A new super union
The Hive has an interesting piece on the proposed merger of United, the NDU and SFWU. They say it will be around the same size as the EPMU, and in a position to take the presidency of the CTU with Laila Harre as the candidate.
One big question is whether the combined union will join the Labour Party. Unite is not an affiliate member, but NDU and SFWU are I believe.
On a related issue, NZPA reports today:
Council of Trade Unions (CTU) president Helen Kelly told the party’s congress today it would run a major campaign, with its affiliate unions, to help the Government win a fourth term.
The Australian unions spent $10 million helping get Labor elected there. Who knows how much will be spent in NZ, but remember money in politics is only bad, if it is used to campaign against Labour, not for it.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Oh David, you undermine yourself by your ignorance. The NDU, Unite (note the spelling) and the SFWU aren’t exactly flush with money and I doubt any of them will spend their maximum $120,000 allowed. And as I pointed out recently, unions provide only a small portion of Labour’s donations – including little more than $100,000 all up in 2005, and probably even less this year. Compare that to the $2m in anonymous donations National received from the Waitemata Trust and other secret backers last election.
NDU is not an affiliate of the Labour Party. The SFWU are. Try to write on a topic you actually know something about, even if it does make the anti-union scaremongering harder.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Just had a look at the Hive’s piece as well. With all due respect, it’s bollocks too. There is no plan for a new party of the left. The NDU is the National, not Northern, Distribution Union. For a bunch of supposed insiders they sure do make a lot of stuff up.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
tane – only 100k in donations??? you seem to have all the numbers, can ya tell me how much they spent campaigning for labour?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
the super union joined the super justice minister and laila had a lala dance with annetteee while the Dysin quartet sung drunken slippery John songs.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Dime, here is the donations summary:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
And thanks to the Electoral Finance Act, you’ll have full disclosure this year about how much each party’s supporters have spent on their campaigns.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Tane, what value is being placed on Mike Williams pushing tax payer funded government pamphlets through as Labour Party electioneering material? As inevitably, like in last election, the Unions become vehicles for distributing this to their members and in their workplaces.
As is usual though, you are only against corrupt politics when it’s your opponent engaging in it.
Tane: Dime, here is the donations summary
Dime asked you how much they spent campaigning. Not how much they donated. There is a difference.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:51 am
God this is just the new Alliance really isn’t it.
Unite – headed by fomer Alliance President Matt McCarten
NDU – headed by former Alliance leader and Cabinet Minister Laila Harre
SFWU – former Alliance leader (post ’02) Jill Ovens is a top union official/organiser
April 14th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Australian unions spent $10 million”
ahh democracy, it’s as pretty as a beautiful sunset. Paint the picture of a body that represents hundreds of thousands of workers banding together to get the party they want in to power.
This is a bad thing???
Or is it some strange law of the right that people collectively working towards a goal isn’t acceptable?
Or is it that an organisation(s) representing hundreds of thousands of workers isn’t allowed to out spend big business or the lunatic religious right?
Democracy – I could give you a big cuddle some times.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Well yes James if Unite was registering as a political party, but as it isn’t (is it?) then NO it isn’t the Alliance.
Besides Laila would be a massive asset to the house once again, what a great mind.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Paul: This is a bad thing???
According to the Labour Party here in New Zealand it is. Those selfsame Australian Unions would be restricted to $120,000 each, remember?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The Unions are not a group that is representative of worker’s interests, as they always claim. They are merely propaganda agents for the extreme left, and their real purpose is to insert extreme left ideas into the political debate, and to gain defacto control of government, and they will use Bolshevik tactics against anyone who opposes those ideas and objectives.
Any organisation that is lead by such far left extremists as Laila Harre and Helen Kelly cannot ever bring prosperity or wealth to this country or by logic to union members.
The so called unions are really just left wing organisations controlled by left wing zealots, and that they use member’s funds to pursue extreme left political causes, and tell those members they are doing great things for them when all they’re really doing is looking after the welfare and political careers of the thuggish left wing hierarchy that controls the union movement, is a circumstance the workers so exploited should wisen up to.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Paul,
I was referring to the proposed new Union, not Unite.
Tool.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
God, I just had another read of the Hive’s piece – they’re now claiming Laila Harre has her sights on the CTU presidency and is “sitting pretty” for it. That’s probably news to the union movement, who just last year elected Helen Kelly unanimously as CTU president.
I’m just amazed DPF takes these guys seriously.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
DPF I am almost willing to accept demerits and tell Dad to F*** OFF.
That wasn’t argument, satire or even criticism? WTF was that? Mate put the f***ing bottle down first thing on a monday morning, are the kids in the house because if they aren’t at school we all have the moral duty to call CYFS right now.
You are the most moronic person in the whole F***ing blogosphere and that’s saying something as there is a guy in Albania who stuffs animals up his rear – don’t google it people it’s not funny – as indeed out so called Dad isn’t..
April 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
James – whops my bad, I was of course meant to type Union
April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
It seems Tane is nervous about this article – 4 posts within 40 minutes of the topic being posted! Slipped right into spelling correction in the first post even! Hey Tane, when you correct someones speeling, I’d suggest you do it in a polite way, else you just come across as a condescending prick, catch more flys with honey and what not…..
April 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Haha Paul what a cot case you are.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“The Unions are not a group that is representative of worker’s interests”
and with that simple short section of the first sentence illustrates that Red has no idea of the work of unions and is most probably a fully paid up member (a pun coming) of the Dad4J insanity party.
Still, I will try to read on and take the rest seriously.
Done that, nope nothing there, except some old Tennessean school books from McCarthy era left witch hunts.
Once again, it is the democratic right of freedom of association and representation.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Phew Dad you can put a sentence together that doesn’t involved sloshed words and baby name calling.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Hey Bev, I don’t usually correct bad spelling on blogs – that’s more the Sod’s style. But I do think if you can’t even spell a union’s name properly, or get the name right, or know which unions are affiliated to Labour, then you’re probably revealing your ignorance on the topic.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Still, I will try to read on”
I wouldn’t bother if I were you. You don’t ever get it, and your comments are always just sad old Stalinist double speak.
The view that the political objectives of union controllers are the same as and beneficial to workers is an idea from the 1930s. The Marxists collectivists and progressives who control the union movement do not care about the welfare of workers or the welfare of the country. With such extremists, political power is all they really care about, and they will willingly sacrifice the prosperity and well being of every worker in this country if by doing so they can achieve the control they are obsessed with.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Paul, I wouldn’t bother trying to argue with Redbait. He’s beyond reasoning.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Tane, I will repeat the question as you are avoiding it.
Tane, what value is being placed on Mike Williams pushing tax payer funded government pamphlets through as Labour Party electioneering material? As inevitably, like in last election, the Unions become vehicles for distributing this to their members and in their workplaces.
What value is being placed on those tax payer funded pamphlets and their distribution?
Why can the Labour Party not pay for those pamphlets themselves?
Why do you support such a rort of our electoral system when you support the EFA?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
tane – i asked how much they spent campaigning, not donating. its a little over 100k and you know it.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Pascal, I don’t see the relevance of your question to the thread. I’m not responsible for the Labour Party’s fuckups.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“your comments are always just sad old Stalinist double speak”
and once again yours are right out of Senator MrCarthy’s memoirs.
“political power is all they really care about” (slow long and ironic hand clap) for this “Red Fear” speech. Of course you are more wrong than one could imagine. You have this claim on good authority?
Your 50′s style objection to leftist political activism is just a little too paranoid, er and wrong.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Tane +0 Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Paul, I wouldn’t bother trying to argue with Redbait. He’s beyond reasoning
Translated……. Redbaiter asks questions we would rather not answer
April 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am
i asked how much they spent campaigning, not donating.
How much do any volunteers spend campaigning for a party? The term “volunteer” might tip you off to what’s wrong with your question.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Pascal
“According to the Labour Party here in New Zealand it is. Those selfsame Australian Unions would be restricted to $120,000 each, remember?”
Yes and 100 Unions at 120K each is 12 Million.
We have a new total everybody, “thank you very much for you kind donation, thank you very much, thank you very very much”
Under the EFA, that is not $120K for the ENTIRE union movement. Sily silly argument, come on you normally do better than that.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Tane you need to learn to read.
“Oh David, you undermine yourself by your ignorance. The NDU, Unite (note the spelling) and the SFWU aren’t exactly flush with money and I doubt any of them will spend their maximum $120,000 allowed. And as I pointed out recently, unions provide only a small portion of Labour’s donations – including little more than $100,000 all up in 2005, and probably even less this year. Compare that to the $2m in anonymous donations National received from the Waitemata Trust and other secret backers last election.
NDU is not an affiliate of the Labour Party. The SFWU are. Try to write on a topic you actually know something about, even if it does make the anti-union scaremongering harder.”
Firstly: “Unite (note the spelling)” the d on the end of Unite in the first sentence is obviously a typo, since DPF correctly calls them Unite two sentences’ later.
Secondly: “SFWU aren’t exactly flush with money and I doubt any of them will spend their maximum $120,000 allowed” He wasn’t talking about these three running campaigns, but the CTU.
Thirdly: “And as I pointed out recently, unions provide only a small portion of Labour’s donations – including little more than $100,000 all up in 2005, and probably even less this year.” At no point did DPF mention Unions funding of labour. He mentioned them (The CTU) planning parallel campaigns.
Fourthly: “NDU is not an affiliate of the Labour Party.” Note that DPF said “Unite is not an affiliate member, but NDU and SFWU are I believe.” Key here is “I believe”.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Tane: Pascal, I don’t see the relevance of your question to the thread.
Please refer to your first post in this thread. You alledge that the value of a Union’s contribution only lies in its donations to the Party, when in actual fact they provide far more in services. Which, conveniently, are not counted and you never seem to recognize them as valuable.
So the relevance is rather direct as you seem to suggest that unions only contribute financially. The other two questions, admittedly, were thrown in only to expose the blatant corruption and corrupt organizations you support.
Paul: Under the EFA, that is not $120K for the ENTIRE union movement. Sily silly argument …
Which is why I said “each”. Learn to read?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am
BigB
Translated – I thought we had got a little past the “Red Fear” Unions corrupt line, and thus this line of argument, although from the 50′s and just fundamentally wrong, really shouldn’t dignify a response, but I did.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Hey Bev, I don’t usually correct bad spelling on blogs – that’s more the Sod’s style. But I do think if you can’t even spell a union’s name properly, or get the name right, or know which unions are affiliated to Labour, then you’re probably revealing your ignorance on the topic.
You do realise the D key is right below the E key on a standard keyboard don’t you? Could it be that DPF accidently striked the D key while depressing the E key? Or does it suite you more to concoct some conspiracy theory on behalf of DPF – maybe he is working for the Stone Cutters?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Psycho Milt – youre saying the unions were just volunteers? they didnt spend any money on advertising in support of labour? they didnt spend money sending newsletters to members etc that essentially said, vote labour?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Paul
Let me get this right, the left feel that it is time we “move on” from the red fear type of campaigning yet the same left wing supporters feel it is perfectly acceptable to mount a campaign of fear based on the extremely remote chance that Sir Roger Douglas will have anything to do with the incoming National Party government.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:37 am
No Normal Pascal (I can see a new wiki entry under Pascal coming here – moronic right wing blogger?)
Once again I will say this slowly (is that slow enough?)
$120K is not the total that the entire Union movement can spend. Or are the right wanting to group people together for totals.
Lets see, religious right, facists, ACT (the same as facists) fundamentalists, conservatives, liberal, neo cons, Dad4J, National, Peter Dunne , from hence forth according to Pascal be restricted to $120K spending in total or according to his sums, that would be 10K each.
Once again silly silly argument, from seemingly silly silly man.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Dime, indeed, it would seem to be what they are saying. Along with: “The unions were not instructed to take publicly funded pamphlets and distribute them in a secret parallel campaign”
They “volunteered”. So it must be okay.
Paul: moronic right wing blogger?)
Once again I will say this slowly (is that slow enough?)
$120K is not the total that the entire Union movement can spend. Or are the right wanting to group people together for totals.
I would make a case for moronic left wing commentator. Please refer to my 9:58 comment. It said:
According to the Labour Party here in New Zealand it is. Those selfsame Australian Unions would be restricted to $120,000 each, remember?
Note the useage of “each” there. This indicates that each individual union would be restricted to $120,000. Not the collective of all unions.
You really, really, really need to learn to read. Was that slow enough for you, btw?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
BigBollocks, well when people ACTUALLY within NATIONAL state QUITE CLEARLY that they would be comfortable with him in the mix somehow, what pre tell are we meant to take from those statements.
Do we do as the right always seem to do, look for the subtext and the inner semantic acrobatics of this, or should we take it on face value and some of the old guard could see that old fuck up back in.
Just a thought
April 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Wow you people are all from the Uri Geller institute aren’t you.
Every last semantic nuance is twisted to some sort of left wing conspiracy. See if only you people could stand on every corner and get this amazing mind power under control, we’d all vote National come November.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Sure, call us retarded when you are the one with comprehension problems. You could of course just front up and admit you made a mistake and apologize for all the nasty things you said. But that would be too honest, wouldn’t it?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Paul,
How are Act fascist? Using these terms weakens your overall argument.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:47 am
But once again Pascal, this $120K each would indeed add up to any number that is the multiple of the collective union membership. It’s not a total.
And yes $120K each is correct, and this is a bad thing?
Or shall we hit the ranks of the immoral USA and spend 1 Billion dollars in getting ONE person voted to the position of President.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Paul
I must have hit a raw nerve, you can always tell when you have the left on the run as they resort to abuse.
You are as mad as D4J
April 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Come on Association of C**ts and Tossers are fascists in the colloquial inference of the word. Well that’s the word on the street since they came into power.
But I forgot you people are not only semantic contortionists, but also very sensitive. Sorry for the street slur.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Socrates:
He wasn’t talking about these three running campaigns, but the CTU.
Where do you think the CTU gets its money from? You righties really have no idea do you? Besides, he wasn’t talking about just the CTU – DPF referred to the “Australian unions” spending $10m and then tried to infer that NZ unions had that kind of money and would be spending it this election, directly after his comments about the superunion.
At no point did DPF mention Unions funding of labour. He mentioned them (The CTU) planning parallel campaigns.
And he knows very well that the EFA prevents each union from spending more than $120,000. He also knows very few unions (if any) will even approach that amount in election spending. The only way unions in NZ could spend vast sums would be through donations to political parties, and the record shows these are relatively insignificant.
Unions just aren’t that wealthy. They rely on their mass membership in election campaigns, not on big money like the right.
Key here is “I believe”.
And again, we see David doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.
Pascal:
During the last week of an election campaign a lot of union staff and volunteers work on getting the vote out – I don’t see how that’s corrupt or a threat to democracy. As for the Herald’s report on government leaflets, I don’t know anything more than what I’ve read, and it’s really not my concern. I suspect you’re just trying to misdirect.
Anyway, I’ve got work to do, might catch you fullas later.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Paul – when has it been fascist to want government minimized and out of your life?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Paul,
So what you are saying is that they are not actually fascists? Given that fascists are in favour of central control, and, well, often killing jews.
I’d be pretty wary of labelling Hide etc in this way. As an aside, you should read Rodney’s comments in Parliament last week relating to the Nazi bombing of Britain.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Paul: But once again Pascal, this $120K each would indeed add up to any number that is the multiple of the collective union membership. It’s not a total.
You really are an idiot. Because that is what I said, with the provision that here each individual union is restricted to $120,000. You responded to this with abuse, calling me moronic, typing slowly, etc. You’re a shining example of the wit of the left.
Tane: During the last week of an election campaign a lot of union staff and volunteers work on getting the vote out – I don’t see how that’s corrupt or a threat to democracy. As for the Herald’s report on government leaflets, I don’t know anything more than what I’ve read, and it’s really not my concern.
It is a concern when those volunteers are spreading material paid for by the tax payer in a parallel campaign orchestrated by the Labour Party.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
BigB,
no didn’t hit a nerve, made a false statement. Sorry your bad.
I was just having fun at your expense. You see your claims were wrong
Some within National have said they could work with that old wanker somehow.
Pascal, I’ll be the first to say sorry for any mistake (intentional or not), however your 120K claims are somewhat disingenuous to say the least, in that this line is thrown about all the time with the ‘collective’ as intensifier. It’s like those protesting the loss of free speech under the EFA, which is of course oxymoronic, using freedom of speech to protest the death of freedom of speech.
If I have caused offense I am most humbly apologetic.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Paul, what campaign restriction is placed on Unions in Australia?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Tane’s points on this blog post look pretty accurate to me. In particular, he’s correct to point out that the unions concerned have very little financial resources to give to Labour – union contributions to Labour are insignificant in the greater order of things.
In fact that’s one of the big issue of the merger. One component of the new union, the SWFU is currently affiliated to the Labour Party, but the rest aren’t. So the question that the unions have had to deal with is: “What will the relationship of the new super-union be to the Labour Party?” The answer seems to be that there will definitely be no affiliation to Labour or any other political party. Instead, any caucus or sub-grouping of the super-union will be free to have a relationship with any party, be it Labour, Greens, or otherwise.
One point I would disagree with Tane on, however, is the prospect of someone else like Laila Harre becoming CTU president in the next few years. Helen Kelly is unlikely to stay in the role for long, and can be assumed to go into Parliament in 2011 if not earlier – all people that know Kelly are aware of her incredible ambition and pragmatism (a la Helen Clark) and will stop at nothing to get further to the top. Also, how long will Carol Beaumont exist as her VP? Surely not long.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
April 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
BigBollocks, well when people ACTUALLY within NATIONAL state QUITE CLEARLY that they would be comfortable with him in the mix somehow, what pre tell are we meant to take from those statements.
Except their leader has catagorically ruled that out from happening.
Come on Association of C**ts and Tossers are fascists in the colloquial inference of the word. Well that’s the word on the street since they came into power.
Actually Facists believe in a restrictive government controlling aspects of peoples lives, Act stand for as little government interference as possible. Just because a party is Right Wing, does not mean they are automatically facist, and to insist as such just goes to show that you are unable to argue your point effectively.
no didn’t hit a nerve, made a false statement. Sorry your bad.
I was just having fun at your expense. You see your claims were wrong
So what parallel universe do you live in, where your blatant bullshitting could possibly be taken as fact?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
James once again, I was having fun.
Street colloquial slang for right wing politics pretty much in popular culture has (since the late 60′s early 70s) been to label them Facists. I’m guessing you haven’t seen any YoungOnes?
Just as many on the right tar the entire left here with the ‘pinko communist’ brush. I was being a little liberal (get the pun) with that same brush.
Sorry if that same brush is now causing some concern. And thank you for the precis evaluation of Dancing Boy.
So to add to practitioners of semantic political acrobatics, supersensitive pot and kettle syndrome sufferers.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“Except their leader has catagorically ruled that out from happening”
Yes and dear leader has said a lot of things which seem to suggest that he intends to rule with an iron fist and rather against the will of the collective will of caucus.
What do we take from that fascist act?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Yes Paul, cos it is so much fun to compare a New Zealand political party with a group responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people.
Jerk.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“Where do you think the CTU gets its money from? You righties really have no idea do you?” Well since I have been a Union delegate in three unions and am currently one in a fourth, I think I have a fairly good idea of the financial state of the Unions. There is more than enough money in the accounts for the CTU to co-ordinate a campaign of about $2 million by my estimate. Yes no where near the $10 million the Ausies had.
“Unions just aren’t that wealthy” I should mention that to my Union’s treasurer… LOL
“And again, we see David doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.” Well you plainly don’t know what your talking about regarding running business, Nationals policies etc therefore you shouldn’t comment either?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Bevan, chill pill!!!!!
Taking the piss and using the Kiwiblog ‘brush of political collective smearing’ are not fact, it is fun. This is what you people do all the time. To call ACT facists, I was wearing the artistic brush of Rick from Young Ones and having fun. But thank you one and all for your corrections and summations of the glory of ACT, most enlightlening.
One thing, selling off state assets against the will of the people is different to Fascism how?
I mean the left (as a whole) and unions (as representative of the entire left spectrum) according to you people are responsible for nearly all of the ills of society.
Pascal – is there a point to that.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Paul: is there a point to that
There is, yes. You have said that the collective unions spending $10,000,000 is democracy at it’s best. Yet you have said that a $120,000 limit on each, individual union is democratic as well. I am curious about the number of unions that contributed to that $10,000,000 spend and what individual limits there are on union campaigns in Australia. And how to reconcile how the two can both be democratic.
Paul: selling off state assets against the will of the people is different
Go watch yesterday’s Agenda. John Key has said National will not sell off state assets, either in whole or in part. It’s a part of their election campaign for this election.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
James, who is the one being sensitive now?
This Politics 101 argument is silly, and really just a waste of time.
You call all of us Socialist or communists (despite our actual political orientation),
we sometimes call you fascists (despite your actual political orientation).
Leave the Holocaust out of this, or do we mention the hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of the West in the later part of the 20th C.
Chill out. The debate was about a super union and the potential impact on Labour, which as Bryce has pointed out will be a thorn in the side of Labour and rightly so. As many of us on the left feel that Labour has abandoned us and any collective (or what ever semantic notion you wish to choose) which proposes to fight for what it feels are important issues for us left of Labour is OK by me.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
What John Key says yesterday, will possibly be different to the actual transcript, and indeed different to what he might possibly say by the end of the day and most definitely very different from what he says tomorrow.
This is how John Key operates as displayed many many times this year, so like many on the left we are taking that statement with a rather large pinch of salt. Sorry if we can’t take the man at his word, because his word has been so contradictory this year it’s hard to choose which one to take.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Paul,
Yes, that is what the debate was about, until you began throwing offensive labels onto a democratic political party, while providing no justification (policy-wise) for that label.
Find a time that I have ever called a centre-left politician a communist. You won’t, because I haven’t. As for the term socialist, well, when Labour are a member of Socialist International I think that term is fair game. Similarly, if you can find evidence that Act is a member of the fascist equivalent of SI, I will gladly concede (not to mention tear up my Act membership application form).
Labelling Act as fascist is both offensive and misguided.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Bevan, chill pill!!!!!
Taking the piss and using the Kiwiblog ‘brush of political collective smearing’ are not fact, it is fun. This is what you people do all the time. To call ACT facists, I was wearing the artistic brush of Rick from Young Ones and having fun. But thank you one and all for your corrections and summations of the glory of ACT, most enlightlening.
Paul, very lame to make a statement, then when called on it to pull the “I was only joking” line. Actually, not lame but pathetic.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am
‘You are as mad as D4J’
Thanx bb, yes injustice does make you rather irate. Good one big blouse.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am
James of ACT, you are being just a little too sensitive for Kiwiblog. You may very well not have called the left collectively here Communists, but you would be in the minority and well done for that.
However a little clarification. The butter is in my fridge, shall I now call the butter a fridge? It will make baking cookies for my boys a little harder – possibly more fun “get the fridge out of the fridge” a little too Reggie Perrin for reality though.
Get over yourself if someone calls ACT fascists, as they have done since it’s inception, that is life, if it offends, I would suggest that Kiwiblog isn’t the place for political discourse (if that is what it is).
Ditto Bevan.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
We can expect to see a whole raft of Left organisations sprining up this year All funded from Government slush funds dressed up various ways Grants for this and Grants for that will be the favoured vehicle to defeat moral and ethical governance.
Mind you the Socialists and their supporters dont undrstand the terms moral ethical or good governance as witnessed by their behaviour over the past nine years.
And sadly the dumb arses who vote fro them dont either.
It so amusing that so many international organsiations are conned into thing NZ is not the little corrupt cess pit that is the reality due to the rat cunning of Clark Cullen et al
April 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Further James, as the newly appointed conservator of correct political speech, could you please equally castigate those on the right whom label the entire left wing movement within Kiwiblog as communists or socialists.
Because despite your observations of international affiliations, Labour is no more Socialist than you are and that is a simple fact of Political Science.
Just calling for a little consistency over the seemingly sensitive nature of political affiliations.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Paul
how does it feel to be the most intelligent of the dumbest 30% of the people in NZ.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
BTW Watch for the rise in ‘Education Trusts” as a vehicle to facililate the missappropriation of Taxpayer funds thru registered 3 rd Parties and into electioneering for the Socialists.
The Charities Commission need to get sharp to this one but they wont being another “Government Department” And we all know what that is code for.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Paul: What John Key says yesterday, will possibly be different to the actual transcript, and indeed different to what he might possibly say by the end of the day and most definitely very different from what he says tomorrow.
Whilst I disagree with you on this point, I would like to know how different this is from Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and the other members of our fine government. Up to this point they have displayed a unique ability to change their tune depending on political expediency, lying when necessary and resorting to retrospective legislation to validate their lies.
Yet you appear relatively willing to accept their word. Is there some consistency here?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“We can expect to see a whole raft of Left organisations sprining up this year All funded from Government slush funds ”
Mind you gd has no grasp on reality
It’s amusing that so many of the right are this paranoid.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Pascal how can you disagree with statements of fact.
What John Key says in the morning has quite recently been very different from what he ends up meaning to say at the end of the day.
How do you know I accept their word, this is a very liberal assumption to make, considering I haven’t voted for them since throwing out Piggy.
bwakile – is that it? is that the sum total of your contribution to Political Spectrum Bluring 101? Still if that’s all you’ve got…
April 14th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Pual; “paranoid” is the word, as I am fretful that I won’t get another pledge card featuring Miss Clarkula?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Get over yourself if someone calls ACT fascists, as they have done since it’s inception, that is life, if it offends, I would suggest that Kiwiblog isn’t the place for political discourse (if that is what it is).
Ditto Bevan.
Sorry Paul, but if you cannot stand someone pointing out the flaws in your arguements, then I would suggest YOU should avoid ANY Internet forum.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Redbaited: “The Unions are not a group that is representative of worker’s interests, as they always claim.”
Well, 382,538 New Zealanders (at Dec 2006) would say “bollocks” to that idiotic statement straight off. They’re members of unions. But we should also include the free-riders who value the benefits of their union but prefer not to pay their share of the costs — another 11% of the workforce according to the most authoritative estimate. Oh, and there’s the workers who say that they would be likely to join a union if one were on offer in their workplace — another 18% according to the only survey in NZ to ask the question. Let’s see, that’s 51% of the workforce.
How does that compare to ACT’s membership, Redbaited?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Pascal, almost half of the ACTU’s $10m came from just three unions: the Community and Public Sector Union ($2.2 million), the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union ($1.4 million) and the shop assistants union ($1.2 million).
April 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Miss Clarkula”
is she the chick at the bottom of your glass of Martini?
As stated earlier, put the bottle down. (or how else does one explain this continual childish behavior?)
April 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Will public sector union members be discriminated against if they don’t vote for miss clark?
What a super question MADam speaker!!
April 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Paul,
Several threads ago you dropped this little throwaway line in one of your posts.
You wrote “National is about to borrow to pay for tax cuts…”.
Where did you get this little snippet of information?
Could you cite some links or similar to show that this assertion is true please?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bryce Edwards Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: April 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am “Tane’s points on this blog post look pretty accurate to me.”
Me too. Can’t understand so much negative karma (I’m jealous here, KB negative karma being a source of pride) for such a cogent and informed analysis on Tane’s part.
Bryce, agree 100% with comments on Ms Kelly, but you appear to have missed the fact that Carol is standing for the Labour nomination for Maungakiekie. (I don’t think it’s decided yet.)
April 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Paul: It’s amusing that so many of the right are this paranoid
Probably because so many of our fears regarding the EFA are being realized.
The Labour party IS purloining from the public purse to fund their election campaign and doing so covertly. They ARE breaking the law. The law IS confusing. I could carry on, but you’ll find that opponents of the EFA have posted their concerns since before the law was introduced, suggesting that it would need some serious thinking to make it understandable and workable. Yet, in their rush to legislate themselves a favoured position, the Labour party ignored that, advice from the Human Rights Commission and others and carried on. To lead us into the electoral mess we have now.
Yet, you find it “amusing”.
Paul: How do you know I accept their word
Can you show me one quote on this site where you have not blown smoke up their ass? Thus far you’ve been a poster child for the blogging Labourites; insulting, demeaning and then turning around to call it “a joke”. You fit the model perfectly.
I will however take you at your word, you do not accept everything they say as gospel. Perhaps then you might want to recant your earlier commentary and support regarding the misuse of public funds for electioneering? You can find them in the thread on “Labour’s plan to avoid the EFA”.
dc: almost half of the ACTU’s $10m came from just three unions
Fantastic, thank you very much. What research I did earlier showed me a disclosure limit of $10,000 on donations per state, but I could not find any further restrictions. Admittedly, I did not search in depth so there might be more out there.
And that brings me to the point Paul. On the one hand you trumpet that $10,000,000 is a wonderful sign of democracy. Yet, 3 unions contributed $4,800,000 of those funds with millions attributed to each. On the other hand you say that a spending limit of $120,000 per individual group is a good thing for our democracy.
How do you square the two?
Or is it a case of – “Anything that disadvantages my ideological opposition is a good thing” ?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Paul What about the Education Fund that the Socialist pay to the unions that then gets recycled as a donation to the Labour Party.
The Fund will be increased this year and more will be established to allow the Socialists to achieve their goal of being funded by Taxpayers without the Taxpayers even knowing they are being rorted.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Shit you post a lot Paul, and yet you haven’t contributed anything useful to this thread. ‘Bout time to give it a break maybe?
April 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hey Paul –
You’re right and we are wrong – and hopefully you will be feeling how wrong we are for at least the next 9 years.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Where did you get this little snippet of information?
Could you cite some links or similar to show that this assertion is true please?
You should know Colin, when he is caught with his pants down he is ‘only joking’….
April 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Paul is your typical lefty liar.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
It is rich to accuse me of getting unions affiliations to Labour wrong, when Labour’s own website was missing two unions.
And it is because the bastards have removed their affiliates page from their website, I was unable to check.
I agree the main benefit to Labour from the unions is the several hundred full-time election workers they gain for the last few weeks or months – worth much more than the actual ad spend.
As for unions being poor, well they outspend the Business Roundtable easily.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The real import of this story isn’t about a new enlarged union donating to Labour. As others have noted, Unions contribute sweet-fa of direct funds for a Labour Party campaign. The biggest source of campaign funds is of course business.
The problem for the Labour Party (the progeny) is that the unions will prefer to spend their own money on associated campaigns. These will be as much about building the profile of the union as advocating a vote for Labour. Nor are they always helpful to Labour: if they are OTT Labour is publicly held accountable for them when in reality they probably will have little say over the content and nature of these associated campaigns. Imagine such a campaign directed by Harre or McCarten for example. It would likely press Labour for more in return for working people’s votes.
With the new RTP regime under the EFA 2007 why donate to Labour when one can register one’s self, or incorporate as many additional RTP’s as are needed to match one’s spending desires. A nationwide union could incorporate two entities, one for its RTP activities in the South Island and one in the North. Their are any number of options. In reality I doubt many unions will spend more than the 120k. But there is no effective spending cap if one wanted to spend more.
The real import of this story is that despite the Employment Relations Act and the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act, unions continue their slow decline. Sure we get consolidations and mergers but fundamentally the prevailing culture is against collectivised bargaining irrespective of what the law tries to encourage. The very nature of the economy and the prevailing values of many workers makes unionism hard.
Government legislation is also doubled-edged sword. For example, on the one hand Parliament introduces a Bill for mandatory breaks for breastfeeding workers which provide for a minimum regime. That’s all well in good. But why have union membership? If union membership does not result in improved working conditions for union members why belong? If employees regard the statutory minimums provided for by a Labour government as largely fair, why attempt to bargain for conditions in excess of these?
April 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Diack: “The real import of this story is that despite the Employment Relations Act and the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act, unions continue their slow decline.”
Chris, you were doing so well until you got to that point. The unions have certainly been disappointed at not making big gains under the ERA, but then some of us argued that they were unrealistic to do so. As Matt McCarten says, the ERA only provided the unions with access and precious little else when it comes to the hard part of union work — recruiting.
Another way to look at it is to note the modest overall gains in union membership year-by-year since 2000 despite continually losing members through retirement, death, emigration, etc; and then to note that unions managed to maintain the proportion of the employed workforce in unions despite the largest increase over the period in that workforce in NZ’s recent history. Perhaps they haven’t done so badly, and they are NOT continuing their “slow decline.”
You put this non-existent decline down to the “prevailing culture is against collectivised bargaining irrespective of what the law tries to encourage.” Wrong again. You clearly missed the figures in my post above, so here they are again:
22% of workforce in unions
18% likely to join a union if one were on offer in their workplace
11% calculatedly free-riding
Total = 51% of the workforce, or almost exactly what it was when union membership as a proportion of the workforce peaked just before the ECA.
And, in case you are inclined to argue that younger workers are less unionate than their older co-workers, the most authorative study in NZ finds that, “On the whole, the differences between younger and older New Zealand workers’ attitudes to unions are slight or nonexistent. This applies both to union members and to those who have no propensity to join, and to attitudes towards unions in general and also, in the case of union members, towards specific unions. If anything, younger workers’ attitudes and willingness to join are more positive than those of their older counterparts.” (Haynes, P., Vowles, J., & Boxall, P. (2005b). Explaining the younger-older worker union density gap: Evidence from New Zealand. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 93–116.)
April 14th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“Well, 382,538 New Zealanders (at Dec 2006) would say “bollocks” to that idiotic statement straight off”
Well they might. 100% of Cubans vote for Fidel Castro, and his hold on power is maintained by the same methods- propaganda, bolshevikism and thuggery. Promising Nirvana, scaremongering about capitalism, all the same old same old commie routines.
You seem Jafaboy to be real slow on comprehension. I’ve tried to point it out twice now, and that is that in the big picture, left wing politics as promoted by the thugs who control unions does not improve the lot of workers. Look at Mr. Farrar’s recent post on the difference between Hong Kong and Cuba for a good example of how detrimental leftist thinking and the implementation of troglodytic leftist policies are to a nation’s overall prosperity. A nation Jafaboy, and any nation includes THE WORKERS.. get it???
I’ll say it again. Union leaders are concerned with power not the welfare of their members. They hold on to that power by means of propaganda and thuggery. If they were concerned about the welfare of their workers, and the prosperity of NZ, they would not be using their position to promote left wing politics. The Union leaders want power not prosperity. Its that simple.
“How does that compare to ACT’s membership, Redbaited?”
ACT are a political party who refuse to offer people money to vote for them. In a country where the electoral system has been totally corrupted by Labour and its handout mentality, the fact that the membership of ACT is a lot less than National or Labour is something to its credit, and that ACT is sneered at by those who think democracy is all about cash (other people’s cash) for votes, is not something that worries me too much.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Postscript, I do like the way that DPF adopted the term “super union” though, following the Hive and, 8 months ago, thestandard.
A union with 40,000 or so members is considered smallish in the UK. What we are actually talking about here is three unions representing the lowest paid workers in the country, and which therefore suffer from a chronic lack of resources. (Not much scope for financial contributions to Labour’s election campaign here.) For various reasons, the two older, more traditional unions had trouble coping with the ECA and haven’t done much better under the ERA. By contrast, Matt and his colleagues have used an array of highly innovative and effective methods to great advantage. The real benefits of the merger for the low paid workers will come not from the pooling of resources and associated economies of scale, but the transfer of superior organising techniques from Unite into the other areas, IMHO.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Erm, Redbaited, union membership in NZ has been voluntary since 1991. That’s where your whole diatribe just falls over.
Edit: Unless you think that NZers are so easily duped and intimidated. I don’t.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“Paul, I wouldn’t bother trying to argue with Redbait. He’s beyond reasoning.”
Haha, that’s funny. Your good mate Paul is of course the epitome of good judgment, objectivity and rationality.
..and here’s why you won’t respond to Redbaiter Tane. I know that leftist politics is basically about two things. Power, and making leftist feel good about themselves. Of course, in reality, leftist political outcomes are so destructive, the only way leftists can continue to believe is by deluding themselves. I cut through those delusions with the truth, and this is what bothers you and every other leftist out there. When you’re faced with the truth, you’re also faced with the reality that you have nothing to feel good about. You’re faced with the reality that if you were honest with yourself you’d be dying of shame. That’s your real problem. I know it and you know it.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Red
“epitome of good judgment, objectivity and rationality” I wouldn’t say that, it’s called opinion, and last time I looked we were still allowed these – seemingly not here.
“leftist politics is basically about two things. Power, and making leftist feel good about themselves.”
Which once again shows that although it’s your opinion, it is of course wrong and full of misguided assumptions built on fears or loathings ( you choose) is wrong. Your understanding of leftist politics has a long way to come out of 50′s fear before it even can begin to be relevant to todays political discourse.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Redbaited: “You seem Jafaboy to be real slow on comprehension. I’ve tried to point it out twice now, and that is that in the big picture, left wing politics as promoted by the thugs who control unions does not improve the lot of workers.”
No, not slow on comprehension. I am simply aware of the numerous studies in the U.S., U.K. and elsewhere that show that unionised workers enjoy a “wage premium” and better conditions than their ununionised counterparts. In fact, studies show that the mere threat of unionisation causes employers to increase wages and inprove conditions, though not to the levels enjoyed by the unionised workers. That is why you can rave on as much as you like about thuggery and fraud on the part of unions, and I will not be convinced. I prefer credible evidence.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“Erm, Redbaited, union membership in NZ has been voluntary since 1991. That’s where your whole diatribe just falls over.”
Not for students.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“Erm, Redbaited, union membership in NZ has been voluntary since 1991.”
I know that. I made no reference to it because for the sake of this argument, it isn’t relevant. I’ll say it again- Union leaders hold on to power by propaganda, thuggery and intimidation. That thousands of gullible and easily manipulated workers buy into that propaganda and/ or succumb to that thuggery doesn’t for one minute change the scenario. You think those propagandists like Harre and Kelly and McCarten would get away with the bullshit they put across at union gatherings at an alternative gathering of thinking informed and politically aware people? Pull the other one Jafaboy, its got bells on it.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Pascal
“Can you show me one quote on this site where you have not blown smoke up their ass”
Not criticising them does not equate to endorsement.
“100% of Cubans vote for Fidel Castro” is of course a lie.
“Shit you post a lot Paul” there’s a law against this? Aren’t we in a free democratic society. The only ones demonstrating a restriction of freedom of speech are those of the right here. Some choose to stick small animals up their arse, others drive around the streets of chch loud and fast most nights, others collect small inanimate objects, others blog – it’s a free world.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Union leaders hold on to power by propaganda, thuggery and intimidation”
and you have documented evidence of this. So there are men with baseball bats waiting outside the Firestone factory for non union members to walk around the corner and get a good thumping.
And we are meant to take this as political discourse. This is insanity.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Okay, Redbaited, fair enough, you do think that “NZers are so easily duped and intimidated.” Anyone else here think that?
BTW, JamesW, trade unions don’t represent students. Student unions do. Big difference.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Some choose to stick small animals up their arse’
Concerned folks from Linwood know where you put the local hedgehog population.
Is it painful Paul ?
April 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“BTW, JamesW, trade unions don’t represent students. Student unions do. Big difference.”
You didn’t say trade unions, you said unions. I was correcting that statement. Membership of student unions (which are unions) is STILL compulsory.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
And James it’s such a tax on student life, the poor buggers don’t know what to do with themselves, the emotional and economic burden of being in a student union.
Dad once again the fascination with my ass, let it go already.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Being forced to be a member of a Union that claims to represent all students and then endorsing the Alliance on behalf of those students is pretty disturbing.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Jafapete:
“22% of workforce in unions
18% likely to join a union if one were on offer in their workplace
11% calculatedly free-riding”
Only you Jafa would count those who are currently not members of a union and those actively freeriding as union members. When is the desire to be something the same as being it?
And if your figures are correct, then what you are telling me is that in an environment with a legislative framework designed to encourage collective bargaining, unions are yet to unionise almost HALF of their potential recruits.
If the option to join a union isn’t available in a particular workplace, whose responsibility is that?
My point remains – unions are consolidating because they clearly believe that they would be more viable together i.e. it’s a concession about the relative weakness of these current unions (considering the merger) at the moment.
I make no generalisation about young workers only to say this; those in the service industries tend to pass though those industries on the way to some other form of employment. If that’s professional, then both during their service industry work and the ultimate job, they are unlikely to go for unions. Many are also part-timers. All these factors make it hard to unionise them.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
JamesW: “You didn’t say trade unions, you said unions. I was correcting that statement. Membership of student unions (which are unions) is STILL compulsory.”
Thanks for the correction. Of course, DPF referred to “super union” and “combined union”, and Chris Diack et al., but I stand corrected.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Chris: “Only you Jafa would count those who are currently not members of a union and those actively freeriding as union members. When is the desire to be something the same as being it?”
Wrong, that’s not what I was counting. I was simply demonstarting that your statement that, “prevailing culture is against collectivised bargaining irrespective of what the law tries to encourage” does not hold water, by showing that, in fact, the total demand for the benefits of union representation has arguably not declined at all through three changes of labour law. (As you didn’t clarify what you meant by “prevailing culture” I took it to include workers.)
You also say, “And if your figures are correct, then what you are telling me is that in an environment with a legislative framework designed to encourage collective bargaining, unions are yet to unionise almost HALF of their potential recruits.”
Now you’re starting to get it. Remember that huge drop in union membership just after the ECA came into effect? Almost entirely concentrated in the low paid part of the labour market according to an excellent study published just this year. Did the most vulnerable workers decide to eschew unions while their more secure counterparts thought thay’d stay in a little longer? Or was it simply impossible for the service sector unions to organise the workers employed in small shops, bars, restaurants, motels, service stations, cafes, etc, etc? Workers who were also more likely to work odd hours, part-time, and who had much higher turnover rates. And who find it difficult to pay union fees when they are already struggling on low pay. I’ll let you work that one out.
You say, “If the option to join a union isn’t available in a particular workplace, whose responsibility is that?” I say, it’s not about responsibility, it’s about economics. (The economics of providing union representation.) And if it is about the lack of competence on the part of some unions, that’s not the fault of the workers. They shouldn’t be hung out to dry, as under National and the ECA.
You say, “My point remains – unions are consolidating because they clearly believe that they would be more viable together i.e. it’s a concession about the relative weakness of these current unions (considering the merger) at the moment.” I say, yep, that’s not inconsistent with my comments about resourcing, is it? [Edit: In another post] But remember, we are talking about unions organising in the most difficult part of the labour market.
Your final comments actually reinforce mine, I think, and are bourne out by the conclusion in the paper cited above that, “Younger workers’ disproportionate location in smaller workplaces and those industries where union reach is lowest accounts for a substantial part of their lower union density. Along with the tendency of younger workers to explore their options through labour turnover, this factor offers a much better explanation for the younger-older worker union density gap than do assertions about a growth in individualism in Generations X and Y.”
Thanks for reading this and taking it seriously.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Okay, Redbaited, fair enough, you do think that “NZers are so easily duped and intimidated.” ”
Please try and refrain from dishonesty, and don’t put speech marks around something I did not say, did not infer and did not mean. In fact I made the point that many people would not so easily buy into the union propaganda. (as easily [for example] as some naive and politically unaware youth employed at McDonalds)
April 14th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Okay Redbaited, here’s the full version of what you said about the extent to which NZers are duped and intimidated:
“That thousands of gullible and easily manipulated workers buy into that propaganda and/ or succumb to that thuggery doesn’t for one minute change the scenario.”
Happy?
April 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
BTW, Jafaboy, I have no problem with unions per se. Let me say it again, as you seem to have missed it. It is the perversion of the union movement by a gang of political thugs from an association that might truly benefit workers into a force to promote extreme left political policies that I am objecting to.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Red you say these things, but in all reality where are these baseball wielding thugs?
April 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“Happy?”
Thank you for that. Its so obviously different from your abbreviation to “NZers are so easily duped and intimidated”. My point was that deceitful union thugs exploit the mostly uneducated and politically unaware people who work in unskilled industries, but have no chance of carrying out the same deceptions amongst more sophisticated sectors of the workforce. I was trying to accentuate the difference in the two groups, and highlight the reality behind the figures that you claim show support for unions.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Paul: Not criticising them does not equate to endorsement.
When you sing pretty songs about democracy and the EFA and yet fail to criticize the Labour Party for blatant, visible rorts you are endorsing them. I will refer you to your comments in the thread on “Labour’s plan to avoid the EFA” where you accused people of being conspiracy theorists, insane and a slew of others.
You can keep on telling yourself it is not endorsing them, but that is the way you come across. If you do not endorse them, you might want to consider actually thinking through the rather blatant rort they are engaging in now and, as you say you value democracy, supporting it – not Labour.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Ok Paul, that’s your thirtieth post on this thread, it’s about time to bring it all together and make your point, if you have one.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Paul can you link your distorted neuron transmitters and say something of substance. Those poor children that were taught by you.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Redbaited: “My point was that deceitful union thugs exploit the mostly uneducated and politically unaware people who work in unskilled industries, but have no chance of carrying out the same deceptions amongst more sophisticated sectors of the workforce.”
Once again demonstrating your total ignorance. The most comprehensive surveys show just the opposite. Here are the findings from a 2003 survey:
“Union density is also found to be highest amongst those in larger organizations and female, older, full-time, Ma¯ori, more qualified, and better paid workers (up to $60,000). Managerial, professional, technical and semiprofessional workers and process workers are also likely to have higher rates of union membership.”
NZ Election Survey data shows a similar pattern: in 2002, for example, higher rates of union membership amongst tertiary qualified than school qualification-only workers, and about the same for managers, professionals, etc, as for manual workers.
You have to remember that union membership is particularly high amongst health and education professionals, the police… not so easily duped and intimidated one would have thought!
April 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Pascal if you believe that free speech is dead in this country could you please explain how and why you are still typing, how and why (and this is funny) those who oppose the EFA were able legally to protest the death of free speech?
“deceitful union thugs exploit” how and where? This is a pretty hefty claim.
Helmet – is this a reference to the thing at the end of your nob, and lookie there Dad pops up from behind another. Of those poor children that were taught by me, 3 are successful artists, 2 work at the UN, 1 works at the London Stock Exchange, 1 at the NY Times (great contact) there are 5 PhD’s and 27 Masters degrees, 45 children and unfortunately already 4 divorces.
Poor bastards to be so bloody normal.
Once again not criticising them is not endorsing them, and free speech isn’t dead.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I’m talking numbers not “rates” whatever that might mean. Typical leftist double speak.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Redbaited, I think you just have a great deal of trouble dealing with evidence that disproves your strange view of the world.
Higher rates of union membership amongst tertiary qualified than school qualification-only workers, and about the same for managers, professionals, etc, as for manual workers simply means that a greater proportion of tertiary qualified workers are members of unions than school qualification only workers, etc.
It really does give the lie to the arrant nonsense that, “deceitful union thugs exploit the mostly uneducated and politically unaware people who work in unskilled industries, but have no chance of carrying out the same deceptions amongst more sophisticated sectors of the workforce.”
If you want numbers, though, you might have noticed in my posts with Chris Diack that the numbers in the service sector unions are low, as is their union “density” (which means the proportion in the union). I give some of the reasons why service sector workers are much less likely to be in unions too. It’s all there. Go read. You would clearly learn a lot.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
C’mon Paul. That’s thirty one now, lots of bragging and bullshit, but still no substance. Try again.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“means that a greater proportion of tertiary qualified workers are members of unions than school qualification only workers”
That is one interpretation you could put on it, but in fact it could mean many other things- one such meaning could be that among tertiary qualified, the ratio of non union members to union members could be higher than in the non tertiary.
Then of course there is your implication that tertiary educated are automatically sophisticated. Unlike yourself, I don’t see knuckle dragging half educated dope smoking far left public sector employed academics as automatically qualifying for that adjective. They’re mostly the opposite. …and how’s union membership amongst meat workers?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“Red you say these things, but in all reality where are these baseball wielding thugs?”
Dunno.. can’t say I’ve seen that many thugs wielding baseballs.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Go easy on him helmet, you know Liarbore are broke and you are forcing him to post in overtime, shit the propaganda department will be having kittens.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Yeah, Helmet! Woohoo! Fuck yeah! Go Helmet! You told him real good! Every time those socialists post, you pop up and tell ‘em they’re dumb. Hehehe…hehe. I like reading.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Overtime side show bob? Honestly man, More than fifty drivel filled posts from Paul today. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Well helmet thats the socialists for you. I sometimes think the reason they post so many times is that they have to convince themselves of their own bullshit, if they say something that is stupid enough times it becomes truth. As you say “TRAGIC”.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
helmet, and if I bothered to take the time, like you so diligently have, to count the amount of posts that you have wasted trying to bait me, who is the sadder bastard.
What was the sum total of your contribution today, except claims that my posts are drivel and how many there are. In anyone’s definition what a waste of a day – still you’ll sleep well with that level of hard work.
SSB, back to the cartoon pages sunny, Liarbore – whomever they may be? are not my employer. It’s laughable that you people are beyond comprehension that there are people of the left not aligned to Labour whom like a little political giggle from time to time.
Redbaiter
“knuckle dragging half educated dope smoking far left public sector employed academics” is there an insult somewhere in that frothing?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Redbaiter, You don’t believe a word of what you serve up here, do you? Your grotesque parody of a right-wing nutbar is nothing more than a facade designed to lure the unsuspecting into playing your little game.
I could heap up the evidence as high as Mount Everest and you’d just respond with more off-the-wall gibberish.
I guess the joke’s on me for thinking that you might be serious. I have to admit that I am chuckling a little at being sucked in by such a transparently bizarre act. I applaud your comic talents.
I’m kicking myself for not seeing through your little ruse before now, though I have suspected from time to time that you couldn’t be for real. But your responses on this thread leave no room for doubt.
Is DPF in on this?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Go on Paul, have a count up. While you’re at it, try a word count. I’d like to see the results.
I’m not sure why you think it’s a big deal that I counted your posts, but I can see why you’re a bit embarassed by it.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:20 am
“your responses on this thread leave no room for doubt”
Look, there is no way I’m ever going to concede that leftists are
1) Fully and comprehensively educated (especially recent graduates), or
2) Sophisticated (even if they’re of a mature age)
What I was thinking of when I used that term was commercially aware sane (meaning relatively psychosis free) people with broad and worldly political understandings who run businesses or companies, and are responsible for generating the profits that pay wages and guaranteeing the long term employment of their workers. Anyone who carries this burden knows well enough what an enormous responsibility it is. What is the “rate” (to use your ambiguous term) of such people within Helen Klark’s Labour party and /or the union movement.???
My view is that the echelons of the left are made up of an officer corp of half educated navel gazing unsophisticated neurotics, and the foot soldiers, even worse off and even less sophisticated socially deprived dupes, who do not have the ability or the time or the means to discover for themselves what bullshit socialism is, and are therefore easily manipulated by the former.
You can sell your demented and destructive political ideas to those dupes, but you’ll never sell them to the people I describe in my first paragraph. Get it now??
April 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Paul: Pascal if you believe that free speech is dead in this country could you please explain how and why you are still typing, how and why (and this is funny) those who oppose the EFA were able legally to protest the death of free speech?
No, I do not believe free speech is dead. I do believe in a fair and level playing field for elections. The Labour government has ensured that the playing field will not be level with the incumbent government holding an unfair advantage, because they can use public service materials as part of their electioneering without it being accounted to them. As we see in the case of the Labour Party, they have done this very thing and it’s come down as an instruction from none other than Mike Williams.
Now, again, I have to ask you – do you believe that is right? I’ve asked you around ten times now and you’ve vassilated and obfuscated and avoided the question. Should we draw any conclusion from your inability to answer to that?
Paul: Once again not criticising them is not endorsing them
Unfortunately it is Paul. When something is blatantly wrong and you support it, as you have done, you are endorsing them. Even if you do nothing, you are endorsing it through your silence.
Now – I will ask a simple question. Try to answer it.
“Do you believe that the incumbent government should be able to use public funds and public service material as part of their electioneering without it counting against their electoral return?”
A simple yes or no, with perhaps a “but and waffle” attached.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Redbaiter, I take my hat off to you. You are worthy of Sacha Baron Cohen at his best.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Tane lies again when he claims that the three unions aren’t flush with money.
The SFWU alone has a war-chest of $5 million; the NDU has another couple of million in assets. Both the SFWU and the NDU have annual incomes of over $5 million. Each of them have more than forty paid staff. That’s a considerable professional army, campaigning against National.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Furthermore on IP’s comment, we know the unions are aggressively targeting workplaces that are not unionised in order to get monies to fund such campaigns. Tane forgets to mention this, as well as the vast sums of money/assets unions have at their disposal. They like to save for a rainy day… and going by how their precious Labour Party is going, this election is going to bring a shitstorm with it.
40+ paid staff as well as unpaid “volunteers” who will be pounding the streets for the entire campaign, stacking the TV and town hall meetings and push polling for Labour… it’s a well organised operation and Tane is a filthy liar if he expects people to believe that they are poor unions only out for the workers best interests.