PSA & SWFU not to merge
Got forwarded an internal union e-mail. Have not seen this issue in the media. The e-mail says:
A message from Paula Scholes, PSA president PSA and SFWU to cease merger talks
The PSA and the SFWU have decided to stop discussing the potential for a merger between our two unions. The primary reason for doing so was the inability of both unions to reach sufficient agreement on the issue of political relationships and affiliations. Both unions have long standing and proud traditions on the issue of political relationships.
The SFWU has a long standing affiliation status with the Labour party, is this week signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Green Party and has explored a formal relationship with the Maori Party. The PSA has an equally strong commitment to remaining non affiliated and independent of political parties.
Both unions have looked at various alternatives to affiliation or non affiliation of the new union, but a jointly acceptable position has not been achieved.
Governance representatives of both unions met four times over the past few months exploring the concept of a merger.
Both unions agree that we have significant areas of common interest and will benefit from working even closer together in the future, especially in the health and NGO sectors. Our important joint campaigns in the disability sector will continue and other joint campaigns are likely to follow.
While it is disappointing that the potential benefits of a merger will not be realised, both unions remain committed to continuing our close and constructive relationship.
The openness with which our potential merger discussions have occurred has done much to strengthen our already close relationship.
Basically they are saying the merger didn’t happen because the SWFU refused to give up affiliation to the Labour Party. They get too many MPs through Labour, to give that up. Their MPs have included Taito Phllip Field, Dave Hereora, Lianne Dalziel and Darien Fenton.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
There’s been a bit of agitation in the SFWU to try and get the affiliation dropped. Unfortunately, the pro-Labour camp still has the numbers.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Biggest irony is PSA claiming to want to remain neutral. Btw what does SFWU stand for?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Socialist Fuckwits Workers Union
October 13th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Service and Food Workers Union
October 13th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Those names could not be regarded as great reasons for the SFWU to continue their affiliation with Labour. Particularly for the Labour party.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Of course they won’t emerge, not while the top dogs are firmly stuck on the tit of membership fees. Can you see any union officials sharing the spoils, this has nothing to do with politics and more to do with self preservation.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Yes I know, merge not emerge.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I thought the Geens joined up with a MOU with the SFWU?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“The PSA has an equally strong commitment to remaining non affiliated and independent of political parties.”
Yeah right, just like al-Qaeda is a pacifist organisation.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Those names arnt exactly hope for the future, especially Taito Phillip Filed.
The thing about unions is that they morph into being out for themselves rather than for thier members
October 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Would a merger between the PSA and the SWFU be subject to commerce commission approval??
October 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
So, this really comes down to a difference between association that is publicly declared, and association that is kept behind ‘closed doors’. Let noone be under the foolish illusion that the PSA is not affiliated with the Labour Party. Hmmm, Partnership For Quality anyone??? What a load of b******t.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Here is a fantastic visual representation of the unique ‘relationship’ the PSA developed with the previous Labour Government…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32238196@N05/3018605960/
October 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Remember, the relationship between the SFWU and the Labour Party is reciprocal. In 2005, the SFWU donated more to the Labour Party in cash and hours of work than anyone else in the trade union movement – much of which was not disclosed. The SFWU’s budget was blown out of the water, and of course, the SFWU’s members (who they say are some of NZ’s lowest paid workers) had to make up the deficit. The beneficiary of this was Darien Fenton. Wishart had all the numbers in Absolute Power.
Don’t forget too that the head honcho of the SFWU is Jill Ovens – the parther of our old friend “Megaphone Len” Richards.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@ Lipo No
October 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I’m a PSA member and also delegate. I’m also a lot more to the right than most PSA delegates.
But like the public service as a whole, the PSA membership reflect the government employees which reflect the public as a whole.
I was not alone in concerns about the proposed merger and much relieved to see it not going ahead. The leadership seems to follow the private sector unions examples of wailiing about anything not in the favour of the staff rather than actually seeking to constructively deal with the govenrment as a public service union should. We (the union) has to deal with what ever government is in power at the time and it’s better to work to the same goal where we can, but don’t seem to be able to.
lastly Perfectvampire, you are liar and a dork. The PSA rules prevent ANY support or funding of political parties. If you have evidence other than some 20 second mock up of direct funding, lets see it…
The partnership for Quality is an agreement with the previous government about working together. The PSA did try and get a new agreement with the new government also, but the agreement was not receiprecated. More the shame as if you actually read it, you’ll realise that the goals of working together to achieve the end results is a win win situation.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
“But like the public service as a whole, the PSA membership reflect the government employees which reflect the public as a whole.”
No it’s not. People who choose to work in the public service may or may not (I’m with may not) be representative of the general workforce but people who join unions are definately not.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
““But like the public service as a whole, the PSA membership reflect the government employees which reflect the public as a whole.”
No it’s not. People who choose to work in the public service may or may not (I’m with may not) be representative of the general workforce but people who join unions are definately not.”
Fool. why do you have to go and stay idiotic shit like that? Got anything (at all) to back that up? Of course not. Oh and it’s spelt definitely
October 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
LOL you may wish to change your login to “Notthoughtfulatalljust randomly posting trash talk on the internet”