EPMU apologises to Shaun Tan
The EPMU has published the following:
Mr Tan was employed by the EPMU from March to September 2008. From September 2008 until September 2009 the union had available on its website personal information about Mr Tan arising from his employment.
The union accepts it was wrong and in breach of Mr Tan’s privacy rights to have placed such information on its website and unreservedly apologises to Mr Tan for having done so and any embarrassment caused to him as a result.
Both parties regret the way the employment relationship ended.
Always amusing when a union acts in a way, that they decry other employers doing. But good to see the grievance has been resolved.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: EPMU, Shaun Tan
March 11th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
So do they regret their appalling mistreatment of an employee, or just that they put some info on the site they shouldn’t have ?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
They regret having to make a statement.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Yes certianly feels like a Helen Clarkian “I’m sorry I got caught not that I did it” sort of apology.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
And in other news, Hitler has just issued a full, heartfelt and unreserved apology for not returning a libray book once
March 11th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I’m no fan of unions, but does this make the case for a union for union workers?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
One does wonder what would have gone in if this had made it to court, and what the union were trying to hide in coming to this arrangement eh..
March 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Is Tan the guy who was sacked for supporting ACT?
I’m shocked that any employer would sack a staff member for their political beliefs. There is definitely a need for a union to protect workers against unions.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Tan was an idiot.
He spent work time and used his EPMU email account to further ACT activities. All the EPMU did was choose to put on the web information contained in its server.
The apology has all the hallmarks of a lets get this matter finished deal. I am sure that hard earned workers money was not paid out.
[DPF: Why don't you ask the EPMU?]
March 11th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
mickysavage,
There are dozens of documented examples of EPMU staff using EPMU facilities (email accounts etc) for campaigning on behalf of the Labour Party.
The only difference is that Tan’s an ACT member, not Labour. I take it you didn’t read the reaction of EPMU officials when Tan told them he wanted to stand for ACT (something he is legally within his rights to do)? Particularly when they permitted a staffer to stand for Labour?
The double standard here was disgusting – the EPMU were prejudiced based on Tan’s political beliefs, pure and simple.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Vinick
The “double standard” is because one partyis hell bent on the destruction of legal protection that workers have built up over the last 100 years and the other party wants to preserve it.
Doesn’t an employer have the right to allow its workers to engage in political activity during working hours but also have the right to refuse to allow it? Are you saying that workers should also have the right to work for the KKK and the National Front during work time????
March 11th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Nice Mickey boy, take it to the gutter with you’re KKK tar’n'feather smears.
Next you’ll be joining your mate from ECAN calling people Nazi’s
March 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
so mickey, what you are saying is that its complety ok for me to allow my staff to campaign on behalf of Act, but if any of tem decide to do anything for the greens or labour i can fire them?
just checking is all, that you are condoning double standards for employers.
thats what you are doing right?
March 11th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Grendel
If you permit your employees during work time to do work for ACT knock yourself out.
It is about an employer deciding to allow employees to perform non work activities. If it is explicitly permitted then why not. If an employee thinks that he can work for ACT during EPMU time then he is an idiot.
It is not a double standard. It is an exercise of employer prerogative.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
That’s a fair call mickey, re: employers having discretion over non-work activities. I think there’s also the view that a precedent has been established by EPMU giving the other employees the time to do work for Labour, and that broadly those other employees are unfairly advantaged over Tan.
In all honesty I agree with your approach though, as if the reverse situation were to happen I’d certainly be defending the employer.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
The funding arm of the Labour party has the same traits as the political arm – It’s OK when they do it!
March 11th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
No Burt
Let me be clear.
If a used car sales yard wants its employees to go out and deliver ACT pamphlets during their work time and they are happy to do it that is fine.
But for Tan to think that he can do ACT stuff during EPMU time and using an EPMU email without permission is, well, I am glad he is not an MP because he would have decreased the average right wing MP IQ even further.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“The “double standard” is because one partyis hell bent on the destruction of legal protection that workers have built up over the last 100 years and the other party wants to preserve it.”
Translation: One party ,ACT ,wants to end state backed gun barrel privileges betowed on certain groups in exchange for votes and campaign support while the other,Labour, want’s the reverse because they are low down socialist scum who love setting some citizens against others for their own gain.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
mickysavage
Yes you should be clear – the union acted like emotional muppets and behaved in a way that they would condemn other employers for. But it was OK because it was a branch of the Labour party doing it. Now they apologise, which is good because the political arm of the party has no concept of why that is important.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
burt
I cannot believe there is a debate about this. I will rephrase myself with very short words.
If a boss wants to allow his staff to do political stuff during their working day then fine by him.
If a boss does not want to allow his staff to do political stuff during their working day then they should not.
The EPMU will never never allow an employee to do ACT political stuff because ACT want to destroy the EPMU. This is not unreasonable.
I thought it was funny. Tan used his EPMU email to do ACT stuff. The EPMU owned the emails. Why shouldn’t they put it up on the web.
So if a socialist is that stupid they would use the email of their job at a used car sales yard for leftie purposes they should suffer the same fate.
James. How do I say this? The certain groups you talk about are on the bottom of the pile, not the top. You should get out more.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
mickysavage
The funding arm of the Labour party spat their dummy when one of their employees was doing stuff for another political party. Simple – they acted like emotional muppets and behaved in ways that they claim to protect people from – but it was OK because it was a branch of the Labour party – clearly it was OK by you or you wouldn’t be defending them.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Burt
There is no protection. If you as an employee do shit that is not work related and is not authorised by your boss they you may lose your job.
The EPMU does not protect workers from doing stuff they should not be doing while at work unless the boss authorises it.
Why is there this debate? I thought you guys would be happy about the boss exercising managerial prerogative …
March 11th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
mickysavage
There is this debate because the EPMU apologised. The political arm of the Labour party has no concept of such things, this is why you don’t understand why there is this debate.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I hate having to agree with MickeySavage, but I think he’s right.
If an employer chooses to allow a staff member to undertake political campaigning on work time or using work resources (i.e. the employer is funding political campaigning) then that is their perogative. But an employee cannot assume that right unless the employer has a clear policy of permitting that.
I’m pretty sure that Tan is an idiot, and he pushed the boundary too far. If he’d just stood for ACT, not used any work time or any work resources, I’m pretty sure the EPMU would still have fired him. And he would have had a clear cut case.
On the flip side, the EPMU are not squeaky clean here:
– they had a clear policy of allowing staff members to do work for political parties in work time, and hadn’t been clear that it was forbidden to do the same with ACT (I suspect they never even considered someone would of their own free will do work for ACT)
– they published personal stuff from his e-mail on their web server. If some other employer published personal e-mails that someone had received on their work e-mail address, they’d still be pilloried. Hell, lots of people have office romances using work e-mail. Would it be OK to publish those on the web?
– they also tried to tell him that standing for ACT was incompatible with his job – although they eventually backed off that one and found another reason to fire him. If they had fired him just for standing for ACT, that would have been illegal.
Bottom line, unions are some of the worst employers in the country. The same way that Kevin Rudd, champion of the workers, makes his staff work enormous hours. The same way that Brown in the UK, champion of the workers, treats his staff like shit. No surprises here, it’s easy to set lofty sounding goals about how other people should behave, much harder to live up to them yourself.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:42 am
How does that work when the boss is also working for a political party? You can’t say with a straight face that Andrew Little does nothing for Labour when he has his EPMU hat on. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
While Shawn was being victimised, Ross Teppett was allowed to run all hoardings for Labour Wellington Central candidate Grant Robertson and Jills Angus-Burney – the EPMU’s Wellington Solicitor (and member of Grassroots Labour) was also the electorate candidate for Rangitikei.
Mickey, Fess up. ACT wouldn’t hurt workers, but it would damage your buddies in the unions. Be honest. Your union buddies bullied an employee for having political opinions that differed from theirs. Normally the EPMU would be raising a shitstorm – but because it was their organisation being challenged they tried to smear Shawn professionally and personally.
Thank goodness there has been a “resolution”, whatever that is. I doubt anything has been learned from all this, and I am wondering if this is going to happen if Andrew Litter ever becomes leader of Labour.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Clint, it is the employers right to let, or not let, people work during work time for particular political parties. Just like if you donate money to Labour, it isn’t OK for me to go steal some of your money and give it to ACT, and then say “but since you donated to Labour, I thought that meant you wanted to give money to all political parties.”
They had no right whatsoever to try to control what he did in his own personal time, and my recollection is they tried to do this as well.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Shall I rephrase the issue slightly.
If your employer chooses to allow you to practice your Morris Dancing during work time then that is his or her prerogative.
If your employer chooses not to allow you to practice your tango dancing during work time then that is also his or her prerogative.
If you practice your tango dancing during work time and do not get your employer’s consent then you are in trouble.
And if you are dumb enough to use a Union mail server to send round ACT propaganda then you are stupid.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Is there a strong Morris Dancing culture at the EPMU Mickey?
March 12th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
mickysavage
I agree, the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. I’m just surprised to see unions standing by that principle.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
mickysavage
Just look at you, a hard line campigner for employers having the right to sack staff that do things that personally offend the management. Go you hard line righty….
March 13th, 2010 at 12:10 am
mickeysavage – “And if you are dumb enough to use a Union mail server to send round ACT propaganda then you are stupid”"
But it’s perfectly ok to send round Labour propaganda… of course. I get the doublespeak.