Another “worker’ who happens to be a Labour activist
August 16th, 2010 at 8:10 pm by David FarrarDarien Fenton blogs a CTU video about the evil and oppressive 90 day trial law, quoting a “Florence Coen” who says she got sacked for no reason after 85 days in a job – possibly because she suggested the owner should not play a christian radio station at work.
We don’t know the employer’s side of the story, as they were not interviewed. What we do know, is that Florence Cohen (let us presume they made a typo” is a Labour Party activist.
Now this does not mean Florence’s version of what happened is not correct. But the failure to identify her as a Labour activist is significant, considering the Labour Party is campaigning to get rid of the law, and this means an activist is hardly someone unbiased.
In the comments Trevor Mallard tries to spin this as:
Lots of people join political parties after being treated unfairly. Good on you Florence.
Sadly for Trevor, the Labour site shows Florence joining in April 2009, and the law only came into force in March 2009, so it is impossible for Florence to have only joined Labour after a dismissal at the end of a 90 day probationary period under the new law.
I want to stress that I think Florence comes across well on the video, and I am not disputing she may have had a negative experience under this law. I don’t want people attacking a 17 year old who may have done nothing wrong.
My criticism is of the CTU for not doing full disclosure. Being a partisan activist is relevant information if you are put forward as a “victim” of a law your party strongly opposes.
Related posts:
- How has the average worker done under Labour?
- EPMU sacks Shaun Tan
- Labour MPs
- How many staff sacked by Labour under the parliamentary permament probation period
August 16th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Darien Fenton says:
August 16, 2010 at 6:05 pm
@rightyleftout : Sorry, this is a CTU video, not a Labour video and even if she is a member (which I don’t know) – so what? FFS she’s a school girl! Have you checked out the Heather video as closely for her membership? Are you saying that workers’ experiences should be discounted because somehow they’ve decided they want to be involved with a political Party, or for that matter a union, or the CTU, which are quite distinct organisations from the Labour Party? Does that work both ways, because if it does, I can find heaps of “political stunts” from the righty side of the fence. Truth is, the NACts actions are recruiting flat out for unions and Labour at the moment with their dumb law changes – and it won’t be school kids – it will be their mums and dads and their families, come the extension to all workplaces
Nice
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Ah so the left recruit school children so that any critique can be thrown back as adult brutality. Nasty stuff, but not unexpected.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Another naive kid being influenced and used by the left’s propagandists. They love inducing politically unaware children into their sick socialist cult. Its a lot easier than convincing worldly experienced and politically aware adults that leftism is any kind of rational and beneficial ideology.
Shame too that they had to use her in such a deceitful way. But that is the left for you. No morality. The end justifies the means.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Florence has done nothing wrong other than not realising she has become a ‘puppet’ of Darien Fenton and the rest of the mindbenders. So sad.
Vote:Now did Florence go back and confront the Employer, or just make sure the Liabore Party found out?
August 16th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
so why is the word worker in quotation marks?
[DPF: Just to highlight that is how she was marketed, rather than as a Labour activist]
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I suspect the CTU were deliberately spelling her name wrong so that she wouldn’t be linked to Grassroots Labour. They must think we and the public are bloody stupid.
She is a Labour Party member and probably jumped at the idea that she would be used for some anti National propaganda. All kids would be thrilled to be used by an organisation/minister that they look up to if it meant they would have access to seeing all the “important people”.
The CTU and Labour don’t have a clue about the 90 day law. It’s working very well throughout the rest of the world.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
If she was dismissed for disagreeing with her employer about a christian radio station playing, she may still be able to bring a personal grievance under the human rights act 1993.
The 90 day law doesn’t apply to the anti-discriminatory portions of that act.
I know someone who was dismissed just after 60 days of his employment with a small employer – his agreement included a 90 day probation period. The only problem for his employers was that they explicitly (in writing) told him that they were dismissing him because of his mental illness – he suffers from bi-polar depression.
That was a dumb move on behalf of the employer.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
oh, and it’s those nasty ‘Christians’ to blame again. I wonder.. did she show up to work on time? Did she do what was expected of her in the role? Did she verbally abuse the boss? (Not an unusual event I’m assured by my teenage kids…). Ah, all too hard. Let’s blame it on Christian intolerance and go for the all bigotry/hatred we can muster.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
And I thought Unions were against Child Labour.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
@DPF – “My criticism is of the CTU for not doing full disclosure.”
Expecting truth and straightforwardness from the CTU?????
Whatever next??
Flying pigs – or bulls carting around their own china shops!!!
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
@Doug – Enslave the mind and the body follows.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Religious music – particular Christian music, which I cannot help but recognise as such – in shops always makes me very uncomforable. I tend to walk out of shops that play it. If I were working in a shop that played it, I’d be a disruptive force and worth dismissing.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Just hilarious, Fenton doesn’t even see what the big deal is…
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
@francis – that is your right, just as it is the right of the shop owner to play whatever music he/she feels is appropriate. I’ve walked out of shops before on account of screamo/abusive-lyric music playing. This shop is in Waikanae, and Waikanae has one of the highest average-age populations of any area in NZ. If the shop owner wants to play hymns then good on him.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Just as a matter of interest. What is the legal status of an emplyment contract with a 17 year old? Its my understanding that minors cannot enter into legally enforeable contracts. So surely anyone under 18 cannot have a binding contract in any rate? Or is there exceptions for employment contracts, since every worker must have one?
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
@Hagues – My daughter informs me that the age break is 16
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Thanks
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
The Standard and Red Alert are busy fighting Fires on this subject they are not making much headway.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
The Labour Party’s discrimination against TORIES is legendary. I am surprised the employer tolerated the trade union slag for 85 days. I would have fired her within 24 hours of finding out her background and attitudes. Calling a trade union activist a “worker” is surely a joke. These people don’t work. They plot and scheme all day long. And they HATE Tories.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
My criticism is of the CTU for not doing full disclosure. Being a partisan activist is relevant information if you are put forward as a “victim” of a law your party strongly opposes.
I absolutely agree, David, in the interests of full disclosure would you please state what your earnings have been from National party, National party-related and government contracts in the last financial year?
[DPF: Read my extensive disclosure statement. And I love the hypocrisy fo someone who is too cowardly to even reveal their name, demanding disclosure from anyone]
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The Standard and Labour must surely be on the same server both bloody slow at the same time.
Vote:Labour = Standard
August 16th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Bad form by CTU and Labour Party. But that does nothing to validate or invalidate the substance of the story. (Such as there is ATM.)
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
“I absolutely agree, David, in the interests of full disclosure would you please state what your earnings have been from National party, National party-related and government contracts in the last financial year?”
If you think this is a logical parallel you’re really just demonstrating the gross intellectual bankruptcy of the demented left. Not that there was any need for any further demonstration of that.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
If you think this is a logical parallel you’re really just demonstrating the gross intellectual bankruptcy of the demented left.
Could you please explain why this isn’t a logical parallel?
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
^^^ Ferdinand, a Labour Pawn with vehement denials is nothing whatsoever like a National cheerleader with vehement denials. Please try to keep up dear.
The wrong comes when the commission of it is by the evil left, everything that they touch gets infected with nasty left germs. That’s the difference.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
I’m a little (no pun intended) disconcerted by the labelling of this young girl as a “party activist” when all she did was join the party.
So in today’s world, mere membership of an organisation is synonymous with activism?
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
“Could you please explain why this isn’t a logical parallel?”
Must I? I’m appalled that you don’t get it.
For one thing Mr. Farrar makes no secret of his political affiliations and never has. Red Alert on the other hand, at first tried to conceal the fact that this person was a Labour activist.
Secondly, you seem to equate the embarrassing disclosure of this person’s connections to Labour with a need for Mr. Farrar to disclose his income. Nobody would be under any obligation, moral or otherwise to do this, merely because Labour had been found out trying to pull a swifty. And given Mr. Farrar’s completely open acknowledgement, why the hell would his income matter anyway.
The whole comment seems to me to be completely lacking in any logical approach.
(I’ve yet to see anything on any Labour blog as honest and open as Mr. Farrar’s “Disclosure Statement”. Head over to the Standard and see if you can find anything even remotely similar)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Have you all seen the two silly bints “let go”? They are utterly unemployable and hardly poster children for the “workers’ movement”. They are unemployable Labour Party activists. Now we are no doubt paying them benefits.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Ah well, RP, I guess that just goes to show there is natural justice, after all.
Vote:August 16th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Like Rochelle Rees? Another stool pidgeon used and abused by all and sundry. They just love setting their cadre up for a fall.
The ends always justifies the means with the communist Borg.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 3:25 am
She isn’t just a kid who joined Labour when she was 15/16 – she is in with Grassroots Labour, which means she has to be in a little deeper than your ordinary kid that joins a political party. I suspect the CTU would have asked young Labour members if they had been let go for any reason and thought by spelling her name wrong, that the public was too dumb to figure it out.
I mean who joins a political party when they are 15 years old?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 7:08 am
It seems to me unlikely that the CTU considers it relevant what a persons political affiliation is as to them being unfairly dismissed and even if it did they are making a short film about her and would only include what was most important to save time. From my understanding of it this has been very much Hellen Kelly’s campaign and while she of course welcomes Labour’s support they would not have exactly been conniving to find activists for her. It may be that she was found through those connections though given union members and Labour party members have a lot of cross-over but I don’t think he being a member of Labour really makes a difference unless she was a strong activist. If you can point to her at the front of a protest or in any form of leadership position in either a union/Labour then I don’t see it being relevant myself.
@Clint there are plenty of 15 year old members and there were even more during the election campaign which appears to be around when she joined. This does not indicate they are active members. Also yes she is on grassroots Labour have you also noticed she has one friend on it and never posted a comment? That looks like a very busy activist to me.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 8:02 am
DPF week after week I hear you on Radio NZ pretending to be neutral when your main source of income is the National Party – or more accurately taxpayers funds controlled by the National Party. Don’t think you are on moral high ground here.
[DPF: Trevor - I am not on Radio NZ week after week. Around once per month I am one of around 40 - 50 people who does a spot on The Panel, and I doubt anyone doesn't know I am from the centre-right.
I have a company that provide commercial services to dozens of clients, including those whose politics I disagree with. Being a client doesn't mean you get exempt from criticism by me on Kiwiblog or in the media. In fact your own leader has quoted me in the House at least twice in my criticisms of the Government.]
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Mallard, this thread is about your bullshit.
So what’s your take on the 15 % cost of living hike arising from National’s GST increase?
More lies, more deceit, more of the same.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 8:45 am
There is no story here. 90 day trials are optional. They both agreed to it. Eveything else irrelevent.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 9:44 am
She quotes that the employer changed the radio station to a christian one. But why did they have to do it? It sounds like she’d changed to something else without asking, and only after she was caught tried to justify it (and made it clear she thought her choice as superior). Sounds like a potential attitude issue to me.
But most disgusting is the spin at the end “no one else will have me”. Oh gosh, she’s now being blacklisted!!! Um, or it could simply be that it’s a tough labour market like it is for everyone else.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Nice smack down on Trevor. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”
Vote:Never let the facts get in the way of a nice story eh Trev?
August 17th, 2010 at 10:19 am
I think Trevor just smacked himself down.
At least hes keeping his hands to himself for a change.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Originally posted by Forum user T. Mallard:
BOOM! This needs way more discussion. We hear so much about the trough on this website, I hope all the moral outrage is justified.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Oh fuck off you tool. More like [paff] yeah and?
The fuckwittery of the left is limitless.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 10:29 am
FRANCIS…Like Florence it will more than likely be your conscience or subconscious that makes you so uncomfortable when you hear Christian music. Go to church a few times and you shall overcome.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Whatever Catapult. You’ll notice the “main source of income” claim wasn’t refuted. You scream blue murder at any and all use of taxpayer funds by the left, it is all further evidence of their corruption. Amazing how the one-eyed love to accuse everybody else.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:43 am
@ RRM
Why does the fact that DPF’s company has commercial dealings with both the State and the National Party ‘needs way more discussion’?
Surely this information has been freely available to anyone interested in this subject for ages, as DPF has already mentioned.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Ironic that Trevor Mallard is so concerned about the use of taxpayer fund. How does he feel about the use of taxpayer funds on a brochure from his own leader’s office which is full of half-truths?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Further to my question to you RRM,
Brian Edwards has a blog AND has also been involved in providing services to various people involved with the Labour Party. I’m not sure if he has ever been involved in providing services to State employees but it isn’t inconceivable that he has. In fact the details of his company background states the following “…and spokespeople from all sectors of society” which I presume also means the Government sector.
Yet I see nothing on his website which sets down his links to any political party and/or previous state contracts. Do you have as big an issue with this as you and Trevor seem to have with DPF?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I’m still looking for evidence that this kid was fired under the optional 90 day law. She may well have been fired within this 90 day period, but not under the 90 day law. In which case she could take a PG case.
Even if she had been fired under the 90 day law, it would be interesting to see this tested in court.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Trevor Mallard: …. or more accurately taxpayers funds controlled by the National Party.
Oh can the faux outrage – if only your corrupt lot were that concerned with “taxpayer funds” when you were in government.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 11:57 am
So in today’s world, mere membership of an organisation is synonymous with activism?
Well Luc, I would argue that most normal people wouldn’t join a political party as they typically have more important things on their minds – like mowing the lawn… picking their nose…
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
This is just standard Stalinist strategy. Caught out in a lie, the left raise false allegations to try and distract from their own chicanery and discredit those who have exposed them. The left are amoral scum who will do anything in their pursuit of power. This issue is as good an example of that truism as one could hope for. Do not ever forget what they really are.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Actually Redbaiter, as DPF has pointed out, there isn’t necessarily a ‘lie’ here. This person may very well have been dismissed unfairly. What it is an issue of is proper disclosure of the linkages the person making the complaint has with political parties who are against the Government policy.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I2
“How does he feel about the use of taxpayer funds on a brochure from his own leader’s office which is full of half-truths?”
Quite good I imagine I2. SOP for the slime brigade.
But are you sure they were only half-truths? Surely in context they are a deliberate “mis-speak”.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Gosman @ 11:47 – This is not Bryan Edwards’ blog and we are not commenting in a discussion thread of his. Do you see therefore why I haven’t mentioned him?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
RRM: Gosman @ 11:47 – This is not Bryan Edwards’ blog and we are not commenting in a discussion thread of his. Do you see therefore why I haven’t mentioned him?
So you mean its not because your ideologically blinded to the failings of the side you support….
OK, don’t worry – we believe you.
Guys, its simple – if you are completely unaware of DPF’s political affiliations and leanings, then you seriously need to start paying more attention.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Not being the political junkie like most on here I’m confused.
Every one of these videos I’ve seen has involved smallish companies. Less than 20 employees.
Now I thought they already had the 90 provisions and the current proposals only extend that to all companies.
Is this like protesting .08 because they propose reducing it to .05?
Educate me please.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Nice try at evasion there RRM.
The fact is you and Trevor seem to have a certain amount of double standards when it comes to Bloggers setting out their potential areas of bias and conflict of interest.
DPF at least sets out many of his on this blog whereas someone like Bryan Edwards fails to disclose any. Not that this is a problem. Anybody with a bit of nounce knows Bryan Edwards and his media company is particularly close to the Labour Party. Just as anybody with a modicum of intelligence is aware of DPF political view points and links to the National party.
What I find interesting is that you think this issue ‘‘needs way more discussion’. You haven’t made a very persuassive case for this.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@ redeye,
The other thing is that because the Union’s are essentially campaigning against the 90 day trial period for small businesses, not just the extension to all businesses, they are essentially stating they are anti-democratic as the National Party specifically stated this as policy during the last election.
National should haul them over the coals on this fact alone. Ask whether or not the Unions believe the electors of New Zealand are entitled to have the policies enacted that they voted for.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
No, the evasion is trying to make this about Bryan Edwards, who is not involved in this discussion, instead of DPF who is.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Yet you fail once again to explain why this issue ‘needs way more discussion’.
Why is this RRM? Is it because your and Trevor’s issue with DPF’s links to National is essentially a red hering you both are using to try and deflect from the very valid point raised by DPF in this post?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
No, DPF is exactly right in what he said.
Judging by DPF response, appears Mallard may well be right in what he said too.
If so then DPF criticism of all kinds of political party spending would start to look a bit rich don’t you think?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
“Actually Redbaiter, as DPF has pointed out, there isn’t necessarily a ‘lie’ here.”
Ok, so Mallard’s claim that she had joined up after her dismissal was just an honest mistake. Yeah right.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue. I suspect he isn’t a hundred percent over the ins and outs of it as the campaign is driven mainly by the Union movement.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@ RRM.
You still haven’t explained why exactly DPF’s links to the National party and any work his company might perform for state agencies needs way more discussion.
Why are you having so much difficulty articulating your position on this?
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I thought I was pretty succinct on that Gosman. As I said
It’s not the political alliegencies (already well disclosed as you say) it’s the Mallard comment about taxpayer funding that intrigues me.
But if you won’t see what you don’t want to see, there’s no point trying to make it easy for you.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Mallards comment is just muck raking DPF’s reputation by implying his business has been getting contracts off the state due to his National Party connections.
I would suggest it is dangerously close to libel and doesn’t warrant ANY further discussion. That is unless you and/or Trevor wishes to produce hard facts and are willing to defend them in a court of law.
As stated it would be like someone impugning Brian Edwards professional reputation because of his links with Labour. Just as silly, pointless, and potentially libellous.
Vote:August 17th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Actually re-reading Trevor Mallard’s comment, I think his point was that the polling DPF’s business does for the National party is really state funded. Kind of a bit rich given that Labour also pays commercial polling company partially via funding they receive from the tax payer.
Vote: