According to Labour Department research, one in five workers could be fired under the government’s extension to its 90 day no rights law, due to commence on 1 April. So, the CTU has set up Job Survivor Island, where you can choose which one of five workers should be fired and sent from the island. But, they warn, don’t think about it too hard because you don’t actually need a reason to sack them thanks to the government’s new employment law. However, the site does give an alternative to taking the low road and I hope lots of employers read and think about these options.
Not looking good for State Sector workers either, with the government insisting that this “voluntary” law be imposed in every State Sector agreement.
So much for the promises of Minister Wilkinson.
Keep on this Labour – but keep it simple: “Fire-at-Will = Slavery” “No Reason Required – you’re Fired” “We voted NACT – so You can be sacked”
Hahahaha. Slavery, honest to God if this is the way the left sees it they really are still stuck in a 1930s shipyard.
Oh, yes, and thanks to this law the vast majority of NZ employers are now Mr. Burns, who fire people for laughs. Fact is barely a handful of employers have abused the law, and they will be dealt to.
Y’know what’s worse? Working all your life to support a beneficiary who refuses to. Having a member of your family killed and the killer getting out after 15 years in a prison with a flatscreen TV.
@Darien but if you were out of work for a decent period of time would you rather fight for your rights and live on the benefit or lose some of your rights but at least have some kind of job and better payment/living standard. What you are saying sounds nice but it’s impractical, the reality is that if we keep rights at their strongest you are going to have people living on the benefit, that not only lowers their living standards but holds back economic growth which leads to even more unemployment (less consumption/buisness/jobs). I tell you being unemployed is just the worst. I’m a young person and I couldn’t find a job until after I left high school, it’s well paid but I can be fired any time just like that. And in comparison to before I am bloody well grateful for it. Unions should be fighting for job creation instead of rights if they want to get rid of these situations.
@Capital true that youth rates would increase employment amongst the youth, any diminishing of rights would have the same result anywhere in the workforce. But that’s certainly the least desireable option! You speak as if it’s the only way and that we are blind for not supporting it. There are plenty of other ways to create employment, for e.g Labour in the 1930s sent unemployed aucklanders out to the waitakere to build roads to get us out of the depression. Now instead of expanding into multi billion dollar public projects the philosophy is that we should pour billions into failed financial institutions. You can also put tarrifs on imported goods that are highly labour intensive so those things can start getting made here with alot of jobs. But as long as we have National in power they will never resort to these things they would prefer to take away our rights.
As for Labours outlook on job creation… I don’t even know what it is TBH other than it’s a goal that they have but I can’t recall them saying how they would do it. Other than taking away rights, education (which we are already #1 in the world in apparently) expanding state industry or tarriffs I don’t know what you can do to create jobs. Theres subsidised wages but that sucks and I guess you can lower buisness tax but then education might suffer. I hope they get more vocal about this soon.
@Dylan – rights can always be stronger. NZ has one of the most deregulated labour markets in the world and our wages are lower than many other comparative countries. I don’t buy the weaken rights creates more jobs argument – I saw too much of that in the 1990′s where workers’ rights were crap, where the minimum wage was $7.00 an hour and under $4 if you were under 20 – and yet unemployment was higher than it is now. Selling out rights for jobs is not the answer. Economic stimulus and real investment in jobs is. I know being unemployed is rubbish : don’t blame workers’ rights. Blame the government.
And PS Dylan : if you looked at the website on this post you would see that the CTU has an alternative to current economic tired old worn out National Party policies.
@Darien if you read the second half of my post you would know I agreed with you. There is plenty more better ways the government can create employment. What I was trying to say to you was that when the government is doing nothing to create jobs then workers rights will eventually fall so that’s where the battle needs to be fought.
Employment was low in the early 1990s even though rights were low? That was also right after a time of a huge decrease in state industry so maybe I would point that out but I don’t know enough about it.
Economic stimulus and real investment in jobs is.
So are you advocating Obama style stimulus that hasn’t worked? Or Muldoon-esque job subsidies that bankrupted us? Or both? Both of those seem pretty bad.
No-one has a solution to this problem at the moment. And if Obama and the great depression show us anything its that throwing taxpayer money at the problem doesn’t work. That’s right, guys; MJS, FDR, they didn’t do jack to end the great depression. You could almost blame Savage for the “cradle to the grave” nonsense he spouted for the culture of: “oh, I’ll just go on the benefit” we have in this country – but I won’t do that.
Perhaps we as a country just need tighten our belts, and grit it out. That includes the government, too.
@Capital Throwing taxpayer money at unemployment can help there are many people employed in the public sector.
Hahahaha. Slavery, honest to God if this is the way the left sees it they really are still stuck in a 1930s shipyard.
Funny old world, Capital, and oh such irony! Just this minute returned from a delightful evening musing with a few old faces on the very subject of work experience in the 1930s – 1950s, and you have no idea how flattering your intended insult is. “1930s shipyard” indeed! My dear, misguided, foolish friend: you have no idea how fervently I desire that our current Labour leadership would rejoin the esprit of those days and circumstances of such promise and hope – nor how piteously callous, selfish and venal your own musings appear. I really do pity you Capital – and whomever has the misfortune to fall into your and your like’s so utterly pessimistic, and defeatist, animalistic orbit.
Capital, those receiving the top rate of tax cut are not toughing it out. Those profiting from the lack of stamp duty, CGT and asset taxes are not toughing it out.
While this is the case where is the incentive to invest in the productive sector and create jobs?
But even then, the government could create jobs by simply building the new homes Auckland requires (while the private market does not) – this costs nothing as the homes can be sold afterwards yet generates work and improves tax returns to government. But for ideological reasons the government we have would rather do nothing – that’s moral bankruptcy.
Throwing taxpayer money at unemployment can help there are many people employed in the public sector.
Yes but to pay for all these jobs we’ll have to raise taxes.
My dear, misguided, foolish friend: you have no idea how fervently I desire that our current Labour leadership would rejoin the esprit of those days and circumstances of such promise and hope
Hope? Hope for what? That the government will solve all your problems? That even if you have a job, the government will punish those mean old rich people who worked harder or are smarter or more talented than you and ended up with more money, by giving you some of theirs? That sounds more like revenge.
That brings me to my next point, why on earth would Labour want the poor to be richer? The poor are their core constituents. If the poor become rich all of a sudden they don’t want someone else taking there money they worked hard for to pay for someone who didn’t. Ahhh, but that’s why Labour hands out benefits, and scaremongers the poor onto their side by saying the big bad National party are going to take away the money you didn’t earn. Which they do, I suppose. It’s more or less why we need a time limit on benefits, slay the ghost of the great depression once and for all.
Just noticed your latest comment Capital, and noting your jackboot into beneficiaries, a wee goodnight prayer that even you too will one day learn the lesson of charity. ni ni.
Uh, because Labour is not about the Poor.
It is about the Many.
Just so happens that currently that under National, and also under many recent capital (lolz) oriented free market governments of the last 25 years the Many have been made the Poor.
You slay the ghost of the Great Depression by creating a well off and substantial middle class.
Of course, you won’t be interested in that since you serve the top 2% of income earners in this country who make >$100K p.a.
I agree.
Lets start with everyone on 5x the median wage or more going to a top tax rate of 40%.
Everyone on 20x the median wage or more going on to a top tax rate of 50%
Then introducing a CGT on everything over the first $2M in net assets.
An estate tax of 25% on everything over the first $2M in net assets.
How’s that gritting coming, Capital? Feeling good?
Get over it. You want to live in a modern civil society then you pay for it. You want to live in a dog eat dog town with beggars and starving people in the street, go move to Somalia.
Who gives a frak about whether or not a killer has a flat screen TV in prison.
I want that killer rehabilitated, upskilled, regretful but nevertheless 100% ready and healthy to rejoin society as a productive contributor to the community, paying taxes and helping to make the country we live in a better place.
That doesn’t sound like the government tightening it’s belt. That sounds like envy taxation, a key Labour policy, and mindless revenue gathering, another key Labour policy. And no doubt it will be spent on those who’s choices have put them in a bad situation, beneficiaries for instance, and it won’t make a lick of difference to the economy, just like it didn’t in America. It sounds like Obama, who is useless, if that’s the guy the left wants to emulate though, get a leader who has some charisma.
Why you lefties are so in love with tax, is beyond me. Although, fact is that you are so jealous that you can’t bare the thought of someone making more money than you.
It’s also forced belt tightening, which contravenes the individual’s free will, I like free-will. Although the left hates the successful individual, and would rather bring them down to the level of the mediocre collective.
And I hate to break it to you, CV, but there’s always gonna be rich people. And there always gonna have more money that you, and they don’t need to tighten their belts they worked harder than you and did better. That’s the thing with capitalism, it’s largely a meritocracy (something we need in public sector like Keith Locke needs a brain) and the most industrious rise to the top. You wanna end the rich? Fine lobby for a maximum wage, and a massive redistribution of wealth…better yet, lobby for communism, that’ll get rid of the rich.
Just so happens that currently that under National, and also under many recent capital (lolz) oriented free market governments of the last 25 years the Many have been made the Poor.
The Soviet Union, China, South America, Eastern Europe, India. How’d socialism work for those places? How happy rich are the people? Oh that’s right, rampant poverty. I’ve been thinking about socialism, and I’ve come up with the theory that it’ll only work in places that are culturally predisposed to it. Take Sweden, if you ignore it’s horrible standard of living and snail like economy, socialism arguably worked there. Now take Venezuela or any South American country (apart from Chile), a terrible place run by a mad man. They nationalised all their stuff…and they’re still poor – not the best argument for state run everything is it?
There must be something in the blood of the Scandinavians that allows socialism to be stable there. It was never going to work in India because of their caste system, same with Russia because you don’t lead Russia, you rule it, and the strong succeed over the weak, and the people are well aware of it and that’s why they love Putin.
Would it work here? I dunno, there’s a definite tall-poppy syndrome perpetuated by the Labour party, and socialism is all about cutting down those who succeed. Regardless of whether it would work or not, I’d hate to trade in my economic freedom for temporary safety.
But then again, I don’t particularly care about the overall income inequality created by capitalism, because it provides a better, freer system for me to get ahead in, and if I look at the fact that I have a better job than most people, make more money than all of my friends, capitalism worked out fine for me. That’s what capitalism is about, providing a free market in which you can set out into and with enough drive, the best ideas, and an excellent work ethic, succeed in. Perhaps if people weren’t so lazy they’d do better, I don’t have the answer, but if the answer is the government giving me a handout to do nothing, or giving me extra money to do a job that really is paid on what it is (why should a McDonalds checkout attendant earn more than minimum wage? They’re providing a minimal service), then I think that there’s not much point working hard.
Capital, when National said they would keep WFF, they conceded that families needed the extra money they did not earn. When National decides against a CGT they allow people to evade the tax that is applied on earned forms of income.
As for the issue of the poor, there were more poor – lower minimum wages, more children on poverty and more on benefits under National 1990-99 than Labour 1999-2008. Minimum wages rose, the number of children in poverty reduced and the number of people on benefits declined.
Labour does not need workers to be unemployed and or working poor for its economic policy to be implemented.
The Soviet Union, China, South America, Eastern Europe, India. How’d socialism work for those places? How happy rich are the people? Oh that’s right, rampant poverty.
Most of your post being right wing drivel did nothing for me, but this quote is quite funny.
The former ussr and china, still both one party monolith states have two of the biggest grossing economies in the world, and india, there’s another tipped to become a dominant force in international trade.
What was your point again?
All three generating huge amounts of wealth. All three having levels of poverty exceeding ours in NZ.
Really, what was the point you’re trying to make?
As Capital indirectly puts it, what’s the difference between a sociopath and a capitalist …
“I don’t particularly care about the overall income inequality created by capitalism, because it provides a better, freer system for me to get ahead in, and if I look at the fact that I have a better job than most people, make more money than all of my friends, capitalism worked out fine for me.”
The answer is, not much. This is why there are many pro-capitalists concerned for the future of capitalism.
Capitalism is premised on a profit motive and a self-interest, justified as a concept of economic rationalism. However the arguments for it, if ever applied as a government policy result in an anti-human ideology where the individual is subordinated to a market-place.
People such as Michael Porter are raising the reasons why capitalism has to change.
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/1?cm_mmc=social-_-facebook-_-CreatingSharedValue-_-01062011
In the Dom-Post Colin James writes about why this evolution in capitalism is required.
“This is the year to start focusing on the next globalisation – the merging of inequalities within economies with the inequalities between economies.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4524592/NZ-must-keep-up-with-global-economy
@capital, what a lot of drivel, i cant beleive i actully read it and got so annoyed.
if you are greedy and are prepared to take advantage of others you will always do better under capatilism.
the tall poppy syndrome works well for chopping off at the knees people with big egos, the tall poppy system is also the basis of capitalism, there will always be someone wanting to take you down to get ahead of you.
And I hate to break it to you, CV, but there’s always gonna be rich people. And there always gonna have more money that you, and they don’t need to tighten their belts they worked harder than you and did better.
BULLSHIT 99% or the rich have NEVER WORKED a day in their lives, most of their money is ‘old’ money. In fact if they had to actually get their hands dirty they would never handle it. With out daddies money and influence they are just spoilt, and we start to see them popping up in the news now usually in a bad way, because they have NEVER had to think of the consequences of their actions. You want names?? use google
Sorry CV i just had to say something to this Blatant lie.
Deadly be careful with the language. Clare
Why am I under Moderaton?
Sorry Clare, but that expletive was needed to emphasise what a load of drivel I was arguing against.
The guys deliberately trolling, even if not very good at it.
The only good thing about his right wing nut job rants is how easy they are to disect and rubbish.
CV repeatedly makes mincemeat out him, yet back he comes with his ultra right weirdness. I’m sure it’s a put up job… No-one could be that ignorant, right? It’s like watching the future play out of the bastard love child of hilary calvert and david garret.
“David@Tracey. we had one at my last job, fantastic CV, interviewed well but she turned out to be plain nasty and incredibly slack. Spent most of the day playing solitaire, telephone tag and ciggie breaks but refused to work to deadlines that were critical to the company.”
To be honest this is one of my bug-bears with employers, they give references to employees in return for them resigning, rather than being sacked so the next poor bastard gets a distorted picture of the employee.
Capital, for a young man at University you seem to have some very firm views about the world. I guess it’s the perogative of youth. My experience has been that as I get older the black and white simply become darker grey and lighter white.
It is hard to imagine, but I accept it’s not impossible, for you to have experienced so many different sections of our society to speak so vehemnetly about how thier lives ought to be and what would make it better, or worse.
I believe “PC” is a vacusous phrase which is substituted by those who use it for reasoned argument of a particular point. Most people who I hear use the pharse to say “It’s PC nonsense” usually mean they dont agree with a particular viewpoint or whatever, so tell us WHY you dont agree, dont resort, at such a young age to lazy rhetoric.
PLEASE tell me what you are studying at Uni, I am intrigued.
Tall Poppy syndrome is another phrase designed to cut short substantiated discourse. In business it is to prevent people saying anything negative about someone others like. EG Peter Jackson. Anyone who suggests he lied or was duplicitous during the Hobbit affair was accused of being envious of his money or suffering from tall poppy syndrome (in posts on this blog). In fact it turned out he was either lying or being manipulative or allowing himself to be used to create a certain, false, impression. Does that make him a bad person? Nope. Does it mean he doesnt deserve his wealth? Nope. It does mean he’s not perfect and we are entitled to make calls when he puts himself in a public forum and is part of an effort to get tax breaks and law changes for a Billion dollar US company.
Deadly starts with:
BULLS**T 99% of the rich have NEVER WORKED a day in their lives
and then:
Sorry Clare, but that expletive was needed to emphasise what a load of drivel I was arguing against.
Pots and Kettles, my angry little left wing friend. Pots and Kettles…
Welcome to http://www.coachs.us