CTU tries to defend their troughing

January 15th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Taxpayers Union yesterday revealed that has spent $19 million funding Business NZ and the for training which even if it lowered accident rates by 50%, would only return a benefit of 16 cents for every dollar spent.

The CTU has tried to justify their troughing by saying:

“We trained nearly 2000 health and safety representatives last year and the feedback from participants has been overwhelmingly positive. 97 % felt they could perform the role of health and safety rep more confidently than before the course, 96 % said the course showed them how they could improve health and safety in their workplaces and nearly 99 % found that these courses were beneficial and helped with their understanding of the role and the importance of health and safety at work. Feedback has been consistently positive since we began these courses.”

The measure of effectiveness is whether there are fewer accidents at workplaces that receive the training, not on whether participants in a course tick a form saying they enjoyed the course.

The CTU is rightfully focusing on the appallingly high level of deaths in the foresty sector. They would be outraged if the Government’s response was that it doesn’t matter whether or not there are fewer deaths, so long as as employees who do a safety course rate it as beneficial.

CTU President Helen Kelly has also had a rant at The Daily Blog. She thinks there is something sinister that the TU got a response to our OIA 19 days after it was filed. Is she unaware that 20 days is the legal limit? She also says:

The training deliverables for the contract do not focus on the outcomes of the training only the numbers trained but the course is approved and overseen by a tripartite group.

That is the problem. It should be about outcomes. The CTU demand better outcomes in the forestry sector (and I agree with them) but don’t think their own levy payer funded training courses should be linked to improving outcomes. This is the problem when you stick your hand out for government funding – you become conflicted and even hypocritical.

 

Tags: , ,

13 Responses to “CTU tries to defend their troughing”

  1. BeaB (2,104 comments) says:

    Love this. There is no way they can put a PR spin on it after Judith Collins comprehensively slapped them both.

    As for everyone loving their courses – why wouldn’t they? Time off work, free lunch etc etc all at the taxpayer’s expense.

    I hate seeing our money vanish into these spurious sinkholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nick R (504 comments) says:

    My question is, how did the Taxpayer’s Union come across this contract in the first place? On Radio NZ this morning, the Minister said she had commissioned a review of some sort in May 2013, which was when she first learned about the contracts.

    It all seems very… convenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. David Farrar (1,883 comments) says:

    Nick: There was a media report about the contracts last year, and that was the impetus to ask for them and assessments of them under the OIA.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Was it a state secret, Nick R?

    P.S. Holy crap! I have more comments than DPF!

    [DPF: I do most comments inline like this which don't show up]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. redqueen (552 comments) says:

    The fact that her rant includes that NZ has its lowest unionisation in agriculture, forestry, construction, manufacturing, and road freight transport tells me that we’re obviously doing something right. If the UK or US could boast this, they’d be in far less shite than they are now. I think that admission deserves a celebration!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. louie (95 comments) says:

    I had to take a look at the linked articles, my first time there. Was amazed by the tone and that in the comments. Apoplectic doesn’t begin to describe it. I guess the distress comes from reducing the flow of ‘free’ (taxpayer) money to the institutions of the left, and in an election year. All part of the scheme where taxpayer money gets cycled through the unions to the Labour party.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    louie, money is the only way the lefty knows of how to show they care about something.

    This is their thought process:
    First of all, money IS love.
    So giving money is giving love.
    And taking money is taking love.
    And the left love taking money.
    Love is love no matter where it comes from.
    So it doesnt matter where the money comes from either.
    You cant steal love.
    So taking it from people isn’t stealing.
    Taking the love from one person and giving it to another just increases the total amount of love.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Prince (102 comments) says:

    Nick R – ‘…how did the Taxpayer’s Union come across this contract in the first place? On Radio NZ this morning, the Minister said she had commissioned a review of some sort in May 2013…’

    This was hilarious on Red Radio this morning. Treated as a conspiracy, Govt leaking docs to Taxpayers Union etc.

    In fact the TU put in a request under the OIA, but hey, why should Red Radio do any research, or seek an alternative to the Labour view ?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (8,182 comments) says:

    It’s great to reduce the free money to Labour party donating unions – but when will unions have their free access to the workplace revoked ? The BRT can’t send members into the workplace to recruit new members – why should the unions ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (8,182 comments) says:

    louie

    Posting anti union comments at the standard is a pretty sure fire way to get banned. Pointing out that unions are organisations that take money from low paid workers to donate to highly paid politicians is a pretty sure way to get the pack screeching for your blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Spam (598 comments) says:

    I’ll take Helen Kelly’s concerns over forestry deaths seriously when she drops her objection to drug and alcohol testing of the workforce.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    The measure of effectiveness is whether there are fewer accidents at workplaces that receive the training, not on whether participants in a course tick a form saying they enjoyed the course.

    That’s the problem with much of government (and bureaucracy). You have to measure “something” so you measure how many reports are written, or how many courses are held – not how you actually, you know, improved anything real.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    I hope this helps derail the objectionable Kelly and Pilott. These are the leeching types that do nothing other than gather revenue for left-wing pollys and, themselves, living lives of Riley at misguided unionists’ expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.