who were in unions who were affiliated to the Labour Party who influenced the Labour Party politicians to make the changes in the parliament – there have never been holiday improvements under National because the people who support National by and large see things like holidays as a cost on business, not something that improves society and communities. And it’s the people who will change things for the better for New Zealand wage and salary earners by tossing this lot out of parliament next election.
Sorry about the picture in your head.
Remember that Roger Douglas is a Great Old One. He was elected to Parliament in 1969!
True Richard, but even in 1969 an MP was on a good salary, and if the mid 80s was when full funding came in, partial funding probably existed before then.
Still, Gordon Campbell over a Scoop has a great piece on the log cabin years of yore.
@ Darien: “things don’t just happen because the people want it very badly. They happen because people get involved and active in pushing and campaigning for change.”
Yeah, that what I meant by “wanting it badly”. I should have added “and expressing it loudly”, but for me it’s obvious in this context that the two go together. People want something, are ready to vote for the politicians who’ll take it up, someone will take it up and do the paperwork and that’s how democracy works. Now, you have a problem accepting that at least some people do not want what you think they ought to want, you call them righties and show them a Roger Douglas video and try to ignore them. But the reality is that for a lot of people, and not just Act/Nat types, cashing the 4th week is an attractive option, and for even more it’s no big deal because they won’t do it if they don’t want to and they do not think employers will be putting pressure on them. If people felt about it the way you imagine they do, or should, they’d be on the streets, protesting.
Quite a good point he makes on how if one sells one week they can have a better quality holiday in the other three weeks. That in itself was enough to make me torn over the issue.
They shouldn’t be making the debate about Labour being authoritarian. National is introducing new alcohol reforms and their coalition with the Maori party increased tax on cigarettes. It’s the same thing except stress it actually is a matter of the government pointing at workers and saying ‘Take time off’ because stress is unhealthy as is cigarettes and alcohol. Stress is a killer.
And it’s only going to be a choice to those workers who aren’t in an industry with an oversupply of labour and since unemployment is quite high that will be a fair few NZers.
But very good point from Roger Douglas over selling one week could increase the quality of the holiday rather than quantity. But I still hate him he helped to ruin this country and everything that was good in it.
@Melusina “if people felt about it the way you imagine they do, or should, they’d be on the streets, protesting….”
Well they were, or didn’t you notice the 22,000 workers who rallied and marched in October?
And yes, I accept that cashing the 4th weeks leave is an attractive option for some and especially those who aren’t getting pay rises, but was it them who helped win it in the first place? And if not, why is it okay for them to decide that hard-won conditions like four weeks leave should be sold? And why is leave different to other minimum conditions, like the minimum wage, for example? Should that be for sale as well – and do we just ignore those who have gone before us to help future generations have a better working life than they had by saying, thanks very much, but we’ll sell it anyway.
darien I see thatyou have ammended your previous post to updating to this. So as to claim annual leave we require the approval of our bosses and cannot just take leave when it suits us. How is this any different than requesting the payout for the 4th week. Why do you and others (mainly within Lab/unions) persist in not listening and giving us the workers some choice?
Do you really know better what is good for our personnel circumstances?
As said before what can be better than working 49 weeks and being paid for 53?
interesting… now i know what it looks like when someone that old throws a hissy fit.. it’s the only excuse i can think of to explain the incredibly weak logic douglas is utilising..
herodotus… i’m sure you understand the cliche “thin end of the wedge”?
“Oh that’s right. They did. And the first week and the second. In fact, why bother having holidays at all?”
If I want to trade in my first and second week because I would rather have the extra money then what is your argument against me being able to do that?
From this post it sounds like you are exactly as Roger describes you: control freaks who think we peasents are too stupid to make decisions in our own lives. You really are patronising.
bbf- yes I do understand that, yet I also understand the reality of being able to cash in this entitlement (Given by Lab ) and the way that those in decision making have place ideology ahead of the people. Perhaps Phil is the ONLY one within Lab that understands what many of us face and what we need to cope. So Lab logic is that to give use greater flexibility we have to give up our only option. Another case of Lab still not listening and learning from the election loss in 08.
I used to work with a 68 year old guy who came into work 6 days a week even though he only got paid for 5 and he worked 12 hour days even though he was only paid for 8… They couldn’t make him leave and apparently he’d been like that for decades – work and the people there were all he had…
He had 180 sick days and over 9 months holiday… Being able to sell leave would have been great for him…
“They shouldn’t be making the debate about Labour being authoritarian.”
Both Labour and National are authoritarian. They just want to take away different freedoms…
I used to vote ACT as the anti-authoritarian party, but since they’ve compromised their values (although I agree with them on this one) I think I’ll have to vote Green next time. They certainly have a much stronger position on civil liberties than Labour — I just worry that I’d be voting for Labour in proxy.
the plonkers on here who thinkits a good idea to sell a weeks holiday should consider the realities.
the first year you sell your holidays, your pay goes up by that proportion, and thats it. an employer is unlikely to continue to pay you 2% higher continually forever beacuse of that one off sale of your holidays. so you sell your one week and give up your entilement permanetaly and only get a year or two at most of a pay rise.
thats the realities of the real world, not the rah rah hype you right wingers spout on about. im sure some of you actually beleive what your saying.
Next ACT will be saying that Parents have the right to choose if their children have any schooling at all.
Especially when they will have to contribute to the cost as they will under ACTs plans. They will be able to ‘cash in’ their vouchers and maybe even afford a better house. So much better that your kids have a better house than have any schooling at all.
Its so nanny state to have compulsory schooling. Think of the numbers who will choose home schooling too!
And what about the compulsory employers liability for work accidents.
Let he workers choose to keep the premiums for a ‘better house or holiday’.
And here I thought it was Brash who specialised in doing the Time Warp.
@GWW “Next ACT will be saying that Parents have the right to choose if their children have any schooling at all.”
No. It’s the other way around. I’d like to pay more to send my kids to a better school — but if I choose to send them to a private, integrated, school, then the government gives that school much less money towards my kids education than they would give a public school. But I pay taxes like everyone else. (I can’t actually afford to send my kids to a private school — but that doesn’t mean I don’t care that the system isn’t fair).
@Waterboy: “an employer is unlikely to continue to pay you 2% higher continually forever beacuse of that one off sale of your holidays”
What on earth are you on about… this isn’t a permanent choice. No one is getting a pay raise because of this. I’d like to sell some leave this year, but not the year after, say.
yeah all hail the National Government and the end of NZ being a leader in higher labour standards, worker protections and the 40 hour week.
So-called smart people being played to believe that “INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICE” (which is a complete fallacy anyways since the choices you have as an individual at any given time are usually heavily constrained) is more important than living in a healthy society which respects work life balance and they do not even know it.
To repeat Clare’s sentiment, wake up. The only reason people will consider selling their 4th week of leave, to give up time for personal growth, to give up time with their families, to give up time remembering that we work to live not live to work is because NZ workers get paid so badly that it is impossible to get ahead without selling out into debt, to sell out the pitiful amount of leave entitlement you do get in this country, to try and work weekends and nights and a second job just to live.
Big business and the National Government are sustaining a high unemployment environment where real wage growth for most is completely constrained, the unemployment market huge, the top tenth of the population gaining and even larger share of the country’s wealth and then telling you its your choice as a worker to sell out your leave for a few more drippings off the lord’s table.
Its a frakin scam and anyone can see it for what it is. Well, almost anyone it seems.
I tell you what I would back discussing whole heartedly. The National Government making 5 weeks annual leave compulsory across the board and then making the 5th week tradeable. Lets start negotiating.
The fact is that once this act is passed allowing workers to cash in the 4th week of the holiday, you’ll end up with loads of workers who don’t want to cash in their holidays being forced to do so by their employers who refuse to give them more than 3 weeks time off.
Why is it that New Zealand employers and National (and other) politicians don’t think workers need a break to more productive?
I’ve lived in the UK for the last decade and the way things are going, I can’t imagine wanting to ever return to NZ. I get 6 weeks holiday in my current job plus we close over Christmas and that’s extra to my allowance. Many employers here offer extra holiday entitlement than the 4 week average as a perk. I use every single one of my days holiday every year. Granted 3 weeks of that is visiting my family in NZ but I like being able to do that and also travel around Europe or pop over to New York or whatever. This year I am going to Cuba and Italy and Georgia. It has got to the point where I avoid applying for jobs with companies that offer less leave thanI currently get.
Who knows what New Zealanders might do with 4 weeks holiday? They might not be able to travel the way I can, being based in the UK, but I bet there would be fewer stress-related illnesses.
Of course, lots of people would find it attractive to get the cash instead of the time but I feel this is just preying of people who are strapped for cash and could really do witht he extra rest and time off that the extra leave represents.
It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is a bad deal for workers.
“I used to work with a 68 year old guy who came into work 6 days a week even though he only got paid for 5 and he worked 12 hour days even though he was only paid for 8… They couldn’t make him leave”
Is that man in your fairy tale really you?
Darien
“why is it okay for them to decide that hard-won conditions like four weeks leave should be sold?”
That is extremely pompous.
If that is your attitude then why is it okay for you to say we can’t?
Darien, why have you and others decided to make this one aspect of the law a target. Phil agrees that it should be ok to sell of the 4th week. Why not accept that even Nat can have some good ideas and accept this and then attack the less tasteful proposals of this bill such as the Drs cert for a sickie?
Yet another example of The strategists at Lab of not framing this arguement very well, and lossing a minor battle at the expense of the war.
@herodutus – we haven’t decided to make this one aspect of the holidays bill a target – it’s one of many changes we are opposed to and of course have been opposing the silly sick note provisions.
what if you could sell your leave only after youve accumulated it to a certain point
Chris you are right, I was wrong, but so are you.
The minimum statutory period is 24 working days, which is almost 5 weeks, collective agreements specify 30 working days.
“Annual Leave
The statutory minimum entitlement to leave is 24 working days per year (Bundesurlaubsgesetz [the Federal Holidays Act]). Special rules apply to certain groups of people, including young people under the age of 18 and disabled people.
Collective agreements stipulate leave of 30 working days for most employees”
The average is 35 working days (seven weeks)
I just have this sense that if lots of people sell their fourth week, then next we’ll be told after a couple of years, look how many arent using it, so we might as well go back to 3 weeks.
People who dont take their holiday leave are a danger to themselves, their workmates and to productivity, maybe even their family.
This debate presupposes power balance in employer/employee relationships. I dont read minds but I suspect Darien is concerned for those workers NOT in a position to say “NO” and who feel their job is threatened if they dont accept the suggestion from the boss.
Tracey- the current situation is that cash flow management is of prime concern for most companies. Even though I strongly support the ability of selling the 4th week, in reality I would be surprised if many companies would push for this. As it is far more benficial both from a cash flow and balance sheet perspective for employees to use their entire allotment (let alone the benfit of a rested workforce). I would not be surprised for coys/bosses when approached of the sale to decline the kind offer.
I think you should be able to sell your 5th accumulated week of leave onwards after your first year. If someone isn’t gonna take a holiday or wouldn’t take one longer than 5 weeks then it’s just a waste. That would be a real ‘choice’, if you can sell it in the same year then it will be easier for employers to make it conditional and then there would be no fear of cutting it back to selling the other weeks in the future. And workers would always have at least 4 accumulated weeks of leave if they ever need it if they needed longer to save up to go on a trip or something for their holiday or if they get too much stress built up.
Yeah Dylan, that sounds like quite a good idea. I would strongly prefer it if at the same time all NZ workers received 5 weeks minimum annual leave.
What I would like is to be able to decide when I take 2 weeks out of my 4, without having to ask the employer to accept my choice. With a notice long enough to let the company organise replacement of course. The other 2 weeks are very often over the Christmas/New Year break when many companies close, so it makes sense to leave this under employer’s control. Few things are more annoying than not being able to go on holidays with your all 4 best friends and rent a hut together, because they can’t all take leave at the same time.
Nope he’s got over 40 years on me… I actually ran into a mate this week who still works there… This post had reminded me of the guy, so I asked him if he was there still, he said he was still there, over 70 now and still going strong…
“Accumulated” leave??? I have never had a job which included accumulated leave I ‘ve always had use it or lose it leave.
I dont know many, other than shift workers and the police, nurses, who get accumulated leave?
Herodotus, I guess it depends on the profitability/productivity of the person seeking to cash in their week. It might actually make better fiscal sense to pay them out to get an extra week of increased profit or productivity.
These issues require thinking into the future rather than an isolated view of the proposal as it stands. Once something is reduced, it’s easier to reduce it again, and again
I work to live, and never ever the other way around.
All my previous employers have benefitted greatly from my services, yet only the really smart ones (sadly none in NZ – They have been by far the worst in my 27 year work history) have recognised the best tool for productivity is a happy worker.
The steps to a winning formula are so simple, it’s sad that kiwi bosses just don’t seem to get it. They make a rod for their own backs, and mostly deserve to be hit with it.
I practice what I preach. I reward good work with good pay and good conditions, treat employees with respect and value their time. Three key elements to success. So much easier than trying to motivate a poorly paid, over worked staff that would rather be anywhere but at work.
Nats are just wasting people at a shocking rate.
The real shame in bad employment relations is the human cost.
I always get amused by you sad tragic lot in the post 1990 Labour Party. You couldnt put a coherent policy together to save yourselves and here you are bagging Sir Roger Douglas, arguably the best policy creator NZ has ever produced.
Dream on tossers.
^ Lol
followed immediately by
Wow, the irony hurts so much.
@Kevin Campbell – sorry I have to LOL as well. That man is out of the Ark!
@Kevin could you please be a bit more generic and inspecific?
If ACT ever becomes government in this country (perish the thought!): those who are rich, corrupt, unscrupulous, greedy, polluting, and rotten employers will have a field day at the expense of everyone else. Most of us hope it will never happen.