Labour and unions
August 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am by David FarrarOne of the reasons I am not a Labour fan, is the parliamentary wing’s role as lobbyists for their union supporters.
The unions have institutional membership and voting rights within Labour. You don’t see individual businesses let alone employer groups joining National and being able to block vote at National conferences and delegate selections.
Of course National tend to be more employer friendly, but it is very very rare in the case of a private sector industrial dispute that National will actually take sides. National rightly tends to think that is a matter for the employer and union to resolve.
But over on Red Alert we have seen a huge number of posts on behalf of the EPMU over the dispute between a Telecom subsidiary and the EPMU and affected contractors/employees. The fact the EPMU National Secretary is also Labour Party President of course mudies the water considerably.
We’ve had more posts on Red Alert on this industrial dispute than almost any other issue. Forget the global recession. A post on 3 August calling for Steven Joyce to do something was followed up on by a post on 20 August calling for the PM of all people to get involved and then again on 21 August and also on 24 August.
Labour have also asked two oral questions on this. They have the right to do so, but could you imagine the outrage if National MPs were getting up in the House urging action on behalf of (say) Carter Holt Harvey in an industrial dispute.
I prefer political parties to focus on laws and policies, not to be taking sides in industrial disputes unless it reaches critical levels such as a nationwide strike.
Related posts:
- Unions helping Labour
- Unions gain vote on Labour leader
- CTU calls on Govt to freeze Telecom
- Trotter calls for an end to unions joining Labour
August 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Telecom’s actions are disgraceful and it is right that our elected representatives should get involved.
Workers in possibly the most important infrastructure infrastructure sector are being sold up the river. At considerable cost they are being required to set up as self employed. For the privilege of doing this they lose all rights under their existing contracts, they lose security of tenure and they earn less. The funds are then shared between Telecom and an Australian company.
How is this going to reduce the imbalance in wages between New Zealand and Australia? Of course this should be an issue for our elected representatives.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
mickysavage is right, the government should get involved.
Telecom is being held to ransom by a union drunk on its own political influence. Telecom, let us not forget, is the provider for a huge chunk of NZ’s most important infrastructure. It is simply too important an issue to be left to the company and the unions. Especially when the unions appear incapable of comprehending that not all restructuring a business goes through must include a pay increase for staff.
The government should step in and nationalise the EPMU to protect this vital infrastructure from the union’s selfish obstructionism.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The principal issue it seems to me is that Telecom’s subsidiary is setting itself up as the monopoly purchaser for the proposed contractors.
The proper intervention by the Government would be to remove that monopoly. That may substantially reduce Telecom’s enthusiasm for this change.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Micky my father in law was an employee of an electricity lines company and was made a contractor. It was under a Labour government and he had to go through the stresses of setting up his onw business and not once did the EPMU or a Labour MP protest or ask the government to intervene. Nor did anybody from Labour ask for the government to intervene when ten years earlier also under a Labour government NZ Post turned his employment position into an independent contractor.
This is only an issue for the Labour Party because the EPMU will lose a lot of members when they become independent contractors. It is cronyism of the highest order.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Actually, Micky, the activities of the EPMU and Labour in this dispute are despicable. They are simply using the situation to advance a traditional style labour dispute model. Not for the benefit of the technicians involved, nor for the benefit of the nation as a whole, but only in order to retain the power of the unions and thus Labour. In almost a decade in power Labour has omitted to resolve the issues involved in a structural manner, all it now does is whining and moaning about the way it is now panning out. While one could agree that strategic infrastructure is something that would warrant some government involvement, it is extremely rich for Labour to now insist on this where they have for so long failed to grasp this nettle.
Vote:It is high time the current government makes clear what its strategy is so that an informed debate may be possible, but Labour is now only in the position to respond, not to take initiative, it’s hard for you, but learn to live with it.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The independent contractors who work really hard and have some nous will probably soon be employing other independent contractors – who will then run off and join the union again.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I haven’t followed it closely enough to be sure what is going on, although I did read Matt McCarten’s piece in the newspaper, and it was pretty clear that he was misrepresenting whatever was actually going on.
Looks to me like Telecom has decided not to employ people to do this job anymore, and instead to contract a company to do it. That company is choosing to use independent contractors rather than permanent employees. And it seems there are pretty close ties between the entities here, but I’m not sure that is illegal.
So what are the potential results here?
1. None of the employees decide to become independent contractors, and hence Telecom are screwed and have to hire these employees back. I’m OK with that
2. The deal offered as an independent contractor is enough to entice a decent proportion of the staff across, and the rest of them end up without a job. I’m OK with that
I’d guess that Telecom have worked out that when they provide all the tools, trucks etc etc, they are generally providing top of the range kit. And that if they take on independent contractors, they’ll probably use fit for purpose kit, and make a saving. Market power will then determine whether that saving ends up in the pockets of the contractors, or in the pockets of Telecom. Given that these independent contractors could presumably now also work for other telcos, its possible that Telecom don’t have enough market power to pocket all the gains.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Kimble
How about this analysis that the EPMU has done:
“This would mean these workers would have to front up with up to $60,000 to buy their own vans and equipment, set up limited liability companies and take on the financial risks associated with the industry. They’d also face a drop in income of up to 66%, have no negotiating power and be left with no employment rights.”
Tim
Actions of the Roger Douglas 4th Labour Government should not be held up as either being usual or desirable.
“This is only an issue for the Labour Party because the EPMU will lose a lot of members when they become independent contractors. It is cronyism of the highest order.”
It is an issue because for these workers their wages will go down and their job security will disappear. Of course the politicians should be involved. If they did not raise their concerns about this then I would wonder what they were there for.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Micky only one of those examples happened under the fourth Labour government. The other one happened under the last one, when Dr Cullen was finance minister and Ms Clark was Prime Minister. The EPMU didn’t intervene, and there wasn’t a single Labour Party MP calling for intervention. Like telecom, it was also an essential service: if your lines company breaks down, there isn’t any option for energy unless you’ve got your own wind turbine.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I know this sort of thing gets lost on many a self centric individual but…
Telecom operates in an environment where there is a shit storm coming in the form of wireless communications. Wire based communications are on the decline and companies that earn their living from it overseas are freaking out at their loss of market.
Vote:Telecom adapts or dies, it’s that simple. So some people going on about the good old days is all very nice for them but that world is shrinking, one way or another.
To borrow an analogy.. horse whip makers may have gone on strike after the new fangled automobile shrunk the market.. but ultimately their efforts were a waste of time. Things change.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Micky – they do not have to set up limited liability companies – they can work as self employed contractors if that’s what they want to do. Register for GST and off they go.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
PaulL – Telecom haven’t employed anyone to do this job for a long, long time. Prior to the re-letting of patch contracts, they were contracting to Downer and Transfield who employeed the field technicians. They have now introduced Visionstream (one of Telstra’s contractors) who use independent contractors rather than direct employees.
I understand that Downer are looking to introduce the same type of model for the Wellington patch that they are taking over from Transfield.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Tim
So let me get this right. You complain that Labour should have become involved more often and use this as justification that they should not be involved at all? Which is it.
Eddie at the Standard makes the very good point that Labour was formed to look after the interests of the workers so why should things change now. Also DPF’s claim that National stays out of industrial disputes is more than a little disingenouos.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“We’ve had more posts on Red Alert on this industrial dispute than almost any other issue. Forget the global recession.”
Seems to be a lot more attention and concern on Kiwiblog regarding the smacking issue than the recession.
I’m not saying I agree either the EPMU and Labour approach. But if a lot of employees are forced to become contractors it is a major change for them. Self employment works for some and not for others. Especially so in a shrinking market.
[DPF: This is not a blog for National MPs.]
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
‘Disingenuous’ is hardly sufficient. Mr Farrar presumably chooses to forget the Employment Contracts Act, designed to destroy organised labour, privilege managerial authority and socially engineer a lasting individualism in the New Zealand workplace. This was industrial involvement, boots and all. No, Mr Farrar, your chosen party is no innocent in these matters.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
No Micky I didn’t argue that the government should get involved more often, I pointed out examples where labour didn’t get involved, for no reason other than that the EPMU was not the union that would lose out. There is clearly in my view an incentive for Labour to make political capital out of this because the EPMU will lose members if the Telecom/VS proposals go ahead.
I don’t think the government should intervene in industrial disputes as a general rule. I don’t believe if we had a labour government, the government would be intervening in this case despite Labour calling for it now.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“…socially engineer a lasting individualism in the New Zealand workplace.’
I like being an individual, collectivism is for bees.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Mickey, these people don’t have a right to their job so stop your bleating as if they do.
It’s their attitude that has to change to lose this rights mentality and until it does their plight won’t improve.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I do have one problem, and this concerns the matter of immigrant workers employer by Telecom’s present contractors. These are the ones on work permits, who have not clocked up sufficient time for residency.
Visionstream has apparently indicated to such workers being laid off by Transfield, that if they do not take up the ‘self employed’ option with Visionstream, their work visas will be cancelled and they will be deported.
The question I ask is if having been made redundant and they cannot find alternative employment, their work permits should be cancelled anyway presuming that is the law and Labour Dept policy. Presumably they would lose the permits if they took up taxi ownership, so the same should apply if they set up a business to do what ever work Visionstream care to push their way. They are in the same situation as taxi drivers except they need some electrical knowledge and trade skills.
On an aside, I am not too sure that a hoarde of self employed subcontractors should be given swipe cards to get into telephone exchanges (these people need to enter exchanges to jumper the Main Distribution Frame for new connections and ADSL arrangements).
Also since there are potentially redundant workers of that category, surely the Labour Department should be closing that category to immigrants at least in the meantime.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Telecom are no longer the sole communications providers anymore. Large organisations and city centres have laid their own communications cables. Any forward thinking contractor would do well to branch out and service more than simply telecom. There is more business out there if you can go looking for it.
On another note, is there any other unions out there apart from the EPMU. The Labour party and the EPMU seem far too much blurred into one for my own comfort.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
One of the reasons I am not a Labour fan, is the parliamentary wing’s role as lobbyists for their union supporters.
The unions have institutional membership and voting rights within Labour.
Are you suggesting that workers should be denied the right to form a political party?
If business hasn’t got around to forming a political party of their own, that’s there look out.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hey umm Telecom is still a publicly listed company right? so the management is required to create wealth for the share holders right?
so why are labour insisting that telecom run an inefficiant business?
didnt labour destroy telecoms share price a while back? now they want to ensure it stays down? hmmmm
and 60k to buy a van and equipment? whats the ratio there? or do they have to have brand new vans?
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I can remember when the Nats were involved in industrial disputes all the time – they couldn’t settle unless Bill + Jim had a meeting in their office. And what was their stand on the recent Progressive enterprises action.
And for the record when Andrew sees us about EPMU business it is always quite clear – he makes an appointment and brings an EPMU staffer.
Anyway the idea that the Labour Party can’t take a proworker stance is just nonsense. In this case the future ability of Telecom to take part in the proposed broadband expansion (and whatever happened to that as a recession buster?) is placed at risk as well.
Great to see a good group of Labour MPs standing up for New Zealand workers.
[DPF: I;m sure Andrew always acts entirely appropriately. However the fact he chairs the committee that will decide if half the caucus stays in Parliament must ensure he rarely leaves disappointed]
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“Great to see a good group of Labour MPs standing up for New Zealand workers.”
It would be better to see them thinking about how to produce an efficient market for both workers and telecommunications. That would benefit all New Zealanders.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“And for the record when Andrew sees us about EPMU business it is always quite clear – he makes an appointment and brings an EPMU staffer.”
If the Chinese had a wall like that they would all be speaking Mongolian.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
“Eddie at the Standard makes the very good point that Labour was formed to look after the interests of the workers so why should things change now.”
Eddie at the Standard reckons having a political party play favourites with one section of the population is a good idea … if that party is Labour.
Eddie at the Standard loves himself a giant double standard, and he fair swoons at the idea of a political party being bought and paid for by his own special interest group.
Eddie at the Standard is so arrogant he thinks it is right for Labour to do what they have done simply by virtue of Labour doing what he thinks they should.
Eddie at the Standard is the sort of totalitarian, big government bully-boy that would starve the nation if given enough power.
Eddie at the Standard votes Labour.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Various comments made her have been from a neo-liberal stance, and while they are entitled to their opinions, the way things are going is just not ‘Kiwi’.
I am also mindful of the aborted telecom broadband rollout in the late 1990′s. Redundant people were persuaded to put their redundancy money into one man trust boring businesses purchasing machines at about $20k each. ADSL then made its debut and Dr Deane (Dr ‘Death’) and his team grossly overestimated its potential capabilities and pulled the plug on broadband leaving these subcontractors in the lurch. While they would have got no compensation under the black letter of their contracts, I recollect that they were able to obtain some compensation on the strength of implied promises of work.
In the present situation, employees are being expected to ‘convert’ to one-person subcontractors requiring an outlay of $60k (I would not be surprised if this includes 10-20k ‘goodwill’). In a reasonably liquid job market they could obtain new positions at comparable salaries or chose to go into business. What they are faced with here is a few hundred of them hitting a job market with very limited vacancies made worse because of the economic downturn. Their only option is to go into business entirely on the customer’s terms, which are what appear to be essentially like those of a 19th century industrial employment contract. In other words the sub-contracting is a sham, but no doubt passes muster with the law sufficiently to avoid enlivening the Employment Relations Act. Moreover if the prospective sub-contractors collude in order to force concessions out of the client, they could be pinged by the Commerce Commission for anti competitive behaviour. Employees who did similar in the 19th century soon found themselves with a one way ticket to Botany Bay complete with chains, optional extras being the cat or a spell on Fort Denniston (aka ‘Pinchgut’).
EPMU has trashed the proposed arrangements both legally and financially. While some of this could probably be taken with a pinch of salt, I suspect there is some genuine concerns with both aspects. For example the client is not bound to allocate work, which is effectively the ‘employment at will’ holy grail that employers and the Business Round Table seek. Suffice to say that the contracts are not being offered under normal market conditions, so they cannot be tested against the market.
This is why I say that they are not ‘Kiwi’. If National could garner lots neo-liberal support, then National can ignore it. However National needs to aim for just right of centre voters, and it is these people who could be outraged by such blatant attempts to end-run the Employment Relationships Act.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
David, your attitude towards this issue surprises me. As we discovered last year you are basically a communist when it comes to Telecom and were a willing cheerleader for the rape of shareholder value in Telecom by the last government.
As such I would expect you to join me and many other people in this country who have a sense of fair play and be condemning telecom and its Australian contractor for what is essentially holding a gun to the heads of the contractors.
For those making uninformed ideologically detemined comments on this subject I suggest you do a little research before broadcasting your stupidity all over the blogosphere.
I have seen one of these contracts, i have read all the information that the EPMU and Visionstream are producing to justify their respective positions and I have spent many hours with a couple of contractors based up here in kerikeri and seen first hand what this disgusting immoral situation is doing to them and their families.
These skilled technicians are being given a simple choice.
Accept a move to dependant contractor status, borrow a lot of money for the privilege and expect to enjoy minimum wage AT BEST
Or
Be sacked.
I am trying to support some people locally and am right behind the EPMU and Labour. I just wish that the labour party were less stupid and could actually get some decent publicity going around this.
Disclosure.
Vote:While I am not directly or indirectly employed by telecom or related to anybody who is either.. I am a human being with a sense of fair play. If that is a conflict of interest then you can all suck my hairy arse.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“Eddie at the Standard votes Labour.”
Ergo, Eddie at the Standard is a moron.
The Eddies of this world will never find fault in Labour and will obbey orders to the last detail. He and his ilk ought to be ignored.
Vote:August 24th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
this is a great post – and agree with him 100%
michael kerikeri says:
August 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm
@ Dimmocrazy.
You say:
“There is an existing network and there is another 1.5 billion arriving shortly to expand it. For heaven’s sake man, grab a hold of that opportunity instead of bickering about how things used to be, that’s in the past, now look to the future.”
Dimmocrazy:
You have been following & commenting on this debate for the last 7 weeks now and have read the countless times I and my fellow telco techs have mentioned that we have submitted written proof of the non viability of this “opportunity”.
In which part of this proof of the non viability do you reckon lies the oportunity?
Do you mean we must “grab the opportunity ” to go into voluntary bankruptcy? or legal slavery?
I fail to understand your refusal to accept our proven position on this issue.
You recklessly comment in ignorance on this blog but not once did you actually request to see this proof we have that this is NOT a viable opportunity. How stupid & foolish do you think we are.
Until you actually know what you are talking about, I respectfully suggest that you remain silent because your ignorant comments is now just plain amusing to us and we just shake our heads in utter disbelief. The word “troll” comes to mind with new meaning and understanding and I shall learn from Clare and actually ignore non constructive comments like yours and respond to the informed commentators only.
How you can still believe that after 7 weeks of protesting and after seeking professional advice in the initial stages of this “opportunity’s” presentation to us
that there is no grounds for our protest?
I must also correct you on another comment you made:
We are highly ethical individuals and have committed from the very beginning of our industrial protest action that all emergency services, hospitals,schools , doctors police etc will be kept in full working order in the event of failure. Maintaining public sympathy has nothing to do with it, just plain common sense & doing what is the humane thing to do under the circumstances.We are family men & women of compassion and understanding of right and wrong!
Again you comment on an issue (our ethics) that you have zero authority on but spread what can be a dangerous comment in our view.
Again… I must insist that you get all the info before you say anything about this issue.
Further… its not the epmu who decide what we must do but the members, ie the telco workers in this instance have decided to take industrial action after failing to get visionstream & telecom to willingly come to the negotiating table, so to claim that our approach is “dinosaur” is absolutely beyond my understanding.”We” the workers are the epmu or what ever union that may have been involved as the vehicle of our organised protest.
What would you have us do instead Dimmo? Let me guess…Grab the opportunity at bankruptcy no doubt? …because you clearly demonstrate countless times on this blog with your ignorant comments the “instant action” without thinking or seeking more information approach.
Finally, let me settle the argument of “hearsay” on John Carter’s comment for the rest…
I was a witness to this comment and it was directed to me.
So can we now move on & get to more constructive comments on how this can be resolved.
Be assured everything we claim can be proven! so please stop this continuous bickering on what is true and what is not etc etc. and help us find a workable solution.
As of today Monday 24th many telco workers in counties and north shore are officially unemployed!
Next friday 6th Sept, the next batch of telco workers are unemployed and the weeks after that its my turn together with the final group in the mid to far north!
Thats 950 telco workers gone!
We the unemployed and about to be are relying on your assistance and support to resolve this issue in your and our interests. Please stop wasting our precious time with senseless repetitive debating and politics as we have families to feed FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!
While you enjoyed your evening meal with your families this evening… many of us in counties & north shore are contemplating where our next meal will be coming from and so also the rest of us next week in the very very near future just 4 weeks from now.
sincerely yours
michael kerikeri
Ps: You all have no idea how stressed & exhausted we are.
Vote:Enjoy your meal!
August 24th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Michael, you have more support than you realise. I have always been shocked and amazed at the rank stupidity demonstrated by most left wing commenters on this blog. It saddens me to see similar traits in some of the right wing commenters as well.
Some of you lot need to take a step back and look at this situation without red or blue glasses.
This is not a quality of work issue, it is not a sudden change in the business environment that has created the need to slash costs. it is simply an attempt by telecom and Visionstream to move all the risk to the staff while stripping them of a decent income and job security.
This is the most disgusting assault I have seen on ordinary decent working people in the 21 years I have lived in NZ.
Russell Beaumont
Vote:Kerikeri
August 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
It seems fair that I also post here what I replied to Michael/Russel on the Red rag.
Sorry, Russel, but this is not about ‘rank stupidity’ in my view, it is a negotiation situation that has been politicized by those seeking to gain from doing that. I understand you have been privy to details of the financial aspects and details of the legal terms of the Visionstream proposal. All that is publicly available is a rather simplistic statement from an accountant in KeriKeri and the analysis from a barrister, which is not quite as condemning as suggested. You may consider to provide more detail so that people can inform themselves better, and perhaps even agree with you.
I will now shut up on this issue.
Dimmocrazy says:
August 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Terry, I don’t believe my views are out of this world, I simply come from a completely different angle on this. That is mainly because I simply don’t believe that any company would purposefully rip-off and deceive workers, especially not workers that are vital to its core infrastructure. That proposition simply does not make sense, unless 1) the infrastructure is not as core as it would seem; and/or 2)the workers are not as vital as they may assume; and/or 3)the current contractual situation is severely skewed to start with. Let us for now assume neither of these three scenarios apply.
From what I understand Telecom (through Chorus) has been going from 2 to 3 subcontractors for a 10-year contract. The background for that is no doubt that it not want to be hold over a barrel by any one of them.
I understand that at least one subcontractor (Visionstream) seeks to do exactly the same, it wishes to create a model whereby it cannot be held to ransom, for instance by a union.
In order to achieve that it has introduced a sub-sub contractor model, slightly akin to a franchise structure. This also has many other advantages, such as placing the incentives for efficiency at the right level.
It has proposed contract terms, both financial and legal.
I have read the opinion by the commercial barrister. What he says is effectively that further negotiations are necessary in respect of the terms as there are some wrinkles to be ironed out. I have also read the statement by an accountant from KeriKeri. That statements doesn’t say much other than that contractors should seek substantially more income than they receive now. I have not seen the actual contracts or the financial information or spreadsheets. There are many people who have seen the figures who vouch that the financial terms are very poor, if one accepts that this is so, one concludes that this is another point for negotiation.
I note that EPMU has put itself forward to negotiate on behalf of the technicians. I also note that EPMU is not interested to engage in discussion on the basis of the contractor model, but seeks to convert the matter in an old fashioned industrial dispute. The Labour party (the political arm of the EPMU) supports this positition.
Unsurprisingly, Visionstream nor Chorus, nor Telecom are enthusiastic to play ball with the EPMU. The EPMU has now engaged Labour to try and give this matter national attention and to try and move it into the parliamentary sphere, despite never resolving this long announced problem while it was in power. In other words, an attempt is made to make this a political matter.
The market position:
Telecom needs its network maintained, it has engaged in a 10 year, 3 billion contract to do so. Telecom is currently rolling out 3 million a DAY to expand its netwrok. The government has pledged to spend 1.5 billion over the next few years to expand the network. Large companies and organizations, councils etc are also installing and maintaining private networks. There will be a shortage in qualified engineers to do all this work.
The current position:
An old fashioned cloth cap industrial dispute with people throwing insults at one another. EPMU is doomed to lose this in the long term, as the model they base the dispute on is no longer relevant.
Conclusion:
Vote:The engineers have chosen the wrong representative for the this new type of dispute that they face, or EPMU has been playing its cards very badly, or both. It is simply inconceivable that there is no common ground and/or an organization model to resolve this. The only reason there is a dispute in my view is that Visionstream is likely to have ‘oversold’ its initial bid, while EPMU has gone into its old fashioned ‘trenches model’. The issue is now entrenched and escalating. I can almost guarantee that if the engineers would find themselves another common negotiator or force the EPMU to take another tack, this thing could be resolved in a few weeks.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:24 am
“It is an issue because for these workers their wages will go down and their job security will disappear. Of course the politicians should be involved. If they did not raise their concerns about this then I would wonder what they were there for.”
Why shouldnt wages be able to go down? Why does the government have to get involved? The truth is they dont. Labour and the EPMU needed some headlines and a good old industrial dispute is the dog whistle they needed. Listen to all the old socialists reminisce about the big strike of 76. Watch the HUMAN BEINGS working at Telecom get vilified and denigrated in the media, but its alright because they work for a big company and anyway, they’re probably all nasty National supporters so who cares?
It is a very small step from what you are saying to demanding that the government DO SOMETHING about prices going up! Nothing like a good price freeze eh?
Why not have the State play a role in all wage negotiations? Wouldnt that be a giant leap forward?
Vote:August 25th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Farrar said “I prefer political parties to focus on laws and policies, not to be taking sides in industrial disputes unless it reaches critical levels such as a nationwide strike.”
I say “But lets be honest, if Labour don’t play the lickspittle to the EPMU this parlimentary term they will get f*** all donations from the EPMU. That Telecom are trying to outsource some workers (in bullyboy fashion it would seem) is really an aside for Labour as all they really care about is retaining a) EPMU revenue b) union member support c) a media profile.
Perhaps Labour and the EPMU should help its members keep more wages in their pockets by cutting the tax they impose on their members.
Now theres a radical thought for the Labour activists to consider.
Vote:August 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am
. “If that is a conflict of interest then you can all suck my hairy arse”…
…aw please..Im tryin to eat my breakfast…
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I am one of the telco tech’s about to be made redundant. I have listened to both sides of the debate fully then gone back and crunched the numbers and I am around 20k better off under visionstream than under the current setup. I get quite upset how the EPMU spreads aroubd half truths about the visionstream model. I am looking into doing that model long term so I would have the large setup cost for the vehicle and tools but all the techs have the option of leasing thru visionstream at low rates and buying second hand tools, (there are plenty on e-bay) so they can go in low cost and if they don’t like it you can just walk off and the lease is their problem. Even under my higher cost idea, if they try to screw the setup I just walk away to do contracting like I would be anyway if I wasn’t doing this and they have just paid to setup my buiseness and got me 25% off the retail of the retail of the vehicle! under this system, If we don’t make money- neither do they then we leave and they are screwed. It will be a fundamental change to the job thinking about productivity, how many jobs can I do rather than have the 8 hours past so I can go home. If people would listen to both sides then make an informed decision that is fine, but to blindly follow an organisation such as the EPMU who are pushing thei own agenda is madness. if the visionstream model works and all the staff are happy the EPMU stand to loose over 300k a year in revenue $6.75x52wkx900 techs, thats not for accross the whole country either. They donate heavily to the labour party, I can’t remember the figures but it is significant!
Vote:September 30th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I think this issue needs to be revisited. Especially in light of cable guys comments above,
Vote: