EPMU wants taxpayer funding

February 15th, 2011 at 2:07 pm by David Farrar

The EPMU has done a release saying:

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (), which is the union that represents miners, is calling on the government to provide support for its legal representation in the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The call follows the government’s announcement it will now fund families’ and contractors’ legal representation costs to allow them to participate in the inquiry.

The EPMU has around $13 million of assets and a turnover of around $12 million a year. They are in a totally different situation to individual famuilies and contractors. A legal bill of say $100,000 is a mere 1% of the EPMU’s annual turnover, yet would bankrupt many contractors and be well beyond what a West Coast family could afford.

Incidentially the EPMU has skilled in house lawyers such as their national secretary. If he wasn’t so busy running the Labour Party and running for Parliament, perhaps he could represent the EPMU at the Royal Commission hearings as part of his job.

It is of course up to the EPMU how they decide to interact with the Royal Commission, but if they start to ask for taxpayer funding, them we get the right to have a view on that.

Tags: ,

136 Responses to “EPMU wants taxpayer funding”

  1. Manolo (13,325 comments) says:

    Bloody socialist unionists and their culture of entitlement. Stuff them, I’d say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Michael (894 comments) says:

    Is Pike River Coal getting funding for it’s lawyers? Or the Coal Miners Company association (if one exists)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RightNow (6,645 comments) says:

    Wow, and here I was thinking unions collected fees off their members specifically to fund such things as legal representation. Perhaps they spent it all on HSV’s and electioneering. Let them beg, or better still let them beg off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    Yes David, but it’s an election year and they need their $13 million to fund the campaign of their propaganda wing their Liarbore party lapdogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. freedom101 (462 comments) says:

    How does the government still give unions to assist with ERA training? These payments were introduced by Labour with a view to ensuring that the unions would be able to afford to spend time and resources on helping Labour in general election campaigns.

    If the government is looking for savings then I’d cut this out immediately. It has the benefit of not losing any National party votes!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. coventry (315 comments) says:

    “Why else would our members be left to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to allow the union to participate in a Royal Commission of Inquiry in which it is imperative to represent its members’ health and safety interests?”

    Dear Mr Three Hats Little,

    We have evaluated your proposal and have come to a unanimous conclusion – F’ck off.

    Yours sincerely,
    The NZ Tax Payers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Matt (223 comments) says:

    The government should take the opportunity to nationalise the EPMU. After all, they seem to be in need of government funding, so may as well make it official, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Grizz (500 comments) says:

    Two words for the EPMU: Foxtrot Oscar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (6,313 comments) says:

    Go get ‘em DPF!

    I used to notice that Little and his cohorts always had Corporate Cabs uplift them from the airport…some us just caught whatever cab was on the rank…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    the cheek of it .. using a tragedy like this to try and make the Nats look bad over such funding .. get stuffed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    How did you spend so long in the house and not end up punching Mallard?

    You must have amazing powers of self control :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    and if Labour gets in…..they’ll get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    Just so I am clear; it is OK for the government to pay millions toward the ‘rescue’ costs because the company that owned Pike River put itself into receivership and it’s OK for the government to pay millions for various inquirers to find out what went wrong and it’s OK for the government to pay the legal fees for the miners at these inquirers BUT it is not OK for the government to help out the EPMU because they are a union and unions are evil.

    Is that the logic here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    YesWeDid

    Yep, for once you have got something right.

    Do you have a problem with that at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Conservatives hate unions. They like Chambers of Commerece, Manufacturers Associations, Law societies, but they hate unions with a mindless, ever pervasive hate.

    No rightwinger has ever been able to explain why. They just do, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Wow, Garrett, it is possible for you to get any more petty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (7,582 comments) says:

    It’s just a normao part of modern society.

    I want something I stick my hand out and hope some one ,any one will fund it.

    No question of whether it’s the right or moral thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (13,325 comments) says:

    Progressives love unions. They like committees, politburos, syndicates, gangs, worker councils, but they hate Chambers of Commerce, Manufacturer’s associations, Law Societies with a mindless, ever pervasive hate.

    No leftwinger has ever been able to explain why. They just do, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Of course conservatives hate unions, they’re dishonest bullies with the principles of cats on heat. Lying cheating and stealing is just another day at the office for the likes of the union bosses who think its ok to get paid for multiples jobs at once even though they can’t do one of them properly and trying to screw an entire industry while bullshitting up the large is their SOP.

    Duh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    @Maggie “No rightwinger has ever been able to explain why. They just do, that’s all.” That’s bullshit. Right wingers hate unions because they are parasitical organisations that seek to suck as much as possible from the enterprises to which they attach themselves and hand it to their members, even if it means killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Unions generally, and the EPMU specifically, is stuck in some fucked-up time warp where it’s still the 1880s and there’s trouble at t’mill and oppressed workers everywhere.

    Unions are at best superfluous. At their most benign they are economically destructive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    @Offshore_kiwi; your comments are ironic/sad given this is a thread about Pike River.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,645 comments) says:

    @YesWeLied – that’s just what I was thinking about Maggie’s comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    YWD, wrong wrong wrong, and don’t try that dog-whistle bullshit. I was responding to a direct statement by Maggie. Answering her direct question with a direct answer.

    I utterly reject what you’re trying to imply. I fully support miners and mining as one of the few productive industries left in New Zealand. I think mining in general, and coal in particular, should be expanded as one of the key planks of a broad strategy to drag New Zealand from the precipice of economic oblivion on which it currently wobbles.

    Your implications about me and what I said in my comment are completely unfounded and disgraceful. Now, fuck off under your bridge, you fucking troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. virtualmark (1,472 comments) says:

    YesWeDid,

    Just so I am clear; it is OK for the government to pay millions toward the ‘rescue’ costs because the company that owned Pike River put itself into receivership

    Not quite. I think fair-minded Kiwis think it is okay for the government to pay millions toward the rescue and recovery costs because this is a humanitarian effort to aid fellow Kiwis caught up in a (natural?) disaster. Just as we fair-minded Kiwis think it is okay for the government to pay millions to fund search and rescue, emergency services, civil defence etc.

    and it’s OK for the government to pay millions for various inquirers to find out what went wrong

    Yes. In the same way that we would expect the government to pay for inquiries into any unexpected and tragic event that could possibly occur again somewhere else in the future and so put Kiwi’s lives at risk.

    and it’s OK for the government to pay the legal fees for the miners at these inquirers

    Yes. Because these miners likely have important information to share with the inquiry and it is in our broader interest to make sure that information comes to light so we can learn how to avoid a similar problem in future.

    BUT it is not OK for the government to help out the EPMU because they are a union

    That’s right, it is not OK. Because unions levy their members supposedly to provide, among other services, this sort of representation. Levying members and then also seeking Government funding is double-dipping. That’s not a good thing. Andrew Little should know this.

    and unions are evil.

    Well, if you say so. Maybe more accurate to say they’re not evil, just that they may have lost their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. virtualmark (1,472 comments) says:

    Maggie, generalise much?

    Conservatives hate unions. They like Chambers of Commerece, Manufacturers Associations, Law societies, but they hate unions with a mindless, ever pervasive hate.

    No rightwinger has ever been able to explain why. They just do, that’s all.

    Well, I’m a right winger. And I don’t “hate unions”. I think there’s a valid role for unions in worker representation. Just as there’s a valid role for professional associations and institutions. And Chambers of Commerce etc etc. No problem at all with that.

    But, personally I think unions as we have them today have become perverted to basically act as a funding vehicle for the Labour Party, and to act as a stepping stone for left-wing wannabes who think the path to success is a social science degree, followed by a brief stint mouthing off as a union official, then a cosy list position with the Labour Party.

    Unions today are too focused on capturing individual benefits for the union staff, and not on the communal benefits for the union’s members. Us right-wingers have a term for that … “agency costs” … but that’s a term right-wingers learn in commerce classes, not one that left-wingers learn in political science classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I thought the EPMU and the Liarbore party were one in the same diseased organism, the EMPU hierarchy been the party goons assigned to the fund raising department. Perhaps the members grow weary of the continual bleeding of their wages, for the corrupt and incompetent. As September looms on the horizon watch these parasites try every underhanded trick to steal not only from their on members but the taxpayer also. Mongrels shouldn’t get a red cent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    This is just an excuse for the EPMU to line its coffers.

    Typical lefties; always expecting government handouts.

    This incident reminds me of when I took the EPMU to Mediation last year (after a long legal battle with them stemming from 2008), and Andrew Little pleaded poverty when asked to cough up with compensation/damages.

    Shameless and spineless as always. I dread the day this man ever becomes our PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett 3:13 pm

    I used to notice that Little and his cohorts always had Corporate Cabs uplift them from the airport…some us just caught whatever cab was on the rank…

    Yeah, but which passport were you using to get to the airport, David?

    @Shawn Tan 5:55 pm

    This incident reminds me of when I took the EPMU to Mediation last year (after a long legal battle with them stemming from 2008), and Andrew Little pleaded poverty when asked to cough up with compensation/damages.

    Still haven’t seen the light and returned to the Green fold from whence you came then, Shawn? Even though your “Law and Order” hero, to whom I have replied above in this comment, is now thoroughly discredited.

    Of course people will use whatever negotiating positions are available to them in mediation. I seem to recall that you agreed to settle for bugger all – which would indicate you didn’t have much of a case apart from the privacy issue of the EPMU wrongly publishing your personal information relating to your employment with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    Conservatives hate unions. …No rightwinger has ever been able to explain why.

    A surprising profession of ignorance on your part.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    Hello Toad,

    It’s been awhile. As gracious as ever, I see.

    1) Garrett has made his mistakes, and has paid for them. Enough said.

    2) Garrett’s legacy in the three strikes legislation lives on nonetheless.

    3) ACT stands for more than just law and order – just like the Greens have more than just an anti-GE platform…right? Surely you’re not that ignorant? Or do you resort to intellectual dishonesty these days?

    4) Return to the Green fold? Please. I saw the light, which is why I left. The grass is greener – I beg your pardon, more libertarian (and rational) – on the other side.

    5) What the settlement was, I cannot say – it is bound by confidentiality. But let’s just say (a) Andrew coughed up (sizeably) in the end, (b) I was satisfied with the outcome and (c) I have since moved on.

    6) Given that the Director of the Human Rights Commission agreed to take on my case, ‘not having much of a case’ is a bit of a stretch.

    7) How’s your party’s campaign in Botany going?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    @VirtualMark. I was thinking of responding. Now I don’t have to. I agree. With one exception.

    The one place in NZ life where unions are clearly justified is the public sector. Since the government is almost always a bad faith employer that abuses it’s monopoly powers to pay below the market rate, I think public sector unions are useful. Of course, as an evil baby eating right winger, I think that the right answer is to get the government out of the business of employing teachers and nurses, which would then provide competition in employment opportunities. Ever notice that private schools pay their teachers more?

    In other parts of the economy – I’m not a big fan of unions, but I fully recognise the rights of individuals to organise as they see fit. I just reckon they’re idiots for giving their hard earned money to a bunch of whingers and bludgers who use that money to enrich themselves and provide almost nothing of value to the workers they took it from. In my experience, anyone halfway good at their job would be better off negotiating for themselves a deal that meets their personal needs (which often doesn’t look anything like the one size fits all deal that a union would negotiate). Those that aren’t halfway good at their jobs should either think about getting better, or quit and go and do something they’re actually good at. At which point they fall into my first category, and don’t need a union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    Let’s see. As Shawn rightly pointed out, Garrett’s legacy to the New Zealand people is the Three Strikes law.

    The Watermelons’ legacy is??? Comrade Bradford’s anti-parenting law perhaps??

    One of these pieces of legislation makes New Zealand a safer, better place, while the other unnecessarily intrudes into the lives of peaceful, law-abiding people and turns them into criminals.

    The authors of one of these pieces of legislation can take an immense amount of pride in his accomplishments in the Parliament. For the other (like all Watermelon MPs), time in the Parliament is just another form of simultaneously sucking the taxpayer’s teat and destroying New Zealand society.

    I think, Toad, you should take this opportunity to withdraw from the field before you get your arse thoroughly handed to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Nice to see David Garret here.
    How about you come and stand again in Tauranga David. We need someone with some balls and a bit of an effort would send the boy child (Photogenic empty head like most celebs), off back to school no worries.

    Tauranga must be the moist winnable seat going for someone from the right side. All the chatter at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nickb (3,658 comments) says:

    7) How’s your party’s campaign in Botany going?

    Bitchslapped, toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Shawn Tan 6:27 pm

    3) ACT stands for more than just law and order – just like the Greens have more than just an anti-GE platform…right? Surely you’re not that ignorant? Or do you resort to intellectual dishonesty these days?

    I agree. I don’t have a problem with their economic libertarianism, even though I disagree with it. That is a principle the ACT Party was founded on, and one voters should have an option to vote for. What I do have a problem with is ACT’s social conservatism, which is completely at odds with their economic libertarianism. For the Greens, social liberalism and economic socialism can be mutually justified – on the basis that anything goes as long as no-one is oppressed by it. I can’t see how ACT can justify the converse, though.

    7) How’s your party’s campaign in Botany going?

    Touché, Shawn. I have to admit that the Greens fucked up organisationally big time there. I am as grumpy as hell about it. There is no way anyone should be in the position of driving to the returning officer less than two hours before the deadline with a signature from someone whom they didn’t realise had recently moved out of the electorate on their form. And it was far from entirely the prospective candidate Rick Leckinger’s fault, although he has been gracious in putting his hand up for it publicly.

    A very bad look, and I’m pushing for the Greens to review some of their procedures as a consequence of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Doug (405 comments) says:

    Toad what do you call that: Cant run a Piss up in a Brewery comes to mind.
    And you want to run the Country God help us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Shawn

    Welcome back, take no notice of Toad, the Greens are in panic mode.

    Although, seeing as Toad is again trying to claim the moral high ground you could remind him that two of his MP’s stole money from the tax payer by way of their housing allowance, they only paid it back once they were caught.

    There is nothing quite as hypocritical as a Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    “A very bad look, and I’m pushing for the Greens to review some of their procedures as a consequence of it.”

    OMG…can you imagine that meeting!

    First they would have to start with a Maori chant or prayer of some sort despite their not being a brown face in the room, then everybody who is non Maori would be made to stand up and apologise for being born white.

    Next they would move onto discussing what language they were going to be using for the meeting, if they did decide to use Maori then interpreters would have to be arranged.

    Once that was all done they would decide who was going to chair the meeting, of course there would have to be co chairs as both genders would have to be represented, a language moderator would then be appointed just to make sure that nobody felt threatened by the words used, in attendance would be another Maori adviser who would offer advice on how the discussions were relevant to the Treaty.

    At the end of the meeting another Maori prayer would be said and then all attendees would link hands and perform a morris dance, unless of course one of the attendees thought that a Morris dance represented colonisation and oppression, should this happen (and the odds are that it will) then they would all perform some irrelevant Maori rain dance and hand out Koha (a.k.a tax payer funds from the leaders budget) to the assembled Maori who acted as advisor’s at the meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @toad: ACT is a broad umbrella organisation, much like yours is I’m sure you’d readily acknowledge. There are social conservatives as well as social libertarians within ACT, just like there are anti-capitalists and capitalist reformists within the Greens. Because we in ACT believe in civil libertarianism, we allow freedom of speech and therefore dissenting views within the party.

    Can’t say the same for the Greens. Your current leader doesn’t seem to appreciate dissenting views and the concept of academic freedom: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/03/norman_attacks_academic.html.

    Your previous leader didn’t fare much better. I remember the Greens conducting an internal survey of members to find out the level of support for the party’s anti-GE policy, and when the results showed that 93% were in favour, the late Rod Donald publicly expressed his dismay that 7% of the party membership did not (appear to) support the party’s line on GE. And, from what I recall, an internal ‘investigation’ was subsequently conducted to find out why such blasphemous dissenting views existed within the party.

    Besides, the Greens have been far from consistent advocates of civil liberties. Let’s try the Electoral Finance Act for one. Or telling us what light bulbs we should use in our homes. Perhaps I should remind you of this list here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html.

    I applaud your honesty in acknowledging what no other Green MP or official (with the exception of Sue Bradford, I’d imagine) has stated in writing about the Greens’ economic policy platform – that it is essentially “economic socialism”. The next logical question would be: How has that worked out, anywhere, historically? “No-one” is/has been “oppressed” by economic socialism?

    As for the Botany debacle, I know you’ve probably heard this a million times before…but: Shouldn’t Rick have taken public transport instead? It is, after all, Green policy to promote the use of public transport. Double egg on the face here, I’m afraid to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Why is there even being a commission of enquiry?,

    There was a huge explosion in a coal mine and 29 men died practically instantly.

    Concrete slab falls on man in Auckland, killing him instantly.

    We have a labour department that deals with these matters.

    Please can someone explain the difference in these tragedies.

    Unfortunately, there was fuck all honesty right from the start at Pike River, no one had the nuts to say ” this is not a cave in situation like Chile, this was a explosion and the chances of survivors from the start are very very poor. But no, lots of hand wringing and false hope.

    The Government has made a huge error in holding this enquiry, huge. All that will transpire is a witch hunt with parts of New Zealand looking to lay as much blame on the government as possible. This is what the union wants the money for to fight the government, nothing else.

    Hindsight is useless, but the real blame is on the wankers who refused to allow open caste mining in a very small area, but nobody has gone at them, they will just have a crack at Key and co, who had nothing to do with this private business.

    Also I am not going to allow the cynical side of me say, I would have serious doubts that all monies if granted would go to the enquiry process, the unions are such dishonest pricks, and they have a election to fund.

    Secondly if Little is so disorganised that he has not put together a fighting fund , he’s no fucking use to anyone in Parliament.

    Lastly, why doesn’t the union kick up a big stink at every industrial death in this country?? Obviously not high profile enough, no traction. Fuck unions are cynical

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    Toad: on ACT and conservatism v’s libertarianism. My view is that ACT stand strongly for the rule of law and individual property rights. They believe that people should be free to do as they wish, so long as they don’t impinge on the rights of others. In that sense, the strong line on law and order is entirely compatible with their economically liberal views, and says nothing about social liberalism or conservatism.

    I think this isn’t dissimilar from your Green position in concept – you believe in social liberalism, and where that conflicts with people’s economic rights you’ll compromise the latter – you’ll take money off someone who earned it fair and square because you believe your social aims are a better spend of that money. ACT are the opposite, they believe strongly in economic liberalism, and where people’s “social rights” (such as their “right” to steal people’s stuff and then get off with a light sentence if sentenced at all) conflict with that, they believe in protecting the right of people to keep their property.

    What I’m not real clear on from a Green perspective is how you can be against someone being punished for committing violent crimes. I thought the Greens were very much against violence. If the 3 strikes law were tightened such that it only applied to violent crimes, would the Greens have supported it? If not, why not? I just don’t get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dime (9,366 comments) says:

    “For the Greens, social liberalism and economic socialism can be mutually justified – on the basis that anything goes as long as no-one is oppressed by it”

    yea, cause sociliast nations have a great track record in not oppressing people.

    personally, id find whatever tax rate toad slapped on me to be oppressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @big bruv: You left out the square dancing. ;-)

    Hilarious post. I am reminded of the extremes the Greens go to to be PC: One year, the Greens needed to hire a webmaster, but man-hating Catherine Delahunty objected to the use of the word ‘webmaster’ because the word ‘master’ within it invokes connotations of – inter alia – slavery, sexism, patriarchy, misogony, exploitation and oppression of women.

    In the end, the Greens advertised for a ‘website technician’…or some generic, unrelated job title like that (which certainly omitted the word ‘man’ in it, such as in ‘fireman’). Just so Madame Delahunty would not be offended.

    I kid you not. :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Shawn

    Nothing that moonbat Delahunty does surprises me, the sooner she is no longer on the public payroll the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    (Bloody socialist unionists and their culture of entitlement), nice outlook, the majority of the men who died were unionists, socialist, culture of entitlement, coal miners ? it is pretty fucking obvious too many who post have never done a hard days physical work.

    The union represents those who did the dying in the main, yet the union should get fuck all while we have seen too many companies in this country ask for and get corporate fucking welfare from mug taxpayers.

    So the message you are sending those union blokes who died is what ? come on, spell it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (9,366 comments) says:

    grumpyracist – the message is – you paid your union fees in good faith and now they wont use them to spport the inquiry into this tragedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Dime dear boy I would agree, but union fees rates do not include an inquiry into why 29 men died.

    Interesting, it seems some believe the Union should foot the bill for getting their men out, do you go along with that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (1,726) Says:
    February 15th, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    The union represents those who did the dying in the main, yet the union should get fuck all while we have seen too many companies in this country ask for and get corporate fucking welfare from mug taxpayers.

    So the message you are sending those union blokes who died is what ? come on, spell it out.

    That the Union has taken their money for years but fails to front up when it needs to spend it in the interests of the Miners.
    Simple enough.
    If three hats wasn’t so busy getting himself elected and spending his three salaries then they would be able to fund their bit. If not then sell some assets like everyone else has to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @big bruv 7:40 pm

    Yes, take the piss if you must. But I can assure you that none of that would happen.

    The bit I object to most is the “koha” reference. Yes, the Greens do put down a koha when we are welcomed by tangata whenua, but none of it comes from Parliamentary funds (other than the contributions MPs may personally decide to make from their salaries). Many a time I’ve had to dig into the wallet to scratch up a $20 note to make my contribution.

    @Shawn Tan 8:20 pm

    I am sure you probably already know, Shawn, that the “manhating” Catherine Delahunty has been in a longstanding relationship with a lovely man named Gordon Jackman for many years. I suspect big bruv is pissed off about that because he secretly fancies and/or envies her, hence the vitriol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Grizz (500 comments) says:

    Hey grumpy the money for legal fees is going to the miners families. What purpose does giving money to the greedy fuck unions serve?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Manolo (13,325 comments) says:

    toad, how much KFC does the Luddites koha buy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Grizz (500 comments) says:

    Give money to the unions for legal fees and it will probably be spent on booze, drugs and hookers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    The Unions with Labour at the helm all seem to qualify for ‘modernisation’ grants. Which by way of coincidence then get passed back as ‘Political Donations’ less the 30% ticket clip. So the Labour Party is indirectly funded by the Tax payers. Not hard to work out , and yet it continues.

    Unions are a great idea, that have lost their relevance. Telex to Fax Machine- to scanned PDF. When was the last time anyone here used a fax more than once a day? or used voicemail more than once a day? They used to be so useful and got superceded.

    Unions have falling income streams, and frankly Union Membership should be net of Political Donations. That should be an opt in, or at worst an opt out.

    Union bosses always seem to be getting at least twice the % pay increase every year compared to their membership. Just how exactly does that work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    “I am sure you probably already know, Shawn, that the “manhating” Catherine Delahunty has been in a longstanding relationship with a lovely man named Gordon Jackman for many years. I suspect big bruv is pissed off about that because he secretly fancies and/or envies her, hence the vitriol.”

    A relationship can mean anything. Just check out the role of the First House Mate of Herr Klarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Toad

    “. I suspect big bruv is pissed off about that because he secretly fancies and/or envies her, hence the vitriol.”

    Sorry mate, I made it a rule a long time ago never to go out with a chick who has a better moustache than me.

    Oh…and yes Toad, I really MUST take the piss, it is so easy to do and so enjoyable given the number of nut bars inside the Greens.

    Still…thank goodness this is the last Parliament you will be a part of.

    One more thing Toad, why on earth do you and the other Greens feel the need to offer “Koha” (money) every time you invite Maori into your discussions?

    Is it all about money with Maori?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (13,325 comments) says:

    Union bosses always seem to be getting at least twice the % pay increase every year compared to their membership. Just how exactly does that work?

    A good question to ask of comrade Andrew Little, the poor overworked earner of three salaries!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Inky_the_Red (734 comments) says:

    DPF, yes very true. Unions should expect workers to die and as such should increase their fees to cover costs of inquiries. Union officials and lawyers should work for free. All workers who join unions do so because they are lazy. They would be working 20 hours a day at $5 an hour to make the elite classes of NZ rich.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @big bruv 9:15 pm

    I’m saving up comments like this for November 27.

    @Manolo 9:06 pm

    Phil u will probably harangue me forever about this, but I ate at KFC on New Year’s Day. After leaving Masterton with no breakfast due to a family emergency, I was starving upon getting to Tokoroa (a town I don’t know), and the only places I could find open were KFC or MickyD’s.

    Yes, I normally avoid it, but not all us Greens are as fundamentalist about food as some would make out – in my case especially when I haven’t eaten for 16 hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @big bruv 9:15 pm

    One more thing Toad, why on earth do you and the other Greens feel the need to offer “Koha” (money) every time you invite Maori into your discussions?

    We don’t. We offer it when Maori formally welcome us onto their marae or into their rohe. Just a basic customary courtesy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @toad: I can assure you big bruv is happily married to a fine young lass and has no amorous feelings towards aging, bitter and jaded ultra-feminists.

    It is entirely plausible, in a convoluted sort of way, for a man-hater to be in a heterosexual relationship with a man – just as I have seen plenty of anti-capitalists quite happily wear Nike shoes, drink Starbucks frappucinos and munch on McDonald’s burgers.

    Perhaps Catherine has found a man in Gordon not to hate. And good on her. Every cloud has a silver lining. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that (a) her PC-ness goes beyond the ridiculous, (b) she holds irrational and illogical views regarding gender relations, race relations (and many other issues) and (c) she remains an ardent feminist who probably thinks every male is a latent rapist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Anyone who dioubts that conservatives hate unions only has to read this thread, or any other thread where unions are mentioned. Farrar starts it off and then Pavlov’s dogs begin salivating in unison.

    Rightwingers hate unions because they are a threat to the order of things as conservatives envisage them. Working people need to know their place,

    A National Party candidate I once knew said he was taught by the party that whenever he felt he was losing an audience he should put the boot into the union movement. Press a button and away we go…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Toad

    “I’m saving up comments like this for November 27.”

    Oh please do, make sure you include phrases like “if only we had another .2%” and “perhaps we should have talked more about environmental issues”, and the good old reliable “the Greens will be back in 2014″.

    It is interesting that you are so keen on Maori customary courtesies yet feel quite relaxed at pissing all over western customary courtesies, you know the ones about welcoming good friends and inviting them into your home (Gillard) or not being abusive toward those who have saved your arse (well, your evil white ancestors arse) twice (the Yanks)

    Seriously Toad, there are many things about the Greens that are laughable, the stifling PC, the man hating from the reputedly female members of your caucus and your rabid guilt complexes, but, the really baffling one is the way that you guys have totally given over to apartheid, the way you have swallowed the whole concept of separate development and the way you have embraced what amounts to prehistoric mumbo jumbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie

    If it make you feel any better I can categorically state that I think unions are 99.9% staffed by scum who have no real interest in the workers at all.

    There you go, does it feel any better now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nookin (3,033 comments) says:

    “The call follows the government’s announcement it will now fund families’ and contractors’ legal representation costs to allow them to participate in the inquiry.”

    I haven’t really had a chance to read all the correspondence concerning funding. Does the above statement mean that the families of those who died wish to be separately represented and instruct their own counsel and have chosen not to be represented by the union? Do they have the option of pooling their funding and have class representation via the union? If they have rejected that option then who does the union represent ? I assume that someone will need to challenge the case presented by the Company. Will this be the families, the union or counsel assisting the commission as was the case in Erebus (where the Commission had access to its own counsel and aviation expert) Specifically, what will the union offer that is not already covered. The answer to that will justify funding or not and also the level of that funding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    I can see why the govt would pay the miners legal costs – they want the miners to be represented. I don’t get why they’d pay the union’s legal costs:
    – I’m not sure what legal risks the union has – so why can’t they turn up without lawyers?
    – I’m not sure we care whether the unions are there or not – so no need for the govt to fund them to be there

    As for corporate welfare – most on this site are fully against that as well. I’d much rather the government didn’t do things like giving money away to large corporates to ameliorate the costs of the ETS (another way of saying “barrier to new entrants”), impose tariffs on things that we don’t need them on like glass bottles, erect barriers to entry into key professions like doctors (preventing doctors with good qualifications in places like India from working as a doctor – and both forcing them to be taxi drivers and NZers in some remote locations to go without a local GP).

    I have to say that the National govt has usually been pretty restrained in anything given to business, as opposed to the Labour movement who go out of their way to dole out various forms of free money to the unions as soon as they get their hands on the reins of power.

    So, I’ll make you a deal. Let’s jointly agree that the govt shouldn’t give away money to either unions or businesses, whether straight out giving of money, or dressing it up as “business grants” or “training grants” or “critical local industry” or “paying union members more than non-union – enforced by law”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @Maggie: And all you need to do to elicit applause from a left-wing audience is say “capitalism sucks”.

    Your point being?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. burt (7,791 comments) says:

    Why am I not surprised that a union spends it members money donating to and campaigning for the Labour party then seeks tax payers money for genuine union business. The sense of entitlement is staggering but not really surprising for such self seeing muppets

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    Rightwingers hate unions because they are a threat to the order of things as conservatives envisage them. Working people need to know their place,

    Leftwingers hate freedom because it is a threat to the order of things as liberals envisage them. Innovators need to know their place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. scrubone (3,044 comments) says:

    Let’s say we give unions all power they could possibly want. Oh wait, we did that in the past and it created a huge mess.

    For example, the time that the unions decided to shut down the wharves and shut down exports. That only hurt the farmers – i.e. the working man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    No big bruv it did nothing for me, though I’m sure it made you feel better. Try a joint next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    How many unions have you worked for, BB?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. burt (7,791 comments) says:

    Maggie

    You had better be specific, are you asking if he has “worked for” or “been employed by”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (22,750 comments) says:

    Maggie: Rightwingers hate unions because they are a threat to the order of things as conservatives envisage them. Working people need to know their place,

    Apart from the ridiculous opening sweeping statement, this is an odd statement. Is the place of working people herded by their union? Maybe some, but I’m sure there are many capable of maintaining good relationships with employers themselves.

    Actually, I’m a working person, and my place (in the workplace) is dealing with my employer one to one, and working together with my employer to help the business do well, which helps my employer afford to pay good wages.

    Unions may still suit some groups of workers, but they are gradually becoming less necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Auberon (868 comments) says:

    Despite $12 million of annual income and $13 million of assets that bum Andrew Little was on National Radio last night claiming that a $200,000 bill for representation at the Royal Commission might mean putting out the begging bowl to international union comrades.

    What an arse!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    @Auberon: That’s a solid argument, well presented. I’m sure that, like most organisations, the EMPU have a spare $200K just sitting in a bank account they were unsure what to do with.

    @Pete George: Since most job growth seems to be in low paid part time positions then I would argue that unions are becoming more necessary and not less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Fuck I love the argument used by some, coal miners do not need to belong to a union because the oh so generous company will always go the extra mile to make sure their peasants in the mines are safe and no union input has never been needed.
    Just have a fucking look at those who died, small contractors and union members.
    Christ, some of you types believe that the management were the ones who were going to put themselves at risk in an attempt to get the miners out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Characters like burt and big bruv have, of course, never worked for a union in their lives. Their view is coloured by their antiunion prejudice.

    I worked for a major NZ union for 15 years. During the ECA I worked 6-7 days a week, often travelling for weeks on end going home only to sleep. It was the toughest job I ever did and evetually I suffered from burn out and had to leave.

    The union movement is full of dedicated people who work very hard for their members. The ignorance demonstrated by some here deserves only contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RightNow (6,645 comments) says:

    It used to be that unions stood up for workers’ rights against unscrupulous bosses. What has changed is that there are far fewer unscrupulous bosses, information flows far more freely into the public domain (reducing the ability of unscrupulous behaviour to go undetected) and workers’ rights are more enshrined in law. Additionally many more workers are aware of their rights and are more capable of defending them without the help of unions.

    Modern unions fight primarily for their own survival, and to hell with anyone who isn’t in their gang.
    A couple of notable examples highlight that unions work against the greater good. The teachers’ union in New Jersey rejected a proposal by Gov Christie to take a slight pay hit in order to save jobs for others. They wouldn’t sacrifice 4% for one year, and it meant thousands of lost jobs.
    Here in NZ we see the PPTA fighting strongly for 4% pay increases and free laptops, at a time when NZ is in recession and other public servants were lucky to get 1.7% (and in the private sector we mostly got nothing unless we changed jobs). This coming at a time when teachers pay packages had increased since 2000 from around $45k to average over $70k p.a in 2010.

    So I’m quietly proud to be held in contempt by unionistas like Maggie. I’d rather be a Chris Christie, proposing practical solutions, than a Helen Kelly, prepared to gamble the livelihoods of thousands in order to gain power in an industry (yes, I mean the Hobbit debacle).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rich Prick (1,538 comments) says:

    Geeze Maggie it seems union workers need a union to protect them from their emploers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    There are many aspects of the employment relationship which can only be done collectively, if you want a good result. There is tonnes of evidence that collective wage bargaining is more successful than individual negotiation.

    I doubt if you will find many groups of workers, unionised or not, prepared to take a wage cut. That’s human nature.

    If NZ is in a recession someone should tell the Govt. Spending $7 million on a fleet of new cars to replace those only three years old mis hardly setting a good example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    “The union movement is full of dedicated people who work very hard for their members. ”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…..

    The union movement is nothing more than the unofficial funding arm of the Labour party, 99% of the officials could not care less about the workers (Helen Kelly for example)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @Maggie: Perhaps the likes of burt and big bruv haven’t necessarily worked for unions, but many like them have had unsavoury and hostile dealings with unions, or have been adversely affected by their actions in some way – and they are entitled to their sentiment. I know a number of business people who have been put out of pocket or suffered in some way by the unethical behaviour and bullying tactics of unionists.

    For the record, I have worked for 3 different trade unions in 3 different industries. In my experience, many unionists have misguided and warped views about industrial relations, the role of management, and the economic system as a whole. The vast majority of them also have a limited understanding of economics and the capitalist system. ‘A system designed to bleed the workers dry so the fat cats at the top can swim in gold bars’ is not a generally accepted definition of capitalism.

    Whilst I acknowledge that many unionists are perhaps well-intentioned, they are ultimately guided by flawed ideology and therefore do plenty of damage to the industries they organise in, and ultimately disadvantage the union members they represent.

    This dichotomy perpetuated by unionists of ‘bosses’ being evil, profit-hungry oppressors and of workers being vulnerable, exploited masses is getting rather cliched – and simply does not fit with reality.

    Mind you, in my time as a union organiser, I met countless workers who were highly incompetent, tested the limits of their managers’ patience with their shenanigans, and were quite simply milking the system for their own personal gain.

    And here’s the real kicker: Workers don’t join unions because of an outpouring of collectivist, selfless altruism; they join unions to see how much individual benefit they can derive from doing so. ‘What’s in it for me?’ is the question I was often posed when I went on recruitment drives – not ‘how will my comrade Johnny over there benefit from this?’ Yes, workers – like all individuals – are ultimately driven my self-interest. The sooner you get your head around this, the better it is for your sanity and sense of reality.

    If you really care about the welfare of workers, and have even a rudimentary understanding of economics, you would realise that endlessly raising the minimum wage is illogical, counter-productive and ultimately has disastrous consequences for the workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @Maggie: You say that “collective wage bargaining is more successful than individual negotiation”.

    Sure: If I round up my mates with machetes and rock on up to the CEO’s office, I’m pretty sure I’ll get a better wage increase than if I simply knocked on his door and asked him politely. This is a no-brainer.

    Here’s where you miss the point entirely: Collective bargaining is essentially legislatively sanctioned bullying and extortion.

    And unions are essentially workers’ mafias. When you pay your union membership fees, you are paying a bunch of thugs in suits to threaten the company’s management with industrial action, in the hope of getting as much money out of them as possible, until you finally get your way.

    And that’s why collective bargaining has no place in modern employment relations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Of course unions support the Labour Party – they started it!

    Bruv you really are a fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    ST, your hatred is only exceeded by your ignorance. Your picture of collective bargaining is hilarious and totally divorced from reality. Your faith in your bargaining ability is quaint and completely unrealistic.

    The vast majority of collective contracts are settled with no threats, no bullying, just reasonable negotiation.

    Your contributions are a prime example of conservative hatred which bears absolutely no resemblance of the true picture. Now pull the covers back over your head and go to sleep, there’s a good boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    You worked for unions? Pull the other one…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Offshore_Kiwi (557 comments) says:

    “he vast majority of collective contracts are settled with no threats, no bullying, just reasonable negotiation.”

    Riiiiight. Like the teachers, for example?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RightNow (6,645 comments) says:

    Maggiesaurus, proof the dinosaurs aren’t quite extinct yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    You worked for unions? Pull the other one…….

    OMG, please tell me you’re trying to act dumb!

    I guess you missed the whole EPMU firing someone who decided to stand for the Act party in the 08 election then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Manolo (13,325 comments) says:

    The union movement is full of dedicated people who work very hard for their members.

    By the way, the Mafia and the Cosa Nostra claim exactly the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    The EPMU fired someone who clearly didn’t share the union’s policies or ideology. If ST did actually work for unions he should have been dismissed as well.

    OSK: I mention the vast majority, you come back with one. Pretty silly , eh?

    Manolo, in a thread chockful of silly postings, you win the prize for the daftest one of all.

    The right’s hatred of unions is mindless, irrational and paranoid. Some things never change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. RightNow (6,645 comments) says:

    Maggie, forget about ‘the right’, the real threat to low wage earners (and unions) comes from China and India. If you want to be able to have optimum employment with a high minimum wage in NZ then you should go and unionize their workforces in China and India.
    That’s why unions in NZ are dinosaurs. There’s no realistic prospect of there ever again being enough manual/low-skilled jobs in NZ to make the union philosophy viable. Low demand, high supply. Perhaps the unions should try becoming producers and employers, the very people that you hate. You might find scales falling from your eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Maggie you ignoranus, I think the point is that ST was that person

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Oh and Maggie. Your comment of “The EPMU fired someone who clearly didn’t share the union’s policies or ideology”…

    So you are saying that it is ok for the union to discriminate based on employees’ beliefs, it is not ok for any other employer to do the same [given that NZ legislation prohibits such discrimination] ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @Maggie: Oh how the mighty have fallen. You were riding on your high horse when you insinuated that the likes of burt and big bruv have no right to criticise unions when they haven’t worked for any. Now that I’m telling you I used to work for 3 unions, and despite that I am equally critical of unions, it appears you are rather flustered and flabbergasted – because your worldview is being challenged by an ex-unionist.

    Most collective bargaining is settled by “reasonable negotiation”? You must be referring to an alternate reality. Flights of fancy from the twilight zone don’t count as empirical evidence.

    Since you’ve been in the union movement for over 15 years, as you claim, you would probably recall the SkyCity strike of 2006. It was loud, it was rowdy, and the negotiations were anything but reasonable. I should know; I was one of the organisers of this strike. The vitriol exchanged between both sides far exceeds anything you’ve read on this blog.

    That same year, it was the NDU initiated Progressive strike. That was long and protracted too, and anything but civil.

    I could carry on listing you a plethora of examples, but it’s a pointless exercise – because you’re either in denial, or have selective memory, or are being intellectually dishonest…or perhaps a combination of all the above.

    Your refusal to acknowledge collective bargaining as bullying or extortion is understandable, given your ideological blindness and warped views of employment relations in general. When you have a bunch of workers grouping together to make demands from management, this is akin to Billy and his ten mates gathering around little Johnny to ask for his lunch money. This is otherwise known as bullying. And when you sit with management around the table to ‘negotiate’ a wage increase, the fact that you have hundreds of workers willing to walk off the job or take any action that jeopardises the running of the business unless management caves in to your demands, this would otherwise be known as extortion in any other context.

    Obviously a dose of reality is a bitter pill for you to swallow. Or perhaps you’re simply bitter, having realised you spent 15 years of your life working for a cause that destroys productivity, jeopardises businesses and impedes economic growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    I don’t give a fuck who ST is. He may have worked for unions, but he was never a unionist.

    He was fired, if it was him, because he stood for ACT. an ultra rightwing party which was totally opposed to everything he was supposed to be supporting and endorsing. He couldn’t have it both ways.

    See how long a National Party worker would last if he stood for Parliament for the Communist Party.

    The rest of ST’s rambling is just patronising nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    During my union career I settled hundreds of collective employment contracts. By memory, I think two settlements followed industrial action. The remainder were settled peacefully, as the vast majority are.

    How anyone could work for a union, but not believe in collective bargaining, is impossible for any sane person to fathom. Bit like a bishop who didn’t believe in God. Fortunately he was weeded out before he could do too much damage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie

    Why would I want some union thug telling me how much I can earn when I have the ability to negotiate a better deal for myself?

    If I am an exceptional worker why would I want to be paid the same as the normal worker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    Fired the EMU’s at my place of work.

    Never been missed. All the bastards did was keep putting up the union fees while doing nothing in return for their members.

    Good bloody riddance.

    Let the scum pay there own political way for a change instead of ripping off their members to advance their pathetic apparatchiks up the Liarbour ladder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. dime (9,366 comments) says:

    lmao i couldnt think of anything worse than being in a job with a collective agreement.

    as bruv said – why would i want to be paid the same as “normal workers” and shit workers?

    bakc in the day (when i was an employee rather than the employer) i used to steal pay slips just to make sure i was earning the most money. Yea im a scumbag but ya get the point.

    why the hell would anyone want to be average?? screw that!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    See, that’s what gets me about Labour and the union movement.

    Both have honourable origins, both were formed for a very good reason, the great pity is that Labour were hijacked in the 60′s by the lesbian/feminist element and have been a disorganised bunch of infighting low life ever since.

    What chance a Norm Kirk or Mike Moore figure rising through their ranks today, a man who actually cares about families (you know, that old fashion idea of mum, dad and the kids) the chance of a man like that ever leading the Labour party is zero.

    Same with the union movement, until they were infiltrated with communist scum back in the 50′s they were an honourable organisation, they were needed, they did not harbour slackers but they did look out for the working man, these days they are staffed by hopeless individuals who are serving time until they get a seat in the house (Fenton, Beaumont, Pillay and Moroney to name just a few)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    He was fired, if it was him, because he stood for ACT. an ultra rightwing party which was totally opposed to everything he was supposed to be supporting and endorsing. He couldn’t have it both ways.

    See how long a National Party worker would last if he stood for Parliament for the Communist Party.

    You’ll find that both circumstances are illegal in NZ as it breach’s the employee’s rights.

    But then when did a socialist ever care about anybody elses rights except their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Maggie,

    “He” didn’t need to do any damage. Clearly there are more than enough people with attitudes like yours in the unions who are doing their very best to destroy the movement and organizations.

    How have membership numbers trended over recent years Maggie?

    I think it clearly hurts that you and your mob have been outed by one of your own. He’s been there and seen it all Maggie. Now everyone can know what you and your friends are really like.

    You should reread your posts on this thread – you come across like a jack-booted thug. And you expect us to believe unions and their employees are not like that? There’s a Tui ad in the making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    Hang on a minute there BB.

    It was Fat Norm that started all the treaty crap that dumbo Dave refined and the end result being Mr Ed in Maori!

    Don’t beatify him too much. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    Far from it, Kirk should never be forgiven for starting that ball rolling.

    However, you cannot doubt the mans true Labour credentials, he was a true man of the people, and, probably the last Labour PM who did not abuse the Maori’s vote.

    Would I have voted for him?……not a chance in hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    He was fired, if it was him, because he stood for ACT. an ultra rightwing party

    Where did you learn that lie Maggie.
    ACT are not and have never been ultra right wing. Clearly you have no idea of your politics.

    Perhaps you would be better spending your time learning about these things instead of preaching your vile hatred of people that provide uncomes to others.
    Many of those people were workers first. But perhaps you don’t know that.
    Your clearly are a nasty person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    BB, of course you are an exceptional worker. Your type always are.

    The cliches here are hilarious. Union is always followed by “thug”

    Viking, thanks for the compliment. If you thought I was a nice person I would be worried.

    The hatred here is mindless, like most of the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie

    Any chance you might answer the question?

    Many of us have good reason to hate unions and union parasites who steal union dues from workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    How is old “coughing Len/Les” Maggie?

    Fags got him I suppose. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    I see the Court of Appeal has ruled that disability workers have to be paid the minimum wage during sleepovers. What dreadful, evil union thug achieved that?

    Of course if BB had been working in the industry he would have negotiated that for himself years ago, being such an exceptional worker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie, if the government have any brains they will just change the law, you cannot pay people for sleeping for fuck sake.

    I also fail to see how you can class that as an achievement, you have just cost the tax payer millions more, money they cannot afford.

    Never mind, the law can always be changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    It seems very fair to me that really hard workers should be paid while they are snoring. :)

    I predict that the death rate for the disabled will take a quantum leap as none will be able to afford the new rates they have to pay to their sleeping caregivers.

    Such is the price of social progress. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Hey Maggie, how many days did you spend in the Mana electorate during the by election?

    Was your EPMU company car one of the ones that has all it’s signage removed prior to the by election so you could slip into the Mana electorate, campaign for Labour and not be seen as an EPMU worker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Answer your own question, fuckwit. You pay people if they have responsibilities to perform when necessary, disability workers do during sleepovers. They are among the lowest paid workers in NZ, but coves like you couldn’t give a stuff.

    If you don’t like a court decision, just change the law. It’s no wonder you support the National Party.

    Perhaps the Nats might like to keep their three-year-old limousines and donate the savings to the IHC. Taxpayers can apparently afford to buy new cars, but not pay workers a decent wage. What a strange world you inhabit for such an exceptional worker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    “Perhaps the Nats might like to keep their three-year-old limousines”

    Nah. They smell of H1 and H2. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie

    “Answer your own question, fuckwit.”

    Gee!, I wonder where we get the idea that union officials are all thugs?

    “You pay people if they have responsibilities to perform”

    Sleeping is performing?……bugger me, if that is the case then I am the captain of the All Blacks, I could sleep for NZ.

    “If you don’t like a court decision, just change the law. It’s no wonder you support the National Party.”

    Ha ha…fucking classic!…you walked right into that one you dopey sod, remember when your glorious Labour party STOLE 850k off the tax payer…guess what they did Maggie, yes….that’s right, they changed the law to make their theft legal.

    It is no wonder that so many people despise unions and the people who work in them, you are just about the biggest bunch of hypocrites and small minded wankers on the face of this earth.

    No wonder your membership is dropping like a stone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    “Answer your own question, fuckwit. ”

    I’ve already answered it sweetheart. I looked after my old mum till I couldn’t cope anymore and then I paid for her last 21 months in a rest home.

    I don’t need union shit like you telling me how hard it is to look after the old and what is involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Come on Maggie, come back so we can poke you with a stick a few more times.

    Destroying your argument is so much fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    She will want double time and a night in lieu BB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Shhh Johnboy, she is sleeping/working.

    It is bloody hard work keeping your eyes closed when you are working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Nookin (3,033 comments) says:

    “If you don’t like a court decision, just change the law. It’s no wonder you support the National Party.”

    Foreshore & Seabed Act?
    Legitamisation of Theft by Labour Party Act?
    Ring a bell Maggie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Right Johnboy;

    I am off to bed, let me know where I send the bill, I anticipate a good honest eight hours of hard yakka ahead of me.

    BTW, don’t offer me that crappy collective bargaining rate for the work I am about to do, my sleep is the best that you will find on the market and as such I expect to be paid a premium.

    A couple of grand should just about cover it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    If you have any wet dreams BB you will be eligible for dirt money. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    The trouble is Maggie that you never dealt with people the likes of Finton Patrick Walsh and Mr Kelly and that arsehole who ran the Meat workers union. Nasty, evil and not at all interested in the welfare of workers but in pushing their communist class war, at the expense of those very same workers.
    The best law that ever happened was the law that allowed workers to run their own lives and boot these thugs and bullies out of the workplace. Unfortunately they had already exacted their toll on their paying supporters. Mostly they lost their jobs.
    Some of us remember the Seamens Union and the Port workers union and the Boilermakers union and the appalling behavoir and turf wars they ran. The manor in which they beat the snot out of the customers and suppliers of the companies and workers they saw as money suppliers.
    Unfortunately after spending nearly 40 years dealing with that type of gutter pig I am unable to find a nice thing to say or a nice action they ever took towards a fellow human being.
    Like all selfish people they only ever acted in their own self interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    “Fintan Patrick Walsh

    As a leading trade unionist from the 1930s through to his death in 1963, Fintan Patrick Walsh established himself as one of the most powerful figures in New Zealand. His ruthless manner in dealing with opposition aroused great loathing in his enemies. At the same time the man whose dark hair and features saw him dubbed the ‘Black Prince’ inspired intense loyalty from his followers. Walsh had a physically dominating presence with oratory skills and intellect to match. He is perhaps best remembered as a controversial opponent of striking waterside workers during the bitter 1951 waterfront dispute.

    Walsh was a man of many names. Commonly referred to as Jack, he began life as Patrick Tuohy. He was born in 1894 in rural Poverty Bay, one of 11 children of Irish farming parents Andrew Tuohy and Hannah O’Sullivan. He had his first taste of union militancy in the United States in 1916. By 1919 he had a new name, Patrick Walsh, to which he later added Fintan. He suggested the name change was to avoid victimisation in the United States due to his trade union activities.

    Walsh returned to New Zealand in 1920, working as a seaman. He had a brief early flirtation with communism (he was a founding member of the Communist Party of New Zealand in 1921), but resigned from the party in 1924 and became increasingly critical of communists. He became president of the Federated Seamen’s Union of New Zealand (FSU) in 1927, a position he held until his death in 1963. As a member of the executive of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour from 1928, Walsh promoted direct industrial action as opposed to political reform.

    Walsh’s position on arbitration and the use of political means as opposed to direct industrial action softened as a result of an increasingly close relationship with the Labour Party’s deputy leader, Peter Fraser. After Labour’s election victory in 1935, he convinced FSU members that union militancy would hurt a government sympathetic to their aims. He joined the executive of the newly formed New Zealand Federation of Labour (FOL) in 1937, and was able to secure the support of the numerically strong pro-arbitration craft and occupational unions. He was elected the FOL’s vice president in 1946 and president in 1953.

    In 1942 Walsh was appointed to the government’s Economic Stabilisation Commission. Central to the government’s plans for the wartime economy was keeping wage demands in check. Workers accepted the need for wartime sacrifices but sought a relaxation of economic controls when the war ended. The government – and Walsh – disagreed. The Commission remained active until 1950 and dealt with wage demands through the centralised arbitration system. Matters came to a head at the 1950 FOL conference when a number of unions, including the waterside workers, walked out and formed the rival New Zealand Trade Union Congress.

    The waterfront dispute of 1951 was the biggest industrial confrontation in New Zealand’s history. It lasted for 151 days, from February to July. At its peak, 22,000 unionists were off the job. The dispute took place in a climate of Cold War suspicion. The opposing sides denounced each other as Nazis, Commies, traitors and terrorists. Walsh and the FOL sided with the National government against the striking wharfies and their allies. Walsh called on wharfies to ‘abandon their Communist-dominated misleaders’. Opponents denounced him and FOL colleagues as ‘rats who had betrayed the workers’ cause’.

    The Labour Party regained power in 1957, but Walsh roundly condemned its 1958 ‘black budget’ as an attack on workers. Some accused him of disloyalty and he faced increasing discontent from within his traditional power base. In 1960 he was dumped as president of the Wellington Clerical Workers’ Union (a position he had held since 1936). A number of libel actions followed as Walsh faced increasing dissent from the right of the union movement. In his last speech to the FOL conference in 1963 Walsh spoke with the militancy of his younger days, preaching class struggle and denouncing the arbitration system.

    He died shortly afterwards and in accordance with his wishes there was no burial service. His grave in Karori cemetery lies near Peter Fraser’s memorial.”

    My wife’s grandfather used to recount how he donated money to buy a ton of concrete to put on top of Walsh’s grave to make sure the bastard never got out again V2. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    More insane ravings from BB the exceptional worker.

    Oh dear, Viking, you are a bitter old thing, aren’t you? You spent 40 years fighting the good fight against the evils of unionism? Representing some employers organisation, perhaps?

    Walsh has been dead nearly 50 years.

    Night, Johnboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    And no, I had no dealings with F P Walsh. Hardly surprising, I was at high school, when he died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Inventory2 (10,092 comments) says:

    @ Maggie; I was a card-carrying EPMU member at my last job, as recently as five years ago. The union’s employee responsible for our site was stereotypical. He was large and menacing, had a potty mouth, beard and tattoos, and boasted to site management about how many sites he had shut down permanently in Australia because they wouldn’t do things his way. I’d always thought that the job of the union was to PROTECT jobs and the interests of their workers, but apparently not; it was more important to be loyal to the principles.

    If anything, my period of union membership made me even more vehemently anti-union. That’s disappointing, because the IS a place for unions who act in their members’ best interests, not their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    The EPMU can go to hell.

    There’s quite a strong union presence where I work. The union rep is a smarmy little slime ball. Angry, bitter, resentful, arrogant little tosser. Funny thing is that it took a year for the union’s negotiated pay rate to match the one I negotiated myself. And those signed up with him had been paying their fees all that time… The little twerp is always organising meetings to get grievances from the guys to try and stick something to the company.

    Fuck unions. Paying them to do what exactly?

    And FWIW, Maggie’s lovely outlook on life doesn’t really convince me to join one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Phew….well that was a hard nights work, now….where do I send the bill Maggie?

    You will be pleased to know Maggie that most commentators are already saying that the government will have no option but to change the law, it might be a good idea if you told your union members that they should not celebrate just yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    It is fascinating how so many attitudes here are based on personalities. The union organiser is large and menacing, so I hate the union. Our delegate is small and a tosser, so I hate the union.

    Ask for a new organiser. Vote in a new delegate. Stand yourself. Become active.

    No, you’d rather sit on the sidelines and grizzle.

    You pay union fees to work with union officials to get yourself organised. You don’t pay fees simply to sit back and wait for the benefits.

    YOU ARE THE UNION THE UNION IS YOU If the union is useless you can change it.

    Get it, now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Maggie

    “Ask for a new organiser. Vote in a new delegate.”

    Easier said than done, have you not noticed that the ex junkie and union thug Darien Fenton is bitterly opposing the bill that will force union votes to be a secret ballot.

    Ever wondered why unions are against secret ballots?

    Unions are against secret ballots because it removes their strongest weapon, it removes the ability to threaten and terrorise voters into casting their ballots in the way the unions want them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    @Maggie: Your persistence in remaining in denial is commendable but laughable – much like a little child closing her eyes, crossing her fingers and mumbling “happy thoughts…happy thoughts…” to herself endlessly as bombshells rain down all around her.

    As much as I hate to admit this, yes I was a unionist all those years that I worked for the SFWU, Finsec and EPMU. If you really must know, I fully bought into the whole Marxist paradigm of class conflict and therefore the need for a workers’ revolution. Working for the union movement therefore felt like the natural and inevitable pathway to take, so I began working for the SFWU immediately after graduating from University.

    In fact, I was a carry-carrying socialist since my first year at University until mid-2008, when I began reading free market theory and realised it all made sense. Unfortunately for me, this revelation came to me whilst I was employed at the EPMU. Nevertheless, having seen the light, and coming to terms with the fact that my entire left-wing worldview was a cacophony of lies and a cesspool of self-pity and resentment, I decided to stand as an ACT candidate when the opportunity arose.

    You might not like to hear that an ex-unionist has now renounced the ‘socialist faith’ and now considers himself a libertarian, but that doesn’t change the fact that I was once a whole-hearted unionist who absolutely believed in the things you continue to hold dear to your heart.

    It wasn’t easy coming to terms with the fact that everything I believed in and worked hard for was a complete lie. But having done so, it was a complete breath of fresh air. In fact, it felt like being cured of a debilitating disease, or having a noxious miasma lifted.

    In all sincerity, I hope you too will one day come to your senses, and have the courage, dignity and integrity to tell yourself that your entire worldview has been one big lie. (Although I’m more inclined to believe that Michael ‘would not even try’ Wood stands a better chance of winning Botany that you waking up from your delusional state of mind.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    Oooops, meant to say “card-carrying socialist” in Paragraph 3 above…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. big bruv (13,210 comments) says:

    Hey Maggie;

    Looks like your sleep over victory is going to be short lived, Tony Ryall has just hinted that the law will be changed soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Maggie (674 comments) says:

    Now, there’s a surprise. The law is what we say it is, fuck the courts.

    Any law will have to be retrospective. That could cause all sorts of problems for the government. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.