Comments on: PSA & SWFU not to merge

By: KiwiGreg

KiwiGreg — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:07:30 +0000

LOL you may wish to change your login to “Notthoughtfulatalljust randomly posting trash talk on the internet”

By: somewhatthoughtful

somewhatthoughtful — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:49:03 +0000

““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

By: KiwiGreg

KiwiGreg — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:33:31 +0000

“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.

By: Brian Marshall

Brian Marshall — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:29:39 +0000

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.

By: KiwiGreg

KiwiGreg — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:11:04 +0000

@ Lipo No

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:00:02 +0000

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.

By: perfectvampire

perfectvampire — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:49:17 +0000

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/

By: perfectvampire

perfectvampire — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:41:23 +0000

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.

By: Lipo

Lipo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:10:43 +0000

Would a merger between the PSA and the SWFU be subject to commerce commission approval??

By: Biomag83

Biomag83 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:54:47 +0000

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

By: Buggerlugs

Buggerlugs — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:32:29 +0000

“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.

By: jabba

jabba — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:27:15 +0000

I thought the Geens joined up with a MOU with the SFWU?

By: side show bob

side show bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:57:10 +0000

Yes I know, merge not emerge.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:52:59 +0000

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.

By: Minnie

Minnie — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:12:38 +0000

Those names could not be regarded as great reasons for the SFWU to continue their affiliation with Labour. Particularly for the Labour party.

By: Loco Burro

Loco Burro — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:21:35 +0000

Service and Food Workers Union

By: nickb

nickb — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:56:36 +0000

Socialist Fuckwits Workers Union

By: GPT1

GPT1 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:51:29 +0000

Biggest irony is PSA claiming to want to remain neutral. Btw what does SFWU stand for?

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:50:59 +0000

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.