Government Advertising
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm by David FarrarDean Knight blogs that having local body advertising such as Wellington City’s IntensCITY week celebration should not happen so close to the local body elections, as it can advantage the incumbents.
Dean is right, and also (perhaps unwittingly) provides the rationale for the old 90 day period for central Government elections.
Traditionally, in the last 90 days, you:
- stop all Government advertising programmes (and Govt goes into caretaker mode almost)
- Parliamentary advertising stops except the absolutely banal such as electorate office hours
- party spending limits kick in
If you get rid of the 90 day period, then you are in a weaker position to say hey that government advertising campaign shouldn’t be happening. Because it is silly to suggest there can be no govt advertising all election year, but it is quite reasonable to restrict it in the lead up to an election.
Related posts:
- Third Party Advertising
- Ban parliamentary advertising in last 90 days
- Period of “regulated speech”
- Analysing the PM’s “assurances” on advertising
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
This is what the EFB IS ALL ABOUT. One party “advantaging” itself to the “disadvantage” of another. That is when FOUL is called?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Common sense is a harder skill to come by than most people realise. Its effectiveness is dramatically reduced in groups.
I nominate DPF as sole lawmaker for the rest of time. To keep him non-biased he shall now permanently live in a small box.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
My bad, I mean Dean Knight. Sorry DPF. You can have the keys to his box though.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I think 90 days is too short a time. Why not 12 months?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
It should be 90 days or from the date the day of the election is announced whichever is LESS.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Lee C: I would look forward to inevitable bills such as The Lynx Bodyspray Loves The Green Party Electoral Spending Reform Bill.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Will I get another fradulent pledge card with a picture of some women prime minister who I fail to recognize ? I do hope so, as the darts have made the old one pretty holy .
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I have some serious issues with local body electioneering anyway.
1.) Postal ballots. Sure, they have raised turnout. But they also increase the risk of candidates buying votes – we introduced the secret ballot for a reason.
Vote:2.) The ability of candidates to have billboards up during the election period.
3.) The significant overlapping of different levels of local government – some simplicity is needed.
4.) The continuation of council decision-making which can affect voting preferences.
5.) The continuation of council advertising which can affect voting preferences.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
boom chikka wah wah!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sorry Sam Dixon I meant fraudulent pledge card dear, as I know you are a stickler for grammar hammer and spulling .
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
with a picture of some women prime minister who I fail to recognize ?
You know, D4J, she has been Prime Minister for eight years…
Christ, come to think of it, eight years with a ‘women’ prime minister – how on earth do you cope?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Masturbation ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Well, he did say his pledge card is wearing out…
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
and it had lots of tiny holes
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
purile stuff guys. but keep chatting. doesn’t change the fact the Labour stole $800k of our money and then re-wrote the law to make this theft legal. how can you back these crooks?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
tim – yes the lesser of 90 days or date of announcement
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Yo LeeC – I’ve missed you and your dry wit so much (I mean “boom chikka wah wah!”?? – someone should be making a sitcom outta this thread!) So, how is my favorite MILF?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Yes $800k of stolen money . Us and them .
Lest we never forget the sick political corruption .
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Good Post DPF,
Completely sensible reasoning but the troll-skis will again go yada yada yada about it.
The simple problem that they choose to ignore is that Governments of the day are elected on the one person -one vote and if freedom of speech is restricted then people are not able to be informed by interested lobby groups whether it be unions forest and bird, EB’s or Greenpeace. The Nuclear free status that the Labour Party is so proud of would never have been able to get the following it has got with restrictions like the EFB. The Labour Party is digging its own grave with this bill.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
KK how can we back these crooks ?
Its all about backing winners
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Tane, the snaggle toothed baritone ghoul which has been PM for this past eight years bears no resemblance to the apparition which appeared on the Party of Embezzlers’ pledge cards.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Winners that reply on that sort of support become losers. Nurnberg showed us that.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Honestly, I think we’d all be a lot happier if Helen would use her stunt double all the time and not just for wikipedia photoshoots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Adolf, why did you name yourself after a fascist dictator?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Dad4justice certainly would be..
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Because no one can spell Vladimir Ullyich Ulianov?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
And not being aware of what is going on around you causes you to sink without trace. An iceberg showed us that
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Actually I agree. There’s little integrity left in Helen Clark so why ruin that reputation with a photograph that is an actual likeness? Hey I wonder what photograph is on her passport? If it’s the pledgecard one perhaps she’ll be deported on arrival for attempting to use false documentation!!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Sorry Lee C my days of playing oi oi oi skin head are well over , I don’t like any facism , feminism ,utopianism, communism , rortism,humanism, capitalism, hellenisms, rogerism , sonicism, and liarbour lickspittleism , and I am ismed out .
Fascist dictators , not my style as it is to much hassle and stress for my liking matey !! I am more of let the people decide type of person .
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Thank you Lee C. My father was a colleague of Oscar Shindler who, regrettably, could not persuade Hitler to attend my barmitzvah.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Dear Adolf this description of auntie hell is better than the” Bilious bitch” comment that made me laugh some months back , however with that said this simply takes the cake ; “snaggle toothed baritone ghoul”
Simply divine , my grandmother was a kraut
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
David, Instensity is for town planners and architects. I’ve been to a number of the events and there has been no sign of politicians at any of them.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Robert Owen Re your post about backing winners My old late Dad reckoned there was more than a small percentage of voters who wehnt into the polls and ticked the party that was polling the highest just before election day.
His idea was that they were people who liked to boast that they picked the winner just like they did the horses.
he also reckoned that to vore one should have to pass an IQ test and test to show a basic understanding of governance and the policies of the parties.
He reckoned without this how the hell can you have an informed vote by informed people and that we might as well have them thorw darts at voting papers.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
We should remember that the 800k stolen last election actually represents about $8 million of turnover by average kiwis to produce that money for the government.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
gd: sounds like my father in law. Of course, my father in law is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t listen to grumpy old men….
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
When the tories came a knocking at home my old man invited them in saying he didn’t know who to vote for . He tried to keep them there as long as possible cos he figured if they were there
Vote:The Bastards couldn’t be influencing any one else
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Bwakile
Vote:Look Labour worked a flanker and got away with it.
National worked a flanker and didn’t.
Thats the way it goes.
If the result had been different though I suppose I would be on hear moaning everyday that the election was stolen.
But luckily….
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
This news from PNG. Seemed a bit familiar to me…
http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2007/October/10-03-01.htm
‘”Freedom of media will not be curtailed at all. All I’m saying is it is a two-way thing,” he said, adding the PNG Media Council would be invited to contribute to the review.
“He said if the media plays its part and report fairly, accurately and responsibly, there would be no cause for alarm.”
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Sorry shoulf have had headline “PNG Government To Regulate Media”
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Robert Owen
And you are a power at any price for the Labour party person who accepts their deceipt and corruption as long as they win….
Do you really expect us to believe that supporting Labour is your choice and that you have grown up enough to stop just following daddies orders ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
How’s this for a headline. I knew something good would ocme out of Fiji
“REVAMPED FIJI CHIEFS COUNCIL WOULD OUTLAW POLITICS”
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
The bloody Fijians have been reading our EFB !
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I can’t believe this crap… there are Labour supporters who openly endorse corruption so long as it ensures their return to power. Wake up! And ask someone to give you a moral compass!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
KK -
I think most labour supporters wish that there were a better option available to govern new zealand. However that fact is that the majority don’t think there is, because National continues to support the failed plutocratic policies of the 1990s.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
krazykiwi
OK: I’ll ask you a question. If you were a Labour supporter because you were a lefty and they introduced a policy to completely privatise health care – would you vote for them ?
I suspect some of the “lefties” in this thread would because the dim-bulbs are Labour voters and the policies, ethics and integrity of the party are irrelavent.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“I can’t believe this crap… there are Labour supporters who openly endorse corruption so long as it ensures their return to power. Wake up! And ask someone to give you a moral compass!”
and
Look Labour worked a flanker and got away with it.
National worked a flanker and didn’t.
Thats the way it goes.
I guess the key sentence is “National worked a Flanker” and didn’t
I really don’t see how either party can claim to be moral
Is changing your foreign policy into something you don’t believe in
just to get elected moral ?
Is changing your health policy into something you don’t believe to get elected moral ?
Is in fact going into an election with a hidden agenda Moral?
At least I’m honest
I now wait for a load of shit about how National didn’t work a flanker
Well they did and they got rumbled
Labour also did and got rumbled but just too late to make a difference
What the difference ?
Fuck i could be sitting here with the schools privatizsed unable to afford doctors visits and Our Young Men and Women being killed in Iraq so we can have a trade deal with the USA all without any mandate
So don’t talk to me about moral
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
roger nome
We have MMP – Don’ty vote for Labour – Labour will still be around (partisan supporters of corruption will still vote for them) and their policies will be just as effective if they are a minor coalition partner.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that under MMP it’s a two party race. Labour might want you to think this way which is why they campaign on “Two ticks Labour”. However the reality is very different.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Robert Owen
National also worked a flanker. So according to you it’s a two party race and they are just as bad as each other.
That’s crap and many of your comments would suggest you are intelligent enough to understand this – however you attitude makes you sound like somebody who’s never really questioned why they vote Labour – you just do because you always have, your dad always has etc.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Burt – I’ve never voted for Labour.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
roger
OK, Sorry for the assumption about you personally. However did my comment still make sense to you ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I have voted for Labour, my parents voted for Labour. Then after 1984 I had a row with my parents when I said I wouldn’t vote for Labour in 1987.
They couldn’t believe me. So I told them about National’s new policies (which were actually Labour’s) and they said: See told you you should never vote for Labour.
That was when I started to make my own decisions.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
ooops: … Told you you shouldn’t vote National.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
oh and burt – many people don’t trust National – they showed in 1991 how many secret agendas they had hidden fro mthe public (privatisation) and then the hollow men, and the EB scandel showed how many secret agenda’s National took into the 2005 election. They lie, cheat and decieve.
Yes Labour are scoundrels – but so are National. Honest New Zealanders are left with little chioce. In fact if you’re looking for the most principled party in NZ it’s the greens – yet they routinely demonised by the corporate media and major parties because they’re the only truely alternative party out of the ones in parliament.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Fuck I vote I vote Labour because of the labour movement
8 yr kids stopped getting sent up chimneys to clean them b4 dying at 10 with lung disease
4o hr week ,holidays , equal rights for women, homosexual reform bill
anti smacking legislation , Fuck where do you want to start ?
My great grandmother had to clean the steps of the Super rich Tories in London, for sweet fuck all.and suffering all kinds of abuse Not because she wasn’t bright, not because she didn’t work fucking hard, but due to fact of where and when she was born.
Society is the better for progressives thinkers not one eyed Tories who only ever think about themselves
So no I don’t vote labour cos my dad did I support labour because of all those brave unsung heroes in the labour movement who haven’t gotten us to where we are today
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
have gotten
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Robert, do you know who introduced the 40 hour week?
Robertson Crusoe – he was fucked by Friday.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Robert Owen, the labour you vote for no longer stands for the principles your hold dear. their name is the same to be sure, but their policy, motivations, principles and ethics are light-years away from your ideal.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Not true KK
i.e.
National wants to take vulnerable workers back to the 1890s with the 90 day “no work rights” probationary employment bill. Labour protects ALL New Zealand workers against unfair treatment at work through the mediation process and the employment authority – the same however can’t be said of National.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
RN: crap. The 90 day probationary period isn’t no work rights. It allows no fault termination.
It sounds to me like some people here are still basing their politics on facts on the ground in the 1800s. The class view of society is no longer relevant (if it ever was in NZ), you are living in the past if you are voting based on that.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
KK
If you are such an expert on party principles,
perhaps you could tell us what the National Party’s principles are?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
You guys don’t get it do you.
Nome said:
And Robert Owen the powerhouse of integrity said :
Society is the better for progressives thinkers not one eyed Tories who only ever think about themselves
To my point Don’t be fooled into thinking that under MMP it’s a two party race.
But you guys just can’t comprehend not voting for Labour because the only other choice is National.
You are lame, limp minded, idiots who can’t see past the two party race that both National & Labour want you to think it is.
So Robert, if you suppprt Labour because of the past Labour movement how do you feel about Labour today having such tory policies as capped benefits that are not paid to all. Remember Labour policy is universal benefits. Under a real Labour Govt even people earning $17m/year would get WFF. Wharp… they lost their way and the Labour party of the past is dead – you missed it and you are showing yourself to be nothing more than a partisan fool.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Policy Parrot
Do you also think that there are only two parties ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
crap. The 90 day probationary period isn’t no work rights. It allows no fault termination.
Um… the flipside of ‘no fault termination’ is the right to appeal againt unfair dismissal. Either you have the right to natural justice or you don’t – but either way there’s no denying it’s about work rights. And National wants to take those rights from some of our most vulnerable citizens so their rich mates can fire people without having to give a reason. If you ask me, that’s one bloody good reason they should never be allowed near power again.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Tane
Hopw many people do you or your company employ ? How many bad decisions have you made employing people only to face a nightmare getting the suckers off your payroll ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
“It allows no fault termination.”
If by “no fault termination” you mean workers can be fired on the spot for no reason (i.e. they are gay, have “bad hair, are left wing, are a Muslim etc) yes you are right – and this is just shocking.
Also the 90 day “no rights” probationary employment bill would allow employers to get away with nearly anything as workers would have no access to employment institutions to resolve grievances. Any complaint would to a normal civil court – meaning astronomical legal bills for people on low incomes – conclusion most employees would be put of by the cost of pursuing a grievance and/or intimidated by the legalistic process (this was certainly the case under National’s the Employment Contracts Act, which left dispute resolution down to civil court proceedings).
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Crap roger. It would allow a company to do what you socialists hate companies doing – do their job well and make profit for their share holders.
No company wants to fire good employees. This point just slides past you socialists because you have never employed people and have no bloody idea how valuable good employees are and what a liability shit-head employees are.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“No company wants to fire good employees. This point just slides past you socialists because you have never employed people and have no bloody idea how valuable good employees are and what a liability shit-head employees are.”
Burt – I’m sure this is true for most employers, but with any sector of society there are the bad apples who will abuse their position of authority, for the sake of making a bit of money. Workers need to be protected against these employers, yet National wants to take that protection away – just awful.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
roger
A company that is a bad employer will go out of business. I guess that’s just to simple for socialist to understand.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
What riles me and many others is the level of patronisation that goes on:
You are either an:
a. An idiot
b. Outdated
c. Dumb
D. Corrupt
e. Partisan
f. Anti-free speech
g. Homosexual
h. Minority
i. Socialist
j. Communist
k. Feminist
l. Nazi
If you vote or support Labour. I’m sorry but that is simply not the case. Everyone that supports a party doesn’t support everything they do, but they hold true to a core set of values.
People who use these terms to describe Labour supporters are implying that these people should not be allowed to vote.
Remember, the National Party is descended partly from the New Zealand Legion which actually wanted scrap democratic elections.
More recently, their backers promoted FPP, which is by nature, undemocratic.
Has there been any piece of progressive legislation aimed at enhancing diversity and democracy enacted by a National Govt? No.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Abuse their position of authority – what like pass retrospective legislation or draft crooked partisan electoral funding laws.
You guys are classic – one standard for dear leader and another for everything else.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Great Policy Parrot.
Don’t vote National – but do you know that Labour are not the only other party ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“A company that is a bad employer will go out of business. I guess that’s just to simple for socialist to understand.”
Rubbish – there are plenty of employers who have a 100% turnover rate (the fast-food industry which employs over 5000 workers nation-wide is a perfect example). They don’t retain workers, they’re awful to work for, yet they make huge profits.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
roger nome
And that’s happening without the 90 day probation period. Wow, so they will get worse, turnover (staff voluntarily leaving) will increase how because the company can get rid of staff who are making the working environment bad for people who want to stay ?
Swings and roundabouts roger, look at both sides of the equation. There is nothing worse than a nightmare employee who drives away your good employees and you can’t do sqat about it because some dip-shit drafter of employment laws thinks that a job is something that once you have it you should be able to keep for life.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“And that’s happening without the 90 day probation period. Wow, so they will get worse, turnover (staff voluntarily leaving) will increase how because the company can get rid of staff who are making the working environment bad for people who want to stay?”
No the core grievances in the fast-food industry are insecure hours of work (some weeks you work 20 hours, others you work 3 hours), low pay, and bullying by management – it certainly isn’t “mean co-workers scaring “good workers” off”. In fact the main reason people stay, on average as long as 12 months is because of the social atmosphere that the work offers – otherwise the turnover rate would be higher.
All these abuses by employers would be made worse by the 90 day “no rights” probationary employment bill.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
People still take jobs in these places roger – that is the bottom line. Unless I missed some logic in your position I though we had vey low unemployment and employees had choices ?
Please enlighten me ?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Burt I’m arguing that the 90 day probationary employment bill would open up vulnerable workers up to numerous abuses by the minority of unscrupulous employers, with no realistic recourse to natural justice.
How does your last post address my point?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
PP – You’ll note that I didn’t claim to be expert on National party principles. Those were you words. My observation is that Labour now stands for re-election al all costs… and that it will happily sacrifice the most precious freedom of it’s own supporter (a democratic voice) in order to secure that re-election. It’s disgusting.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Roger, you are comparing people having a job with a 90 day probation period to having a job without a 90 day probation period. That actually isn’t the alternative, the alternative is to not have a job.
There are plenty of people out there who an employer won’t take a risk on. You have a criminal record, you present poorly in interviews, you have limited skills and need training. If you could take a risk and be able to back away if it works out poorly, then it makes a bunch of jobs available.
90 day probations exist in Australia, I don’t see the world ending. What exactly are you worried about again?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
You are talking about people working in one industry – there are other choices for part time work. That is how it addresses your point.
OK, so draft the 90 day probation period bill so it only applies to full time employment.
I would be happy with that and according to your example you should also be happy with that.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
PaulL
Correct – I had a few nightmare employee’s that almost wrecked my business a few years back. So I scaled it down and now just myself and my wife work in it.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“90 day probations exist in Australia, I don’t see the world ending. What exactly are you worried about again?”
According to a world bank study we already have amongst the lowest levels of employment protection in the OECD – a probationary period would be redundant.
“There are plenty of people out there who an employer won’t take a risk on. You have a criminal record, you present poorly in interviews, you have limited skills and need training. If you could take a risk and be able to back away if it works out poorly, then it makes a bunch of jobs available.”
Rubbish – of the 3.8% of people that are unemployed only 20% will have been unemployed for more than 6 months (department of labour statistics). That means abour 0.5% of the labour force is chronically unemployed – hardly a huge problem.
The reason that we have any unemployment at all is mainly due to the fact that we have a dynamic economy where jobs are being created and destroyed at a high rate. The fact that there is virtually no long-term unemployed shows this.
Conclusion – the 90 day “no rights probationary employment bill will have a negligible effect on unemployment if any.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Roger, you provided no real information on WHY people leave fast food jobs after less than a year. I could posit a number of reasons that would be entirely in keeping with your statistics, but that don’t indicate any of the problems that you claim:
1. There are many after-school workers in these industries. They leave school and get a full-time job
2. They are low skill workers who most employers won’t take a risk on. They get a job in the fast food industry and develop some basic skills (such as getting out of bed and going to work) and a CV. They move on to a higher skill job
I am guessing that these people leave for a better job – presumably they wouldn’t leave for a worse job. What exactly do you have against people moving on to a better job?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm Vote:
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
actually PP – i agree. there is a lot of stereotyping that goes on … on both sides. it’s not helpful. That said… here’s my take in it….
i’d categorise Labour voters into two camps. One group votes Labour because they always have, and nothing short of seeing them practice baby sacrifice on live tv would churn their vote.
the other have swallowed the carefully-constructed lie national actually does commit baby sacrifice as part of secret agenda that is driven by greedy capitalists rich bastards who would see the disadvantaged thrown into the streets and their shanty towns torched
perhaps there’s a third group… including some of the left posters here… but it’s a small group.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hopw many people do you or your company employ ? How many bad decisions have you made employing people only to face a nightmare getting the suckers off your payroll ?
Yes burt, I have actually employed staff. In a company I used to part-own and manage I employed four staff. I treated them fairly and in compliance with the law and I’ve never had a problem. But that’s irrelevant.
The point is that just because most employers are decent people that doesn’t mean legal protections aren’t warranted. Work rights are about guaranteeing people some basic fairness and security rather than having to live in fear every day that their employer might fire them on a whim one day. Because while they are a minority, there are still plenty of employers out there who operate like that.
It’s also not true that employers who treat their workers badly will go out of business. Workers at companies like Air New Zealand, Spotless Services and Subway will beg to differ with you.
As for your so-called ‘nightmare employee’, do you think perhaps you might just need to improve your management skills? There are ways of dealing with these things – I know this from experience – and if you ultimately can’t there is a legal process to dismiss employees who are not meeting fair expectations or are guilty of misconduct. Reminds me of research I saw in the wake of the 90 day bill’s defeat. Turned out a lot of employers didn’t even understand their rights under the ERA as it stood and were getting worked up over nothing.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Paul – can you please tell me how your last post relates back to my point? that …
“I’m arguing that the 90 day probationary employment bill would open up vulnerable workers up to numerous abuses by the minority of unscrupulous employers, with no realistic recourse to natural justice.”
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
roger nome
OK, so jobs are being created and destroyed at a high rate and you think it’s fair that an employer is required to make a decision to hire “x” person based on limited contact and information with no recourse to rectify a bad decision quickly?
In a market where the employee could quickly turn out to be the wrong person for job, and the job may have changed very quickly, you insist that we should have employment laws that further constrain the employer.
Just try it roger. Try employing somebody. Try picking the correct person for the job, the environment they will be working in, the people they will be working with and the place that you have to work in as well.
Come back with your considered thoughts free of socialist clap trap and report when complete. Over and out.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
90 day probations exist in Australia, I don’t see the world ending. What exactly are you worried about again?
First of all, get your facts straight. It’s not a 90 probation period, it’s the ability to fire staff at will if you employ fewer than 100 people. And there have been some absolute horror stories come out of Australia on that.
Howard’s extreme industrial relations package has is so unpopular with the public that it’s become one of the top three issues of the election, and could be the thing that ultimately topples him.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Just try it roger. Try employing somebody. Try picking the correct person for the job, the environment they will be working in, the people they will be working with and the place that you have to work in as well.
What is it with some business people and their grievance mentality? You sound like a moaning old coot. I know plenty of employers, and they don’t go through life with this kind of chip on their shoulder. They realise employment is a relationship, that their employees are human beings rather than economic units, and that there is a process of natural justice that they have to go through in their dealings with staff. Is that too much to ask?
Honestly bro, you’re sounding like Dad4Justice.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“Come back with your considered thoughts free of socialist clap trap and report when complete.”
Sure redbaiter, whatever – oh shit it was actually burt that wrote that – my mistake
“OK, so jobs are being created and destroyed at a high rate and you think it’s fair that an employer is required to make a decision to hire “x” person based on limited contact and information with no recourse to rectify a bad decision quickly?”
Absolutely – According to the World Bank New Zealand is the second easiest place in the world to do business, and the 10th easiest when it comes to hiring and firing. Employers have it bloody sweet in New Zealand, yet there will always be some that bleat on about unfair treatment. To these people “the world is not enough”. If you can’t get on with your workers I suggest that you need to be turning the search light inwards rather than blaming everyone else Burt.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Tane
I disagree that there will always be nightmare employers. Are the unions the weak link? You could blame the employer if all employees were were prohibited from joining a union.
So either unions fail them by negotiating poor conditions. If not the unions then they fail themselves by accepting the offer and in return they provide their services. If the conditions were genuinely horrendous and people were not prepared to accept the wages offered then they will fail.
The other aspect to the problem with the “bad” example you have is that they are not a career choice of many. Many temporary or part time workers use them. So once again if people are prepared to work part time for low wages then there is still a contract. And of course the other issue is the price competitiveness and market sensitivity to price. A low paid economy as we are makes us very cost competitive, hard to pay employees good money when the product price is held low by low spending power.
However Tane, take heart. I f you can answer the question ” would you pay an extra $2.5 for a 6″ sub if the workers were paid a bit more” – “Yes”. Then simply leave a $2.5 tip for the person who serves you every time you go there. Oh and make sure they pay lots of tax on that money as well – we are socialists after all.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“I disagree that there will always be nightmare employers.”
Burt so because someone is an employer they’re automatically morally pure, and would never do anyone an injustice to one of their workers?
Union density is about 20% – the legal environment just isn’t conducive to high levels of union coverage. This is why workers need recourse to the easily accessible employment institutions that labour have created and National want to do away with.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
roger nome so because someone is an employee they’re automatically morally pure, and would never do anyone an injustice to one of their employers?
An employee can hand in notice and “effectively” withdraw their productive services immediately. And I think that’s a good thing that as an employee people can do that. So therefore I also support some trial period to test the marriage from and employers perspective.
I don’t think we will agree on this roger and I’m quite comfortable with that.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
“Just try it roger.”
He never will. To the day he dies, he’ll always be parasiting off the initiative, investment, risk and hard work of others. He’s a leftist.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
And it’s got nothing to do with Labour or National, we are talking about a 90 day probation period. Not who’s idea it was. A bit like when we argued about having all charitable donations claimable as a tax deduction rather than only $1,500 as per Labour policy.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“roger nome so because someone is an employee they’re automatically morally pure, and would never do anyone an injustice to one of their employers?”
No – that’s the reason we have dismissal procedures.
“An employee can hand in notice and “effectively” withdraw their productive services immediately”
That depends on the employment agreement. Some employers require up to two months notice.
“And it’s got nothing to do with Labour or National, we are talking about a 90 day probation period. Not who’s idea it was.”
Actually Labour vigorously opposed this bill so it is about National and Labour.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The problem is roger knome if u can spel propaly is that you ideological dream says that all employers are scum and evry one should have equal pay and equal wealth and therefore not have to compete for anything .The communistic failed cuban dream.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“The problem is roger knome if u can spel propaly is that you ideological dream says that all employers are scum”
No – those are your words not mine. Have a little honesty and stop trying to put words into peoples mouths wont you?
He yeah speligng mistakers on a polittikal blogg. Who evre herd of it?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
roger nome
I got it.
Vote:Because Labour who you don’t vote for opposed it and National who I don’t vote for proposed it – you and I must discuss the concept with partisan hats on.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“…he’ll always be parasiting off the initiative, investment, risk and hard work of others.”
ha ha, you could be talking about John Key in his previous career.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
No my argument is that Labour’s position is better than National’s, and therefore Labour is preferable to National on this issue. You’re presumably arguing the opposite? But anyway this is getting into semantics.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
A bit like you argued against tory charity as well eh PJ. Labour good – resist nasty National policy. Oh Labour good pass fair policy on charitable giving… yad yada Nation bad Labour good.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Roger Your position is fixed because you cannot see past the ideological blinkers that are over your eyes.
The Labour govt has lost its right to represent the people of NZ once it stole the money it did therefore it can’t be trusted to spend any Govt money in an ethical way. Yet you continue to extol its failed ideals by trying to grossly overstate the potential, possible, maybe, might not, never has, position just like you have insinuated that all employers are “morally pure” like yourself no doubt!!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“A bit like you argued against tory charity as well eh PJ. Labour good – resist nasty National policy. Oh Labour good pass fair policy on charitable giving… yad yada Nation bad Labour good.”
No – that’s an error Burt – I had a complex opinion on that matter and it’s not like you tell it at all. Go back to that thread and find out if you want.
“The Labour govt has lost its right to represent the people of NZ once it stole the money it did therefore it can’t be trusted to spend any Govt money in an ethical way.”
But every party did that bar the progrtessives. So according to that logic the only party fit to govern is headed by Jim Anderton!
“Yet you continue to extol its failed ideals by trying to grossly overstate the potential, possible, maybe, might not, never has, position just like you have insinuated that all employers are “morally pure” like yourself no doubt!!”
Again in english please.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
roger nome
Hey lets try this one. Labour passed laws a few years back to clear the way for public/private partnerships. Labour have long touted themselves as third way and PPP are a typical third way policy. Now National propose moving into Govt with PP type schemes and the third way party scream because it’s bad.
Let me guess. Labour good – resist National Policy. National bad- copy Labour idea.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
PJ on National bad – Labour good. Labour do good job for putting in place tory charity – National had bad intentions.
See: “PJ – because you asked for it.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“(partisan supporters of corruption will still vote for them)”
You DO realise attacking someone’s voters is the shortest path to making sure they definitely vote against you, right?
A smart cookie who wanted Labour voters to stand firm would come on Labour-oriented blogs and attack all the Labour supporters in the name of National.
Hey, is that what you’re doing?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
PJ
You surprised me here.
http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/2007/03/social_democrat.html#comment-62575230
I’ll take back the bit about resisting the policy, but your suggestion that Labour should and i think that labour should gazzump them by introducing it themselves without too much pomp and ceremony just proves a preconceived position that National are bad and a good policy should only come from Labour.
You are unique.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
The bureaucratic arrogance and cold contempt of filthy low life communist liarbour suck hole socialist puss eating bent dick heads make me ashamed to say I am a kiwi.
Anybody that says Liarbour scum are not worthy of prison sentences are an embarrassment to common sense and moral values, as these red creeps are deluded , happy with the indifference to corruption !
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
D4J, I’m telling you this because I don’t want to see you banned. You’re making it hard for Mr. Farrar not to do so. Take it easy. At the risk of being accused of speaking for others, I’ll venture the view that most of us are well aware of what creeps so many of the left are. Post less frequently and make a point relating to the argument when you do. Best wishes.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
nih
I would say the same about National party supporters if their party had voted for retrospective legislation to hide 14 years of dubious behaviour or drafted constitutional level documents without significant public, and certainly more cross party, support.
Sorry.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“I’ll take back the bit about resisting the policy, but your suggestion that Labour should and i think that labour should gazzump them by introducing it themselves without too much pomp and ceremony just proves a preconceived position that National are bad and a good policy should only come from Labour.”
Not sure why you think that Burt. I was advocating the “gazzumping” as a political strategy, because I prefer Labour to National – not that National are apriori bad and labour are apriori good.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Redbaiter:
Sage-like advice to D4J. Others may (or may not) endorse expressions like “filthy low life communist liarbour suck hole socialist puss eating bent dick heads” – but such expressions don’t count as an argument, and tend to distract attention from the issue.
On the other hand, Roger Nome has no compunction about speaking for others. Just do a search of the phrase “National wants” on this thread alone – he’s used the phrase more than once.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
And POC? So now we can’t muse about the outcomes of National’s policies? Is it a thought crime?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Will be next year if Labour have their way.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Is unconditional support really all it’s cracked up to be roger?
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“ha ha, you could be talking about John Key in his previous career.”
If you think currency trading doesn’t involve risk your much more ignorant than even the dullest leftist.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Hardly a thought crime – but you state it as an unassailable truth. That’s my quibble.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
” but you state it as an unassailable truth”
no POC – I state it as my opinion. You of course are free to disagree with it. Whether you are able to formulate a rational argument to oppose the said opinion is another matter entirely.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 4:58 am
I am really enjoying roger’s new style of dispassionate logical discourse, it winds up his opponents so much more effectively than the previous style which involved personal slights and snide asides. Also it makes his line of argument much more plausible, and effective. In a word it’s stimulating. Keep it up roger, it makes a pleasant change.
ps ‘snide-asides’ – like the riddim on this term. Sounds like death by snidiness.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Whether you are able to formulate a rational argument to oppose the said opinion is another matter entirely
Is this an example of the “rational argument” you have in mind:
National wants to take vulnerable workers back to the 1890s with the 90 day “no work rights” probationary employment bill. Labour protects ALL New Zealand workers against unfair treatment at work through the mediation process and the employment authority – the same however can’t be said of National.
Let’s take stock:
(1) A reference to the 1890s – haven’t we moved on?
(2) No substantiation of the “90 day “no work rights” probationary employment bill” – I am interested in references to support this.
(3) Labour good – National bad (Burt has caught you out on this many times).
(4) Vague generalisations about mediation, without any acknowledgement that many (if not most) employment disputes may not settle at that stage.
(5) The Employment Contracts Act, as enacted, provided for a specific court jurisdiction, so it’s a nonsense to suggest National would have dismantled it.
I guess it’s pointless formulating a rational argument when you provide no basis for your opinions.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Roger Nome: I think most labour supporters wish that there were a better option available to govern new zealand
So instead of taking advantage of MMP and the list of political parties we have available they choose the most corrupt party of the lot? Sorry, but I cannot credit people with that much stupidity.
He yeah speligng mistakers on a polittikal blogg. Who evre herd of it?
I guess when somebody constantly reminds us of his intellect, his degrees and his lofty academic aims it is difficult not to laugh when he writes like a teenager playing a video game. Especially when the people he calls idiots and all sorts of names generally have a better grasp of language and form than he does.
But hey, I’m not the one claiming all those high academic credentials.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 8:21 am
National supporters can’t spell – it’s because they eat babies eh roger.
Glad I’m not a National supporter, I like children but I can’t eat a whole one these days. When I was 18 and a Labour supporter I use to find that with a little BBQ sauce I could eat 5.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 8:21 am
(2) No substantiation of the “90 day “no work rights” probationary employment bill” – I am interested in references to support this.
Pascal, unfortunately I have too much work on to properly take part in this debate, but I think it’s pretty clear that if you can be fired at will with no right to appeal then you don’t have any work rights. Any other work rights are meaningless if you can be fired the moment you try to exercise them.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 8:22 am
If employees can resign without explanation then employers are buggered. The world will end – oh that’s right -m they can already do that and the world hasn’t ended. Pass me another baby I’m talking like a National supporter.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
rb: “parasiting off the initiative, investment, risk and hard work of others.”
Just like a bank rb.
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Tane:
Pascal, unfortunately I have too much work on to properly take part in this debate
Small quibble: it was my point you were responding to. Happy to see your thoughts when you’re out of work (so to speak)
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
POC:
“Let’s take stock:(1) A reference to the 1890s – haven’t we moved on?”
Yes but National wants to, in effect, remove all basic labour standards for vulnerable workers for the first 90 days of employment. I referenced the 1890s because it was in this decade that the Liberal government introduced the conciliation and arbitration mechanism, which allowed all registered unions access to conciliation and arbitration – ensuring that all workers had the chance to have access to some enforceable basic labour standards
“(2) No substantiation of the “90 day “no work rights” probationary employment bill” – I am interested in references to support this.”
Look it up yourself – I wrote a submission to the select committee on this matter. Perhaps after you read the bill you can actually offer an opposing argument?
“(3) Labour good – National bad (Burt has caught you out on this many times).”
Caught out? Saying that I prefer Labour’s policies to National’s? oh no what ever shall i do?
“(4) Vague generalisations about mediation, without any acknowledgement that many (if not most) employment disputes may not settle at that stage.”
Actually the vast majority of disputes are settled in mediation. Also, I mentioned the Authority as a furhter mechanism for resolving disputes – so you’re wrong on both points.
“(5) The Employment Contracts Act, as enacted, provided for a specific court jurisdiction, so it’s a nonsense to suggest National would have dismantled it.”
Yes it did – yet it was rather inaccessible and ineffectual, as it used an expensive, legalistic style of dispute resolution process.
With the 90 day bill National, are in effect dismantling all employment institutions for the first 90 days of employment (if the employer chooses to make use of the law)
Vote:October 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“So instead of taking advantage of MMP and the list of political parties we have available they choose the most corrupt party of the lot?”
no – presumably they think that the other parties are either too left or too right. Simple really.
“But hey, I’m not the one claiming all those high academic credentials.”
Yes i have a first class honours degree, and I’m lazy when it comes to editing my comments on political blogs. Hilarious I know.
Vote: