This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
So disappointed that John Key is continuing the policy of ignoring the results of referenda – this time in advance demonstrating his view that democracy only applies when it suits. The arrogance of politians and the spin that the current question is unclear when the intention is clear and the issue can be easily resolved by government offering an appropriately worded one.
This Weatherston trial is just bizarre. Ok, so Miss Elliot seems to have played her part in a messed-up relationship. So? 216 times Clayton…. 216 times!
Interesting (and vaguely frightening) link about Ireland’s burgeoning debt problem. The article underneath is interesting too, given the last government’s fondness for growing the public sector.
SSaSthL – I was thinking the same thing. The guy still looks like a narcissist to me. Sound slike she gave back a few volleys of her own from time to time an dthen decided it was time to move on – new job, new town, new life. But talk about disproportionate response. 216 times and intentional mutilation of the woman’s face, breasts and genitals.
Parliamentary debate is interesting right now vis a vis Goff v Key. The Nats are able to trot out an endless litany of quotes by Goff on policy (state housing, unemployment etc.) from the past which fit with the present Government line. The immediate effect is to blunt opposition attacks and make Goff look unprincipled and opportunistic. This is a worry for the Labour party; their leader is being exposed as a closet right winger (he was very much part of the move to the right in the 1980’s but kept his head down during the Clark regime; conceding power to the feminist left). What is scary for the National Party is that right now Goff would not look out of place in a John Key led cabinet.
stephen – I work for a company that had one of those agreements with Jim Anderton – can’t remember what the scheme was. Subsidy to create new jobs. At the same time they were laying people off. All bull shit and a waste of money. If Macs need those people they would hire them. Looks like to me they have found a way to earn some more coin.
We often hear it said that the public, particularly the financial sector, is poorly served by the business press. Well, buckle up. It’s going to get worse.
In my opinion this week marks the biggest upheaval in business journalism in the country for many years.
This single week will see the departure from the National Business Review of four of its staff reporters, Lucy Craymer, Allan Swann, Fiona Robertson and the quite brilliant Sarah McDonald. All are leaving the country. That will leave only two or three in the NBR newsroom, only one of whom has more than 12 months journalism experience, the paper’s Business Editor, Duncan Bridgeman.
Meanwhile, things appear to be worse over at Fairfax’s Independent newspaper – in fact it’s got to be doubtful whether the paper will be published much longer.
Former Editor Nick Stride – arguably the best listed companies and markets writer in the country – announced a few weeks ago that he was leaving to join PR firm BBG. It looks like his timing was superb. Independent management has just made senior business writers Nick Smith and the multi-award winning Denise McNabb redundant, while staff writer Kimberley Villari has chosen to follow Stride and join BBG.
Fairfax has also made Andrew Janes of the Dominion Post and Gary Sheeran of the Sunday Star Times redundant.
That’s the exit of 10 specialist business journalists in the space of a week.
[DPF: Good God that is depressing. Sarah (and others) will be a huge loss]
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
This McDonalds thing just gets a little stranger:
So true, and yet when I refer to the nationals as socialists I get demerits.
They are a socialist party, but they have moved on from their agrarian socialist roots to become an industrial socilaist party. Huge subsidies for private schools, subsidies for macdonalds, subsidies for this, subsidies for that.
stephen, I think that subsidy is for employing someone who has been on the unemployment benefit for 6 months or more. About 8 years ago I received it for empoying such a person myself. For me it was the difference between being able to employ them or not. I can’t see that as being the case for McDonalds, and I think this arrangement resembles a steaming pile of poo. Why should tax-payers subsidise McDonalds? They have everything costed out to the last slice of gherkin, they neither need nor deserve this subsidy. The scheme (subsidy) should be tightened up to only apply to employers who otherwise could not afford to take on extra staff. McDonalds would not take on extra staff if they didn’t have the demand.
Get smarter National, you really are looking like you don’t have a frikkin clue!
stephen, there appears to be no mystery about this. Eight employees who were long term beneficiaries have accrued subsidies for their employer averaging $4,500. That seems like a pretty good deal for tax payers who have seen twenty seven beneficiaries move into full time employment.
However, what is a mystery is this:-
“Green Party social development spokeswoman Sue Bradford said it was inappropriate to subsidise a large corporation…”
For all those who deride McDonalds, let me tell you a story.
A Samoan church minister some fifteen years ago got a government grant to set up an English language class for migrants. He took in young Samoan immigrants and his wife taught them ‘factory English.’ When they were ready, he put them in his van and drove around the industrial areas of North Shore City, knocking on factory doors. He offered employers a subsidy of one month’s wages if they would employ ‘his boys’ on trial. That is to say, he paid them to work for free for one month, thus for that month there was no employment contract.
None of those ‘boys’ has ever been on the dole so I say to you, stop your stupid bitching about McDonalds and grow up.
It’s no mystery Adolf, she’s right (and that felt really odd typing that). I personally am pissed off that my taxes are now subsidising McDonalds, probably the organisation that least needs it.
If they have to do this, I think a much more targetted approach would have been better, perhaps a subsidy of roughly the size of the unemployment benefit they were receiving, or maybe even lower than that, and for a fixed period. Certainly a pretty good idea for the long term unemployed.
RightNow said: think this arrangement resembles a steaming pile of poo. Why should tax-payers subsidise McDonalds? They have everything costed out to the last slice of gherkin, they neither need nor deserve this subsidy.
Right on, RightNow. I don’t often agree with you, but I agree with you on this one. Employment subsidies should be targeted to creating jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist, not to “business as usual”. McD’s must be lovin’ it.
How can the Greens be against getting long term bludgers off the dole and into work?, would you rather that these parasites stayed at home and stole from the tax payer?
I wonder if McDonalds would employ Phillip Ure? Even if he attracted a subsidy, it’s hard to imagine that even the Golden Arch could instill a work ethic into the vegan, cannabis smoking blogger
Rightnow, if you can’t see the connection then you are thicker than a Big Mac. It’s about paying to get people into jobs rather than paying them to sit on their arses commenting on blogs..
BB, McDonalds would employ staff regardless of the subsidy. This isn’t creating new jobs, it’s giving McDonalds a handout.
Even if this gets someone off the couch who otherwise wouldn’t, all that achieves is denying that job to someone else who didn’t come with a free set of steak knives. Take one person off the benefit, put someone else on it, give handout to McDonalds: still paying out the benefit but now also paying McDonalds to employ someone.
Adolf, to make this so simple I think even you might get it:
Person A is looking for a job (of their own volition). Person B has been on the benefit for over 6 months and has been told by WINZ that they can go and work for McDonalds.
McDonalds has 1 job opening. They assess A and B for the job, either could do the job but they would receive a government subsidy of $16,000 for the first year if they employ person B.
Person A does not get the job, and can’t find other work so goes on the benefit. After 6 months person A is told by WINZ they can go and work for McDonalds.
I don’t give a shit who gets the handout, the issue here is that long term bludgers are working!.
The subsidy will not go on for ever, a bludger is now working and it is one less parasite that I am paying for, it is a win win situation as far as I can see.
The Greens dislike for this has nothing to do with the cost, it is simply another way for that stupid Bradford wimin to have a crack at a multi national company.
You miss the point entirely, a company like McD’s should NEVER have to advertise for staff, if they have vacancies that cannot be filled then we are obviously paying beneficiaries far to much money.
Who cares whether it’s McDonalds or the corner dairy getting subsidies for getting long term unemployed off the dole.
If the govt is going to pay subsidies to employers, you can’t then complain when you don’t like who the employer is.
There’s the relevance of Adolf’s story, albeit on a bigger scale.
We employed a new admin person a few months ago. Mrs Inv went and spoke to the WINZ Work Broker, and we duly received around a dozen CV’s. We didn’t ask WINZ which of these would attract a subsidy. We interviewed five people, and there was one standout applicant to whom we offered the job. This person did NOT attract a subsidy, and whilst that would have helped with cashflow, it was not a part of our decision to hire – we simply wanted the best person for the job. As it transpired, the bloke was not registered with WINZ, but had come in off the street to check the vacancy board, and bunged in a CV on that basis.
The bottom line is that employers aren’t stupid and will make the decisions that best fit their businesses. But if McDonalds can take long-term unemployed and turn them into good employees who develop a good work ethic with a side of self-esteem then we are all better off for it.
but it would be OK Toad if Wind Farm Technologies or a home insulation company or (perhaps a company selling Wellington properties for Green MP’s to live in) was to employ someone under the same scheme? Puuuuleeeeeeeze!
Can we all look forward with much glee to the Minister of Social Underdevelopment launching the WINZ Whopper Burger at the local Big Mac store which is a hangout for morons and lazy cooks?
Anyone else seeing several hundred bloody ‘tweetbacks’ in the posts? Exhibit A ‘Review recommends repeal of Foreshore law’ post.
Most (if not all) of them seem completely irrelevant as well. Would be good if DPF could remove them.
PS We must have some real ‘tard pushing the karma buttons today, legitimate complaint of twitter spam on a denial of service level in one topic, and it attracts a negative rating.
david said: but it would be OK Toad if Wind Farm Technologies or a home insulation company … was to employ someone under the same scheme?
Probably. I haven’t really thought through the detail, but I do think there should be some restrictions on companies that can access this sort of assistance. Perhaps they should have to show that the job would be unlikely to exist without the subidy, or perhaps it should be restricted by maxima of some combination of capital, profits and/or number of employees.
But paying McD’s to employ workers they are going to employ anyway doesn’t make a lot of sense.
So I was watching Mateewia Tooway of the Gween Party on Good Morning and they were throwing her the usual softballs expected from a mid-morning TVNZ show scheduled for bored housewives (“How’s the job going? What about that pot law, huh? What do you think of those howwible wighties and their wefewendum?”) and then I thought “She’s nice, but damn the Gweens are going to have an even tougher issue of being taken seriously than before. 2% in 2011?” Then I thought “Wait, what the fuck am I doing watching Good Morning?” so I turned the TV off and took a shit. It had the same informational and entertainment value.
I’m in favour of getting long term unemployed into work, but not if it just means someone else goes on the benefit instead.
And I also don’t see why McDonalds need to be subsidised by the taxpayer. None of the arguements so far has demonstrated any valid reason for McDonalds to be subsidised by the taxpayer.
I2 – I agree employers will make the decisions that best fit their business. McDonalds will choose the employee that comes with the big subsidy, it decreases their costs. They are being incentivised by the government to take long term unemployed in preference to other applicants. There are more applicants than jobs, so I don’t believe for a second that they couldn’t fill the jobs with non-subsidised applicants. Who wins from this scenario? Not the taxpayer, that’s for sure.
BB – 11.46 comment – it won’t be one less parasite, it will be a parasite swap. someone else will go on the benefit to replace the one that came off (since there is one less job in the pool). The difference is it will cost the taxpayer up to $16k more for the long-term beneficiary to get the job. 11.53 comment – agreed, nor should they need a subsidy to help them get staff.
Razork (and david) I care who gets handouts from the taxpayer and I am surprised that you don’t. Are you really happy to subsidise McDonalds? This subsidy shoudn’t be a pot of tax-payer gold for them to dip into.
How do we get you to be honest about the whole McD thing?
Why not just admit that the real reason that stupid Bradford wimin is against the idea is because 1.McD’s are American and 2. They are a multi national corporation 3.The Greens think that working for a living should be optional, those who choose not to work should be supported by those who are in paid employment.
Frankly the Greens stance on this issue makes you guys look even more foolish than normal, the tax payer is going to be paying a subsidy to ANY business who is brave enough to employ these long term bludgers, the fact that is just happens to be McD’s is irrelevant.
So come on, break the habit of a political lifetime and tell the fucking truth for once, what is the REAL reason the watermelons hate this idea?
Also BB, 4) McD’s is a successful company making a profit and is therefore part of the fascistic anti-human capital system of not being socially responsible.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who end up on the dole are going to stay there for eternity.
I am talking about LONG TERM bludgers, as Razork correctly points out they will have a job subsidy follow them to ANY job they take, the point here is that most employers are not willing to take on one of these parasites as they are most often more trouble than they are worth.
Oh dear – Big Bruv mistakes his baseless opinions and idle fantasies for the real world once again:
“Why not just admit that the real reason that stupid Bradford wimin is against the idea is because 1.McD’s are American and 2. They are a multi national corporation 3.The Greens think that working for a living should be optional, those who choose not to work should be supported by those who are in paid employment.”
Jim Anderton used his jobs machine to spend public money with big companies so he looked like he was doing something – do National really want to copy the socialist failure Anderton ?
Interestingly labour stooge brian rudman still thinks they are irrelevant. Rather indicative of how out of touch he is. He also demands to know why the person who layed the paintergate complaint is now an officer in the order of merit. Apparently criticising Helen Clark should automatically rule you out of getting an honour.
Then I thought “Wait, what the fuck am I doing watching Good Morning?”
…what a terrible fucking programme..surprised its lasted so long…and that fag presenter gets up my arse ( not literally )
and whats with those ” advertorials”??……revolting…
big bruv said: You seem to be of the opinion that those who end up on the dole are going to stay there for eternity.
Many of them will, I fear, bruv. Because the Government seems content to sit on its hands and do nothing. Despite burgeoning unemployment statistics and scary unemployment forecasts, McJobs is all they can come up with apart from stealing the Greens’ home insulation proposal.
That said, Labour is just as bereft of ideas – all they do is criticise the Nats without putting up any alternatives.
Only the Greens with their Green New Deal seem to have any clue about developing a policy package to start clawing our way out of this recession.
…The Standard now and then. There’s an occasional gem to be found there, although an angry hectoring tone largely dominates. The main theme is that the Nats are evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them. Contrast this with the most popular Right blog, Kiwiblog, where the evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them are the Left.
big bruv said: Once again I ask you, what is wrong with getting long term bludgers off the dole?
I fully support getting long-term unemployed into work bruv. And employment subsidies can help achieve this. But they shouldn’t go to employers who are going to create the jobs anyway – that is just corporate welfare.
But very few companies are prepared to take on long term beneficiaries, indeed under the Labour/Green government there was no onus on long term bludgers to gain employment, at least the Nat’s have found a company that will take these people and that can only be a good thing.
You hate the idea for no other reason than it is McDonalds.
stephen, that may have been a relevant arguement when unemployment was low, and may be in the future, but not when there are 1000 people a week signing up for the benefit.
It does seem that you are another in the long line of left wing apologists for those who choose to steal from the rest of us, it also seems that in true left wing tradition you are not about to let the facts get in the way of your stupid political belief’s.
Only LONG TERM bludgers will have a subsidy that follows them to any job they may be offered, newly unemployed people will not have that same level of subsidy, indeed most newly unemployed will do their very best to find work unlike these long term Labour and Green voting parasites.
BB, you aren’t too good at figuring things out then. Doesn’t the name RightNow give you a clue. You seem to be the lefty apologist in this case, happy as a trougher for McDonalds to get their mitts on my taxes. Why don’t you go and look for a clue. You seem incapable of grasping this fact – McDonalds do not need a $16k subsidy to take on an employee.
It is great that a long-termer gets off the dole, but it is just frikking pointless if it just means someone else goes on the dole in their place. The subsidy should be for job creation, not wasted by giving it to a company that would employ someone ANYWAY, without our taxes needing to subsidise it.
I can’t believe you condone this, it is mind boggling from someone I thought had the same aversion to wasteful spending of tax-payer money as I. Clearly you’re just a frikking cheerleader for National.
…yes cut and pasted from the sub standard..just tossed it into the forum Stevie for discussion…boy they talk some shite over there…what do you think Stevo?
And yet again the full might of the legal system is brought to bear on dangerous lawbreakers who clearly represent a serious risk to the rest of us if they’re allowed to continue on their criminal rampage.
A 30-something woman who might be in an incestuous relationship with her 40-something father. So of course the Crown finds it necessary to tie up the overburdened courts for days on end, paying scientists to testify on genetics and generally wasting everyone’s time and the taxpayers’ money.
They don’t even seem to have children.
It’s high time police and prosecutors became personally liable for decisions to prosecute ridiculous cases. At present, when they fail it’s the taxpayer who is hit again, with the Crown paying the defendant’s costs (if the defendant’s lucky, that is).
Another example of a lack of acocuntability in the public service leading to petty misuse of power and wastage of resources.
Coz of course it’s not like our prisons are full or anything.
You can smoke all the pot you want, Ryan, so long as you pay for your own mental health care after you turn schizo and your physical health care when you end up whacking your cock through the paper shredder. Also you can’t go on the dole after successfully going cold turkey like phool has.
When I was negotiating joint ventures in China back in the seventies and eighties I soon heard how keen the Chinese were to get McDonalds to move in because they give such excellent training in the most basic management skills for people who have no idea how to operate in a business environment..
Similarly, many years later I had lunch with a mortgage and finance broker who was self employed after working for many years as a manager in a major bank.
He too said that the best management training he got was from McDonalds while he worked his way through university. This is not MBA stuff, just about dealing with customers and getting up in the morning and how to read instructions properly etc.
I can see many people on the dole would benefit hugely from working in this structured environment.
You probably can turn down a job on the basis of ethical belief.
I can’t imagine they would cut the dole of a Jew or Muslim who refused to work in a pig butchery. The same should apply to a vegan who refuses to work anywhere that serves or processes meat.
Not that I am one, but I can’t imagine Work and Income could be so insensitive to a person’s ethical belief today. Maybe when Christine Rankin ran it…
You can smoke all the pot you want, Ryan, so long as you pay for your own mental health care after you turn schizo and your physical health care when you end up whacking your cock through the paper shredder. Also you can’t go on the dole after successfully going cold turkey like phool has.
So throw a surcharge on weed sales to supplement public health.
Your move, Mr Nanny State. What’s next? Gonna ban beef unless everyone pays for their own colon cancer?
Toad.
“You probably can turn down a job on the basis of ethical belief”
Why bend and twist it? There are welfare dependent, unemployable scumbags who will avoid work always.
A job at McD’s just exposes them, and they just hate being challenged. Religion is irrelevant, so is the eating preference.
Yep, you are just another Liarbour example of why the taxpayer pays for the lazy.
The worst thing about pot is it makes people sit around wasting time.
It does not induce violence, anger or excitement. Quite the opposite in fact. Like alcohol however it does impair judgement and cognition.
Given there are other drugs that do induce said emotions which are currently legal, I don’t understand why politicians think its any big deal to (heaven forfend) consider decriminalization.
Their stance to to me, is frankly quite irrational.
Unfortunately, the idiot media never seriously challenge them on the issue so we remain stuck with the semi-moronic-catatonic status-quo.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Anyone else seeing several hundred bloody ‘tweetbacks’ in the posts? Exhibit A ‘Review recommends repeal of Foreshore law’ post.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Quote of the Day
A preference for dogma over kindness, for superstition-based moralism over humaneness, is standard fare for religion, as history too loudly attests.
A C Grayling
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Anyone else seeing several hundred bloody ‘tweetbacks’ in the posts? Exhibit A ‘Review recommends repeal of Foreshore law’ post.
Yep. who was the twitiot who did that?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
So disappointed that John Key is continuing the policy of ignoring the results of referenda – this time in advance demonstrating his view that democracy only applies when it suits. The arrogance of politians and the spin that the current question is unclear when the intention is clear and the issue can be easily resolved by government offering an appropriately worded one.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
This Weatherston trial is just bizarre. Ok, so Miss Elliot seems to have played her part in a messed-up relationship. So? 216 times Clayton…. 216 times!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Interesting (and vaguely frightening) link about Ireland’s burgeoning debt problem. The article underneath is interesting too, given the last government’s fondness for growing the public sector.
http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
MNI, glad to see my pain is being shared.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
This McDonalds thing just gets a little stranger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2557352/McDonalds-to-get-up-to-16-000-a-beneficiary
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
SSaSthL – I was thinking the same thing. The guy still looks like a narcissist to me. Sound slike she gave back a few volleys of her own from time to time an dthen decided it was time to move on – new job, new town, new life. But talk about disproportionate response. 216 times and intentional mutilation of the woman’s face, breasts and genitals.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Parliamentary debate is interesting right now vis a vis Goff v Key. The Nats are able to trot out an endless litany of quotes by Goff on policy (state housing, unemployment etc.) from the past which fit with the present Government line. The immediate effect is to blunt opposition attacks and make Goff look unprincipled and opportunistic. This is a worry for the Labour party; their leader is being exposed as a closet right winger (he was very much part of the move to the right in the 1980’s but kept his head down during the Clark regime; conceding power to the feminist left). What is scary for the National Party is that right now Goff would not look out of place in a John Key led cabinet.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
stephen – I work for a company that had one of those agreements with Jim Anderton – can’t remember what the scheme was. Subsidy to create new jobs. At the same time they were laying people off. All bull shit and a waste of money. If Macs need those people they would hire them. Looks like to me they have found a way to earn some more coin.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
You mean he isn’t? I thought he was on the Nat’s side.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
We often hear it said that the public, particularly the financial sector, is poorly served by the business press. Well, buckle up. It’s going to get worse.
In my opinion this week marks the biggest upheaval in business journalism in the country for many years.
This single week will see the departure from the National Business Review of four of its staff reporters, Lucy Craymer, Allan Swann, Fiona Robertson and the quite brilliant Sarah McDonald. All are leaving the country. That will leave only two or three in the NBR newsroom, only one of whom has more than 12 months journalism experience, the paper’s Business Editor, Duncan Bridgeman.
Meanwhile, things appear to be worse over at Fairfax’s Independent newspaper – in fact it’s got to be doubtful whether the paper will be published much longer.
Former Editor Nick Stride – arguably the best listed companies and markets writer in the country – announced a few weeks ago that he was leaving to join PR firm BBG. It looks like his timing was superb. Independent management has just made senior business writers Nick Smith and the multi-award winning Denise McNabb redundant, while staff writer Kimberley Villari has chosen to follow Stride and join BBG.
Fairfax has also made Andrew Janes of the Dominion Post and Gary Sheeran of the Sunday Star Times redundant.
That’s the exit of 10 specialist business journalists in the space of a week.
[DPF: Good God that is depressing. Sarah (and others) will be a huge loss]
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
stephen said: This McDonalds thing just gets a little stranger:
And would you like lies with that, sir?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
stephen (2767) Vote: 0 0 Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
This McDonalds thing just gets a little stranger:
So true, and yet when I refer to the nationals as socialists I get demerits.
They are a socialist party, but they have moved on from their agrarian socialist roots to become an industrial socilaist party. Huge subsidies for private schools, subsidies for macdonalds, subsidies for this, subsidies for that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
trout..
..i think you will find that tactic somewhat short-lived..
..in parliament yesterday key looked embarrassed at the ‘come into the 21st century!’ calls/derision from labour….
even speaker smith was giving him a ‘c ‘mon!’-look..
..keys’ answers to questions about the crises we are facing..
..are ‘nyah..!..nyah..!’ quotes from goff..from 20+ years ago..?
..really mr key..?
..c’mon..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
stephen, I think that subsidy is for employing someone who has been on the unemployment benefit for 6 months or more. About 8 years ago I received it for empoying such a person myself. For me it was the difference between being able to employ them or not. I can’t see that as being the case for McDonalds, and I think this arrangement resembles a steaming pile of poo. Why should tax-payers subsidise McDonalds? They have everything costed out to the last slice of gherkin, they neither need nor deserve this subsidy. The scheme (subsidy) should be tightened up to only apply to employers who otherwise could not afford to take on extra staff. McDonalds would not take on extra staff if they didn’t have the demand.
Get smarter National, you really are looking like you don’t have a frikkin clue!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
stephen, there appears to be no mystery about this. Eight employees who were long term beneficiaries have accrued subsidies for their employer averaging $4,500. That seems like a pretty good deal for tax payers who have seen twenty seven beneficiaries move into full time employment.
However, what is a mystery is this:-
“Green Party social development spokeswoman Sue Bradford said it was inappropriate to subsidise a large corporation…”
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
For all those who deride McDonalds, let me tell you a story.
A Samoan church minister some fifteen years ago got a government grant to set up an English language class for migrants. He took in young Samoan immigrants and his wife taught them ‘factory English.’ When they were ready, he put them in his van and drove around the industrial areas of North Shore City, knocking on factory doors. He offered employers a subsidy of one month’s wages if they would employ ‘his boys’ on trial. That is to say, he paid them to work for free for one month, thus for that month there was no employment contract.
None of those ‘boys’ has ever been on the dole so I say to you, stop your stupid bitching about McDonalds and grow up.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
It’s no mystery Adolf, she’s right (and that felt really odd typing that). I personally am pissed off that my taxes are now subsidising McDonalds, probably the organisation that least needs it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
That story is great Adolf, but what has it got to do with McDonalds?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
If they have to do this, I think a much more targetted approach would have been better, perhaps a subsidy of roughly the size of the unemployment benefit they were receiving, or maybe even lower than that, and for a fixed period. Certainly a pretty good idea for the long term unemployed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
RightNow said: think this arrangement resembles a steaming pile of poo. Why should tax-payers subsidise McDonalds? They have everything costed out to the last slice of gherkin, they neither need nor deserve this subsidy.
Right on, RightNow. I don’t often agree with you, but I agree with you on this one. Employment subsidies should be targeted to creating jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist, not to “business as usual”. McD’s must be lovin’ it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Toad
How can the Greens be against getting long term bludgers off the dole and into work?, would you rather that these parasites stayed at home and stole from the tax payer?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
I wonder if McDonalds would employ Phillip Ure? Even if he attracted a subsidy, it’s hard to imagine that even the Golden Arch could instill a work ethic into the vegan, cannabis smoking blogger
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Rightnow, if you can’t see the connection then you are thicker than a Big Mac. It’s about paying to get people into jobs rather than paying them to sit on their arses commenting on blogs..
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
BB, McDonalds would employ staff regardless of the subsidy. This isn’t creating new jobs, it’s giving McDonalds a handout.
Even if this gets someone off the couch who otherwise wouldn’t, all that achieves is denying that job to someone else who didn’t come with a free set of steak knives. Take one person off the benefit, put someone else on it, give handout to McDonalds: still paying out the benefit but now also paying McDonalds to employ someone.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
Speaking of fast food….
Have a gander at the new Burger King advert for the “seven incher”, it is pure class.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Adolf, to make this so simple I think even you might get it:
Person A is looking for a job (of their own volition). Person B has been on the benefit for over 6 months and has been told by WINZ that they can go and work for McDonalds.
McDonalds has 1 job opening. They assess A and B for the job, either could do the job but they would receive a government subsidy of $16,000 for the first year if they employ person B.
Person A does not get the job, and can’t find other work so goes on the benefit. After 6 months person A is told by WINZ they can go and work for McDonalds.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Rightnow.
I don’t give a shit who gets the handout, the issue here is that long term bludgers are working!.
The subsidy will not go on for ever, a bludger is now working and it is one less parasite that I am paying for, it is a win win situation as far as I can see.
The Greens dislike for this has nothing to do with the cost, it is simply another way for that stupid Bradford wimin to have a crack at a multi national company.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Rightnow
You miss the point entirely, a company like McD’s should NEVER have to advertise for staff, if they have vacancies that cannot be filled then we are obviously paying beneficiaries far to much money.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Who cares whether it’s McDonalds or the corner dairy getting subsidies for getting long term unemployed off the dole.
If the govt is going to pay subsidies to employers, you can’t then complain when you don’t like who the employer is.
There’s the relevance of Adolf’s story, albeit on a bigger scale.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
@ big bruv 11.46am – well said.
We employed a new admin person a few months ago. Mrs Inv went and spoke to the WINZ Work Broker, and we duly received around a dozen CV’s. We didn’t ask WINZ which of these would attract a subsidy. We interviewed five people, and there was one standout applicant to whom we offered the job. This person did NOT attract a subsidy, and whilst that would have helped with cashflow, it was not a part of our decision to hire – we simply wanted the best person for the job. As it transpired, the bloke was not registered with WINZ, but had come in off the street to check the vacancy board, and bunged in a CV on that basis.
The bottom line is that employers aren’t stupid and will make the decisions that best fit their businesses. But if McDonalds can take long-term unemployed and turn them into good employees who develop a good work ethic with a side of self-esteem then we are all better off for it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
but it would be OK Toad if Wind Farm Technologies or a home insulation company or (perhaps a company selling Wellington properties for Green MP’s to live in) was to employ someone under the same scheme? Puuuuleeeeeeeze!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Can we all look forward with much glee to the Minister of Social Underdevelopment launching the WINZ Whopper Burger at the local Big Mac store which is a hangout for morons and lazy cooks?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Most (if not all) of them seem completely irrelevant as well. Would be good if DPF could remove them.
PS We must have some real ‘tard pushing the karma buttons today, legitimate complaint of twitter spam on a denial of service level in one topic, and it attracts a negative rating.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
david said: but it would be OK Toad if Wind Farm Technologies or a home insulation company … was to employ someone under the same scheme?
Probably. I haven’t really thought through the detail, but I do think there should be some restrictions on companies that can access this sort of assistance. Perhaps they should have to show that the job would be unlikely to exist without the subidy, or perhaps it should be restricted by maxima of some combination of capital, profits and/or number of employees.
But paying McD’s to employ workers they are going to employ anyway doesn’t make a lot of sense.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
PS We must have some real ‘tard pushing the karma buttons today,
Twitter fan must think i’m a twitter-hater.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
So I was watching Mateewia Tooway of the Gween Party on Good Morning and they were throwing her the usual softballs expected from a mid-morning TVNZ show scheduled for bored housewives (“How’s the job going? What about that pot law, huh? What do you think of those howwible wighties and their wefewendum?”) and then I thought “She’s nice, but damn the Gweens are going to have an even tougher issue of being taken seriously than before. 2% in 2011?” Then I thought “Wait, what the fuck am I doing watching Good Morning?” so I turned the TV off and took a shit. It had the same informational and entertainment value.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“I was watching Mateewia Tooway of the Gween Party”
Great way to start a comment about taking somebody else seriously!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Then I thought “Wait, what the fuck am I doing watching Good Morning?”
obviously not working…
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’m in favour of getting long term unemployed into work, but not if it just means someone else goes on the benefit instead.
And I also don’t see why McDonalds need to be subsidised by the taxpayer. None of the arguements so far has demonstrated any valid reason for McDonalds to be subsidised by the taxpayer.
I2 – I agree employers will make the decisions that best fit their business. McDonalds will choose the employee that comes with the big subsidy, it decreases their costs. They are being incentivised by the government to take long term unemployed in preference to other applicants. There are more applicants than jobs, so I don’t believe for a second that they couldn’t fill the jobs with non-subsidised applicants. Who wins from this scenario? Not the taxpayer, that’s for sure.
BB – 11.46 comment – it won’t be one less parasite, it will be a parasite swap. someone else will go on the benefit to replace the one that came off (since there is one less job in the pool). The difference is it will cost the taxpayer up to $16k more for the long-term beneficiary to get the job. 11.53 comment – agreed, nor should they need a subsidy to help them get staff.
Razork (and david) I care who gets handouts from the taxpayer and I am surprised that you don’t. Are you really happy to subsidise McDonalds? This subsidy shoudn’t be a pot of tax-payer gold for them to dip into.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Holiday, Ratbiter! Woohoo!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Toad
How do we get you to be honest about the whole McD thing?
Why not just admit that the real reason that stupid Bradford wimin is against the idea is because 1.McD’s are American and 2. They are a multi national corporation 3.The Greens think that working for a living should be optional, those who choose not to work should be supported by those who are in paid employment.
Frankly the Greens stance on this issue makes you guys look even more foolish than normal, the tax payer is going to be paying a subsidy to ANY business who is brave enough to employ these long term bludgers, the fact that is just happens to be McD’s is irrelevant.
So come on, break the habit of a political lifetime and tell the fucking truth for once, what is the REAL reason the watermelons hate this idea?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Also BB, 4) McD’s is a successful company making a profit and is therefore part of the fascistic anti-human capital system of not being socially responsible.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Rightnow
You seem to be of the opinion that those who end up on the dole are going to stay there for eternity.
I am talking about LONG TERM bludgers, as Razork correctly points out they will have a job subsidy follow them to ANY job they take, the point here is that most employers are not willing to take on one of these parasites as they are most often more trouble than they are worth.
McD’s should be applauded for their actions.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Oh dear – Big Bruv mistakes his baseless opinions and idle fantasies for the real world once again:
“Why not just admit that the real reason that stupid Bradford wimin is against the idea is because 1.McD’s are American and 2. They are a multi national corporation 3.The Greens think that working for a living should be optional, those who choose not to work should be supported by those who are in paid employment.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Jim Anderton used his jobs machine to spend public money with big companies so he looked like he was doing something – do National really want to copy the socialist failure Anderton ?
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
NZ Herald reports restoring knighthoods has been largely popular:
“Of 85 eligible, 72 wished to use the titles of knights and dames, while 13 opted not to do so.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10581526
Interestingly labour stooge brian rudman still thinks they are irrelevant. Rather indicative of how out of touch he is. He also demands to know why the person who layed the paintergate complaint is now an officer in the order of merit. Apparently criticising Helen Clark should automatically rule you out of getting an honour.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
BB, you must be stoked then, we’re not just applauding McDonalds, we’re chucking our taxes at them too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
So BigBruv is all in favour of getting people off the dole by paying McDonalds the dole for a year for each employee.
Why am I not surprised? because the right LOVE getting their grubby hands on free money.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“because the right LOVE getting their grubby hands on free money.”
Pot, kettle, black, Jackoff.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Then I thought “Wait, what the fuck am I doing watching Good Morning?”
…what a terrible fucking programme..surprised its lasted so long…and that fag presenter gets up my arse ( not literally )
and whats with those ” advertorials”??……revolting…
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Manners Mall bus lane emo song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6f5rfuVzrI&feature=player_embedded
ROFL
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
MNIJ
Please explain to me why you favour letting long term bludgers stay on the dole?
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
big bruv said: You seem to be of the opinion that those who end up on the dole are going to stay there for eternity.
Many of them will, I fear, bruv. Because the Government seems content to sit on its hands and do nothing. Despite burgeoning unemployment statistics and scary unemployment forecasts, McJobs is all they can come up with apart from stealing the Greens’ home insulation proposal.
That said, Labour is just as bereft of ideas – all they do is criticise the Nats without putting up any alternatives.
Only the Greens with their Green New Deal seem to have any clue about developing a policy package to start clawing our way out of this recession.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
…The Standard now and then. There’s an occasional gem to be found there, although an angry hectoring tone largely dominates. The main theme is that the Nats are evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them. Contrast this with the most popular Right blog, Kiwiblog, where the evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them are the Left.
…recent ravings from the sub standard…
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Green New Deal? More like the Venezuelan Economic Model. No thank you.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Toad
Once again I ask you, what is wrong with getting long term bludgers off the dole?
Come on, just give me one good reason and then I may take a look at the Green/Red new deal.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
big bruv said: Once again I ask you, what is wrong with getting long term bludgers off the dole?
I fully support getting long-term unemployed into work bruv. And employment subsidies can help achieve this. But they shouldn’t go to employers who are going to create the jobs anyway – that is just corporate welfare.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
…recent ravings from the sub standard…
You may not have noticed that was copy-pasted from another site. What’s your point anyway?
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
And what is the point of paying up to $16k to get someone off the dole if it just means someone else will go on the dole in their place?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
And what is the point of paying up to $16k to get someone off the dole if it just means someone else will go on the dole in their place?
Devil’s advocate says it will be easier to get said person off the dole than it was to get the long-termer off the dole.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Toad
But very few companies are prepared to take on long term beneficiaries, indeed under the Labour/Green government there was no onus on long term bludgers to gain employment, at least the Nat’s have found a company that will take these people and that can only be a good thing.
You hate the idea for no other reason than it is McDonalds.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
stephen, that may have been a relevant arguement when unemployment was low, and may be in the future, but not when there are 1000 people a week signing up for the benefit.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Rightnow
It does seem that you are another in the long line of left wing apologists for those who choose to steal from the rest of us, it also seems that in true left wing tradition you are not about to let the facts get in the way of your stupid political belief’s.
Only LONG TERM bludgers will have a subsidy that follows them to any job they may be offered, newly unemployed people will not have that same level of subsidy, indeed most newly unemployed will do their very best to find work unlike these long term Labour and Green voting parasites.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
BB, you aren’t too good at figuring things out then. Doesn’t the name RightNow give you a clue. You seem to be the lefty apologist in this case, happy as a trougher for McDonalds to get their mitts on my taxes. Why don’t you go and look for a clue. You seem incapable of grasping this fact – McDonalds do not need a $16k subsidy to take on an employee.
It is great that a long-termer gets off the dole, but it is just frikking pointless if it just means someone else goes on the dole in their place. The subsidy should be for job creation, not wasted by giving it to a company that would employ someone ANYWAY, without our taxes needing to subsidise it.
I can’t believe you condone this, it is mind boggling from someone I thought had the same aversion to wasteful spending of tax-payer money as I. Clearly you’re just a frikking cheerleader for National.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
recent ravings from the sub standard..
…yes cut and pasted from the sub standard..just tossed it into the forum Stevie for discussion…boy they talk some shite over there…what do you think Stevo?
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hah, Ralph Macchio’s son is named Daniel.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
and who said the national party tended towards the reactionary..?
..not one of them voted with their conscience on the med-pot bill..
..and gee..!
..all those national mp’s..eh..?
..and not one pot-smoker amongst them..?..
..kinda defies the odds..that one..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
And yet again the full might of the legal system is brought to bear on dangerous lawbreakers who clearly represent a serious risk to the rest of us if they’re allowed to continue on their criminal rampage.
A 30-something woman who might be in an incestuous relationship with her 40-something father. So of course the Crown finds it necessary to tie up the overburdened courts for days on end, paying scientists to testify on genetics and generally wasting everyone’s time and the taxpayers’ money.
They don’t even seem to have children.
It’s high time police and prosecutors became personally liable for decisions to prosecute ridiculous cases. At present, when they fail it’s the taxpayer who is hit again, with the Crown paying the defendant’s costs (if the defendant’s lucky, that is).
Another example of a lack of acocuntability in the public service leading to petty misuse of power and wastage of resources.
Coz of course it’s not like our prisons are full or anything.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
wah wah wah wheres my weed mummy i want my weed oh god i’m jonesin bro i’m jonesin
Maybe that’s how you ended up smacked up to the eyeballs, phool.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Wah wah wah, where’s my country that supports personal freedom over paternalistic bureaucracy?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
You can smoke all the pot you want, Ryan, so long as you pay for your own mental health care after you turn schizo and your physical health care when you end up whacking your cock through the paper shredder. Also you can’t go on the dole after successfully going cold turkey like phool has.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
When I was negotiating joint ventures in China back in the seventies and eighties I soon heard how keen the Chinese were to get McDonalds to move in because they give such excellent training in the most basic management skills for people who have no idea how to operate in a business environment..
Similarly, many years later I had lunch with a mortgage and finance broker who was self employed after working for many years as a manager in a major bank.
He too said that the best management training he got was from McDonalds while he worked his way through university. This is not MBA stuff, just about dealing with customers and getting up in the morning and how to read instructions properly etc.
I can see many people on the dole would benefit hugely from working in this structured environment.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
and the astonishing thing..
..is that the vote was to only take it to the select committee stage..
..so the issue/questions could be further examined/clarified..
..and the party of ‘personal freedom’ .. all voted against even that..
..good ‘democratic-principles..there national..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
and kudos to the 4 act mp’s who voted for the bill..
..and where is mallard..?
..he voted against it..
..i would love to hear his reasons why..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
..whats it like being so average flu…
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“What is scary for the National Party is that right now Goff would not look out of place in a John Key led cabinet.”
Yes he would, trout.
He’d be the biggest arsehole in it, by a huge margin.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
phool has been away from 10.49 am until 4.41pm
Job interview at Maccas? What time do you start?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
McDonalds.
It would be almost impossible to turn down a job based on lack of qualification, and if you did there would be no dole.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You probably can turn down a job on the basis of ethical belief.
I can’t imagine they would cut the dole of a Jew or Muslim who refused to work in a pig butchery. The same should apply to a vegan who refuses to work anywhere that serves or processes meat.
Not that I am one, but I can’t imagine Work and Income could be so insensitive to a person’s ethical belief today. Maybe when Christine Rankin ran it…
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I do wonder what a toad burger with phool fries would be like?
Just imagine it Mac. Frog Flu?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
..flu in the drive thru..” do you want a joint with that”…”sweeeeet”….
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
and of course the great big whopper of a lie for the evening..
..came from associate health minister dr jonathan coleman..
..he stood up in parliament..
..and said ‘cannabis smoke is twenty times more dangerous than tobacco smoke..’
..that really is a ‘whopper’..eh..?
..and flies in the face of his own doctors’ professional associations’ findings/attitudes…
..and of course..the whole ’sativex-yes/weed-no..
..is just the doctors/pharmacists protecting their trade monoplies..
..they get no ‘earn’..from sufferers growing their own..
..they want no precedents like that set..
..whoar..!
“holy self-interest..!..batman..!..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Just imagine a stoned up phool servng you a slimy didymo Macs donut with a special Bob Marley green sauce? Oh my Lord, somebody ring Batman please.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
and really..?..all those national mp’s pot-virgins..?
“holy double-standards/rank-hypocrisies..!..batman..!”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
…which bottle shop you gona rob tonight flu…
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
So throw a surcharge on weed sales to supplement public health.
Your move, Mr Nanny State. What’s next? Gonna ban beef unless everyone pays for their own colon cancer?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Fuck their ethical beliefs Toad, if the bastards refuse a job then their benefit should be cancelled immediately.
We need more like Christine Rankin if only to balance up the wet left wing bullshit you lot insist on forcing upon us.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Phool
We won, you lost…smoke THAT!
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Toad.
“You probably can turn down a job on the basis of ethical belief”
Why bend and twist it? There are welfare dependent, unemployable scumbags who will avoid work always.
A job at McD’s just exposes them, and they just hate being challenged. Religion is irrelevant, so is the eating preference.
Yep, you are just another Liarbour example of why the taxpayer pays for the lazy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The worst thing about pot is it makes people sit around wasting time.
It does not induce violence, anger or excitement. Quite the opposite in fact. Like alcohol however it does impair judgement and cognition.
Given there are other drugs that do induce said emotions which are currently legal, I don’t understand why politicians think its any big deal to (heaven forfend) consider decriminalization.
Their stance to to me, is frankly quite irrational.
Unfortunately, the idiot media never seriously challenge them on the issue so we remain stuck with the semi-moronic-catatonic status-quo.
Sad and dumb. Sad sad sad and dumb dumb dumb.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
The worst thing about pot is it makes people sit around wasting time.
Heh. I wonder what a cop would say if one told them some people were going to start smoking weed instead of getting drunk on the weekends…
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
starboard, they be shrill an annoying, but occassionally thoughtful.