The Press reports:

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly told a Canterbury Workers Educational Association function in Christchurch on Friday that Whittall should have apologised for the tragedy.

“He’s now been called a national hero, but he’s the CEO of that company and he hasn’t apologised,” she said.

“Even if the company did everything right, if it was me, I’d say: `I’m the employer. This has happened and I’m really sorry. I don’t know why, but I’m going to find out why’. But he hasn’t said that.”

Questions about what happened had not been asked, Kelly said.

“This is a very serious event. That mine was open for just over a year. There are 29 miners dead. We’ve got to be more mature about who we honour, how we think about things, what we demand. If that had been public Department of Conservation [land] we would have gone after them and said what had happened.

“But because it’s a company and because the CEO gets to sit next to the Prime Minister at the memorial service, the hard questions have not been asked.”

The CTU just don’t get it. Peter Whittall would not have insisted he be on the stage and one of the speakers at the memorial service. The PM would not have decided who the speakers are. I’m bet you that it was at the request of the miners families, that Whittall was on the stage as one of the speakers.

I’ve remarked on radio how unusual it is that the CEO of the mine where 29 people died has become a national hero. This must be very frustrating for the unions. But the reality is it is the way Whittall conducted himself that has won people over.

But he would know, that admiration for his post-explosion performance, will not protect him if it transpires that Pike River Coal has some culpability for what happened. Admiration for fronting up does not remove accountability and responsibility.

But this is why we have a Royal Commission – to establish the facts. I think it is unwise for various unions to already be trying to denigrate Whittall.

They have not been alone there. Cindy Baxter of Greenpeace facebooked soon after the tragedy a list of Pike River Directors, labelling them “the people who developed the mine that just killed 29 people”. An extra-ordinary rush to judgement.

We also had a Labour MP on day one of the explosion tweet about how the company must be asked the hard questions to prevent a cover-up and how the unions are key to this. This was before we even knew if anyone was dead.

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) national secretary Andrew Little acknowledged Whittall had not sought hero status, but said failures on the part of mine managers or “the guys underground” could have caused the disaster.

“We need to reserve judgment until we get credible answers to questions about why it all happened.

“The company has been treated as somewhat heroic and in a way I think it’s somewhat undeserving.”

Little is correct in saying we need to reserve judgement. My admiration for Whittall’s response to the explosion in no way means that Pike River Coal should not be held accountable if the facts warrant it.

I think Andrew is wrong though in saying the company has been treated as somewhat heroic. Whittall has been, but he is not the company. People have empathised with the fact he knew every single miner killed – in fact had employed them all, and so obviously grieved for them.

In yesterday’s HoS, Matt McCarten had the same theme:

under his watch, 29 men were killed and still lie entombed. Family members and friends of the dead have been robbed of a loved one. Many other workers, as a result of the explosion, will lose their livelihoods.

Unbelievably, the chief executive of this company becomes a media darling.

He did not become a “media darling” for what happened. He gained respect because he did what so many people say they want CEOs to do – he fronted up constantly, he did not spin, he did not lie, he told the truth. He was real.

If you have followed the media coverage you’d think the whole tragedy was just an unavoidable accident.

On the contrary, I think no such thing.

The Council of Trade Unions wants an explanation from Unite on why it failed to pay the IRD more than $36,000 in PAYE on behalf of its employees.

Unite, one of New Zealand’s largest unions, owed IRD over $130,000 for the year ended March 2009 (its most recent filing), including more than $57,000 in unpaid GST. For the same financial year its liabilities outweighed its assets by more than $170,000.

It is the unpaid PAYE that will be causing most concern, as this is in fact money owed by the employees to the IRD, and UNITE has appropriated it for its own purposes. It is the sort of stuff that the newspaper boss Maxwell did – but on a much smaller scale.

Unite head Matt McCarten confirmed yesterday that the union owed money to the IRD but said he had made choices to pay for union campaigns rather than clear the debt. “I don’t shy away from these decisions, I make the calls.”

He said Unite paid $8000 in PAYE each month to the IRD but kept incurring late payment penalties. He claimed not to know exactly how much it owed the IRD.

The late penalties do add up – as many businesses know. But if it was a deliberate decision to keep running campaigns, instead of paying off the debt, then few will have sympathy.

He agreed it was not a good look for a workers’ union to fail to pay its employees’ tax.

I don’t think Matt realises how bad a look it is. The next time UNITE or Matt calls for greater government spending, this issue will arise.

CTU president Helen Kelly said Unite did good work in an area that was difficult and expensive to organise. That required it to juggle its finances. “All unions are always short of resources.”

However, when questioned on Unite’s tax failure, she said: “I need an explanation for that”.

I’m not sure I would say all unions are short of resources. The combined wealth of the union movement puts the Business Roundtable, Business NZ, and the Chambers of Commerce to shame. I did a blog post a couple of years back comparing them.

In this video the aggrieved ex-employee says he was never told of an employment contract or a 90 day trial. He goes onto say he has never had an employment contract in any hospitality job.

This where the CTU campaign backfires. He did not sign an employment contract in which he agrees to a 90 day probation period. Therefore it does not apply. He is going to win damages in court.

You have to wonder how desperate the CTU is for “examples” when the best they can come up with are ones that don’t even apply.

Now you may wonder, what if he had signed an employment contract with a probation period. did they really sack him at the end of 90 days merely for putting “too much sauce and aioli” on servings?

I’m suspicious, because why would an employer sack someone who is otherwise a great employee just for that? That will just cost the employer money and experience getting a replacement.

Sure enough the employer has a different story – one the CTU and Labour forgot to mention:

Mr Collins had said Mr Greave was not sacked because he used too much sauce and aioli.

“On the last day, my mum, the owner of the cafe, said to him, cut the use out, it’s too much wastage.

“[He was sacked] because he would change menus, wouldn’t listen to me as a superior.

“He wouldn’t listen to any instructions either from the owners of the cafe or myself as manager. [He] wouldn’t do his job the way we required it.

“He just wasn’t what we were looking for in a chef and basically I believe he just wasn’t willing to have a younger … member in charge.”

Mr Collins, who is 22 years old, said his age was a problem for Mr Greave, who called Mr Collins “very inexperienced” in the video.

I have to say the employer’s version has the ring of truth about it. You listen to the video of the ex-employee and you get the impression he thought he was better than the owners and he was indispensable.

At the end of the day, why would they have sacked him if it was only using too much sauce?

In the Campbell Live poll 90% of respondents thought Actors Equity was to blame for the Hobbit fiasco and 10% thought the film company was to blame. Even given the statistical unreliability of this sort of poll, that’s a resounding and deserved indictment of the appalling PR of Actors Equity, the CTU and in particular CTU president Helen Kelly. I have seldom seen groups so out of touch with public sentiment or so incapable of getting across the message they wanted to convey.

Danyl blogs at the Dim Post about the next CTU media campaign:

CTU launches charm offensive, desecrates grave of Sir Edmund Hillary

In the wake of sharp public criticism over its handling of contract negotiations around The Hobbit the Council of Trade Unions has launched a public relations campaign aimed at rehabilitating the organisation’s image. CTU President Helen Kelly has promised New Zealanders they will be ‘wowed’ by a series of industrial strikes planned to disrupt the rugby world cup next year and has violated the grave of revered mountain climber Sir Edmund Hillary during a live press conference.

Heh this is of course Danyl’s normal satire. However he hits a bit close to the bone. Numerous Auckland industrial agreements have been timed to expire just before the Rugby World Cup. watch this space!

‘This shows the public that the union movement is about more than being a voice for working people, conducting fair and equitable negotiations between equal parties and destroying the capital owning parasites like Hillary and Jackson, and also Hayley Westenra who has it coming to her,’ Helen Kelly announced while digging, pausing to pose for cameras and spit on the grave.

‘Like most Kiwis we have nothing but contempt for Hillary and his achievements,’ Kelly said hitching up her skirt and squatting on Sir Edmund’s skeleton while onlookers and supporters cheered and sang We Shall not be Moved. ‘This sends a signal to the public that we share their values.’ …

‘Although Hillary did support the labour movement for many decades let us not forget that he also lived in Remuera,’ Kelly added, spray-painting a picture of a penis on the tombstone. ‘Fairness! Respect! Solidarity!’

Subsequent to the desecration Kelly and senior union delegates burned a huge pile of five dollar notes, which bear Sir Edmund’s image. According to a statement released by the union the bonfire was unrelated to the Hillary protest and is customary practise at CTU events.

This is again one of the ironies. Sir Peter Jackson could have made so much more money if he had moved to Hollywood. But it was is desire to create jobs for New Zealanders that has seen him remain here.

Also Lee at MWT highlights this comment made on the Dim Post:

“What kind of country do we live in if union bosses can’t meet at Matterhorn to decide the future of 22,000 people’s jobs over a few $42 Mains and some cocktails, without being harangued by smelly jobless proles?”

Actually I quite liked that Simon Whipp who featured in the video. I’m thinking he’d make a great candidate for Parliament – he should seek selection for a safe seat somewhere.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. The full stupidity of the Actors’ Equity members who arranged an international boycott of The Hobbit is now apparent.

They used the nuclear bomb option in industrial negotiations. And nuclear bombs always have fall out.

What makes New Zealand unique in terms of film-making is that it is where Sir Peter lives and where, despite the blandishments of Hollywood, he has chosen to build his empire.

A film set is not like a meatworks or an old-fashioned cotton mill where workers are interchangeable. It is a place where individuals have a chance to make a difference and to be rewarded for their talents.

Members of the Australian-based Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and its local offshoot, Actors’ Equity, who do not back themselves to shine are under no compulsion to offer their services to Sir Peter. If they prefer, they are at liberty to deliver one-person shows in empty provincial theatres. But they should not seek to deny others the opportunity to build film careers or to experience the excitement of working on a project that will be seen around the world.

I love the line about empty provincial theatres!

… the Government has no choice but to step in to try to repair the damage done by the actors’ union. It is not just the future of The Hobbit that is at stake, but the future of the industry that has grown up around Sir Peter. If that requires the Government to bump up the 15 per cent tax break already available to the producers of The Hobbit, Finance Minister Bill English should get out his chequebook.

The purity of the tax system be damned. The consequences of losing an industry that has revitalised Wellington do not bear thinking about.

Losing the film will lead to a massive loss of jobs, and the taxpayer will probably end up paying even more through lost tax income and higher welfare costs. Having said that, I would much prefer the tax break not be increased.

Some lunatics think that this was all manufactured so they could get a tax break. I’d really love to meet the evil geniuses that managed to infiltrate MEAA and get them to arrange a global boycott, just so that Warners can use it as an excuse to get a bigger tax break.

Perhaps the shortfall could be made up by cutting Creative New Zealand’s theatrical budget.

Is that on top of the $44,000 I already want to cut?

John Drinnan at the Herald looks at the media handling of it and notes:

To challenge a national icon you would think you would lay on a bit of charm – or just show some respect.

Kelly said: “There are still New Zealanders out there who believe that people have a right to negotiate.”

Maybe the handling of the Hobbit dispute will win the MEAA and CTU an activist award at the next Socialist International prizegiving.

But in this country they have turned a lot of people off.

Helen Kelly calling Sir Peter Jackson a spoilt brat was incredibly stupid. Peter Jackson has created more jobs for New Zealanders than possibly any other person. Once upon a time the CTU said they cared about jobs.

Tom Cardy in the Dom Post has the latest updates:

A furious Sir Peter Jackson will “fight as hard as he can” to keep The Hobbit in New Zealand – but is already listing key Kiwi staff to take if the two-part film goes overseas.

And the director hit back at Council of Trade Union president Helen Kelly’s claims that he had set up the actors’ union to take the blame if the US$500 million (NZ$667m) movie is lost.

“I couldn’t believe it. It was the first time I really got very angry.”

Asked if it was fingers crossed that The Hobbit would remain, Jackson said: “I don’t know what to cross any more. I’ve just got to get some sleep. I haven’t had much sleep in the past few days.”

It was unlikely he would be able to take more than 150 Kiwi crew – compared with a minimum of 2500 he could employ here – but did not yet “have the heart” to choose who.

Sir Peter is an unlikely target for the CTU to try and make out as the super villain. Almost everyone who has worked for him raves about him, and I would speculate that he probably routinely votes Labour/Greens.  He is not some uncaring distant Rupert Murdock type. So he is speaking very honestly when he says it would be heart-breaking to choose just 5% of people to take overseas.

I understand from those a bit closer to the action that he is personally very hurt by what has happened, as he has spent so much of his life creating jobs and getting better pay for NZ workers. He could have become far far richer by moving to Hollywood.

Ms Kelly cited a belief Warner had already decided to move the films for bigger tax incentives and lower wages, and Jackson – a “spoilt brat” – was trying to set the union up to blame.

Yes Sir Peter masterminded the MEAA into an international boycott to move the film overseas, despite having already spent tens of millions on preparing for the films to be shot in NZ.

With all respect Helen Kelly’s belief should be given as much weight as the beliefs of Scientologists.

Jackson described her as clueless. “Why do people like Helen Kelly have to be driven by rhetoric and playing some kind of role where she’s always got to be the victim and everyone else is to blame?

“She has tried every possible conspiracy theory. I’m expecting to be told I was on the grassy knoll in Dallas any moment now.”

Can he prove he was not?

Outrageous Fortune star and Actors’ Equity committee member Robyn Malcolm said yesterday she could not believe a request for a discussion around conditions was enough to derail the project. “We’re not even the coffee budget. Nobody wants Cate Blanchett’s salary …”

Oh you silly person you. You did not “request” a discussion. You initiated a global boycott. Do you not know the difference? It is rather huge.

Incidentally how many people were aware that the taxpayers have sunk over $48 million into keeping Ms Malcolm and others employed on Outraegous Fortune?

I’m a fan of the show, but I prefer them to do what Shortland Street does – become self sufficient after the initial years.

Remember those stories about lynch mobs and needing Police escorts. Well this video shows the lovely Simon Whipp in action, refusing to even talk politely to a questioner – definitely a violent lynch mob.

And finally the Young Nats ask about why the Wellington Mayor is missing in action. It is incredible that the new Mayor of Wellington has not been out to the media saying how crucial it is that the Hobbit be filmed here, and demanding that any obstacles to it be removed. The only person who has been even quieter than Celia has been Phil Goff.

I was going to fisk the CTU statement, but Russell Brown has done it far better than I could. And yes, that is not a typo.

I do want to first touch on one aspect, quoting the CTU:

Facts on Hobbit

Helen Kelly, CTU President, said today that it is important that some facts about the union stance on the Hobbit are placed before the public.

• The union is seeking basic terms and conditions such as hours, breaks, overtime payments etc.

• The union has always been prepared to agree those conditions as an industry standard rather than a collective agreement.

This is both false and misleading.

First of all the union is not just “seeking” basic terms and conditions. It arranged a global boycott of the film. This is the nuclear bomb when it comes to negotiations.

And like any nuclear bomb, you can’t lob one into battle, and then say afterwards “Oh we’ll try and pretend we never did that and promise not to do it again”. The damage is done the moment it has happened.

The studios want certainty even more than lower cost. It may actually end up in a country where most actors are covered by a union. That is preferable to NZ, because they actually have certainty.

But a union with only 86 or so members that arranges a global boycott of a film is the opposite of stability. It signals run, run away from these lunatics.

Secondly let me quote from the global boycott:

Resolved, that the International Federation of Actors urges each of its affiliates to adopt instructions to their members that no member of any FIA affiliate will agree to act in the theatrical film The Hobbit until such time as the producer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance for production in New Zealand providing for satisfactory terms and conditions for all performers employed on the productions

Now re-read what the CTU says:

The union has always been prepared to agree those conditions as an industry standard rather than a collective agreement.

What bullshit. The global boycott was explicitly got a collective agreement. This is not just spin or distortion – it is a total lie.

Now let me quote Russell Brown:

Instead, since its takeover by the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Equity has been so feckless that it failed to file reports for three years, until it was struck off the register of incorporated societies. New Zealand actors have a decent case for greater power and security in their industry. Their union – and the Australian union that was supposed to bring in a new era of professionalism – has failed them.

Eighteen months ago, Equity refused an offer from the Screen Production and Development Association (Spada) to renegotiate the “Pink Book” code of conduct which covers actors’ pay and conditions and has been untouched since the MEAA moved in. Its precondition for any talks with Spada was that the existing system, which does generally work, be scrapped and replaced with collective agreements.

This shows the lies told by the CTU up even more. Not only did MEAA not seek an update to the industry standard, they flat out refused to negotiate such a thing.

There were other things wrong with the union’s strategy, if it can be called that. The way the first meeting in Wellington was run was a disgrace – while anyone who turned up and called themselves a performer was allowed to vote in Auckland, the rules were changed in Wellington after the vote had begun to exclude non-Equity members. One actor trying to read a statement from Jackson (who had been refused permission to address the meeting) was shouted down and couldn’t fnish.

Most notably, statements from organiser Frances Walsh clearly indicated it was seeking to negotiate a national agreement via The Hobbit (why else talk about wanting to negotiate rules on nudity in a film which features no nudity?) and Robyn Malcolm managed to say in successive sentences to John Campbell that they wanted “a fair deal for New Zealand actors working on the Hobbit”, but an agreement that was “not Hobbit-specific”. I’ve explained before why it would have been unethical for Jackson to put himself in that position.

And this is the real game – to try and force all NZ productions to pay the same as The Hobbit.

By the time they’d settled for far less – and finally agreed to talk to Spada without showstopping preconditions — the damage had largely been done. Yes, if Ireland gets the gig, it will be because of its more-generous-than-the-others tax breaks. But the film was going to be made in New Zealand. The door for other countries was opened when MEAA executive Simon Whipp authorised the SAG member alert that brought the production to a halt by banning actors from working on it.

If Warners thinks the industrial relations environment in New Zealand has become too risky and unpredictable, it has some cause for thinking so.

Again, it is not about the lowest cost – it really is about stability. Remember there are two films to be produced – they don’t want to finish one, and then have an unstable union call another boycott or strike to ratchet up demands on the second film.

Some people have a conspiracy theory that it is all about the tax credit, and that this issue is just an excuse. They should consider how much money has already been spent by Jackson and Weta preparing for filing it here – Hobbiton re-established etc.

But it was telling that the CTU’s Helen Kelly said on Nightline last night that the Equity meeting had been called for members to discuss “what they wanted in terms of terms and conditions”.

You’re saying that after all this — you still don’t know what you want?

Amazing.

It’s also generally not a good sign for a union leader, as Kelly did, to refer to the 1000-plus working people who met and marched in Wellington last night, most of them members of their own guilds and unions, as being in a “lynch mob” mood.

So Helen managed to insult hundreds of union members.

None of the other screen guilds have spoken in support of Equity, and they have privately assured both Spada and the government that they are on the side of the producers in this case.

They are the real victims. I’ll be minorly affected in that the NZ economy will take a dive, and that means more debt to be serviced by us as taxpayers. But the 1000s of people who will end up out of work are the ones I really feel for. It’s one thing to lose your job when it is semi-inevitable – in a fading industry etc. But to work in what was a growing healthy industry with a bright future, and to lose your job because of the actions of a few dozen individuals would really piss you off.

Even if the film can be hauled back here – and that’s the state of play – this will have badly damaged relations in the industry. And if the film really is lost, it will damage a lot more than that – the trade union movement included.

This is the part puzzling me. Putting aside ideological differences I have always regarded Helen Kelly as a pretty smart operator, and someone who does try to do the right thing.

But her involvement with this dispute has been disastrous.

Almost everyone involved with this fracas has said that MEAA’s Simon Whipp is the problem – the NZ Actors involved are lightweights. So Whipp is the Aussie bad boy that everyone was blaming (and fairly).

But what Helen has done is change the focus of anger from being the head of an aussie union, to the head of the CTU. She is associating all NZ unions with Simon Whipp’s campaign, and as loath as I am to give advice to the NZ union movement on how to protect their reputation, I have to say that this is a spectacularly bad thing.

The CTU has put out a press release which is factually incorrect and made themselves the target. Why on Earth did they not just assist behind the scenes (where they have done some good I hear), rather than become the de facto spokesperson for the MEAA?

How will the CTU have credibility about protecting Kiwi jobs, if the movies do go overseas?

Oh, and finally, on a related note – I’ve heard nothing on this matter from the temporary and future Labour Party Leaders – surely some journalist has asked Phil Goff and Andrew Little if they support the CTU’s defence of the global boycott against the Hobbit?

Weta Workshop’s boss Sir Richard Taylor last night said the New Zealand film industry was “at some level of peril”.

He said a $670 million US-backed production of Tolkien classic The Hobbit could be produced elsewhere if a union boycott of the project was not lifted.

“We are deeply concerned it may [go overseas].

“Our industry is being put in a very dire place by very few people who have nothing to do with the film industry in New Zealand.”

It is worth remembering that MEAA represents only around 80 actors in NZ – less than 5% of the total acting workforce.

Up to 1500 workers marched from Weta’s Miramar studios into central Wellington to picket an Actors’ Equity meeting being held at St John’s Hall.

Their jobs are at direct risk. This Australian union doesn’t care about how many people may end up out of work.

The Equity meeting – which was to discuss unrelated matters – was cancelled after union bosses learned the march was on its way.

Equity spokeswoman Frances Walsh said the union had “no choice” but to call off the meeting “because we are not going to expose our performers to harm”.

What? Did she think Sir Richard was leading a lynch mob that would burn the church hall down? Or did they just not want to talk to all those people whose jobs are at risk?

The Dom Post reports that things look grim:

The Hobbit seems set to be taken offshore, with the film’s producers due in New Zealand to begin preparations next week.

Sir Peter Jackson and the producers have been in a standoff with actors unions who have boycotted the Lord of the Rings prequels as they have agitated for a collective agreement.

There has been speculation that production could be taken overseas. Other countries had offered a one-off deal that is double New Zealand’s 15 per cent tax rebate for films.

Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh said last night the lifting of the actors union’s blacklist “does nothing to help the film stay in New Zealand”.

“The damage inflicted on our film industry by [the actors unions] is long since done.”

The move has undermined Warner Brothers confidence in the industry “and they are now, quite rightly, very concerned about the security of their $500m investment”.

“Next week Warners are coming down to New Zealand to make arrangements to move the production offshore. It appears we cannot make films in our own country even when substantial financing is available.”

And remember it is not the fault of the unions:

Ms Kelly said union members would not be at fault if The Hobbit moved overseas. Instead, it was Warner Brothers seeking to gain greater tax breaks and lower wages.

Sure. Nothing to do with us at all. Helen sounds like the Vietnam commander – we had to destroy the village in order to to save it.

But Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the crowd was “in a lynch-mob mood thanks to Richard Taylor, who has obviously wound them up like springs” and actors had to call the meeting off. “It was too dangerous.”

That nasty awful Sir Richard Taylor. How dare he organise a protest march. The CTU condemns people who organise protest marches and make fiery speeches to them. Such marches should be illegal – unless organised by the CTU of course.

I’ll make a prediction. If The Hobbit moves overseas, there will be another protest march. Not with 1,500 people in it, but 15,000 or more. And if you think you have seen anger already, you’ve seen nothing yet.

People should be angry when their jobs are at risk. NZ Actors should be angry that they will lose the chance to earn $5,000/week. Wellingtonians should be angry that a decade of investment into building a film industry here may all be wasted.

A UMR survey released today by the CTU shows that 80 per cent of New Zealanders oppose the Government’s planned changes to dismissal law.  Previous polls had asked the question about whether respondents supported a 90 day trial and unsurprisingly, the majority said yes – because after all these were already allowed under previous law.

But Darien is wrong in claiming the UMR poll shows 80% are opposed. The question that was asked is:

“Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed, even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?

Now that question is open to a very wide interpretation. An appeal can mean anything from asking your boss to reconsider, to appealing to your boss’ boss to “appealing” to the ERA.  The question is so wide, that it of relatively little value (in my opinion) in judging whether or not people support or oppose the Govt’s law change.

Note this is not a criticism of UMR.  This is a criticism of how Labour and the CTU have portrayed the results.

As a comparison, let us look at the poll done by Colmar Brunton for One News. It asked:

Currently employment law allows a business to take on a new worker and then if it does not work out dismiss that worker within 90 days without the worker being able to take a personal grievance claim. Currently the scheme only applies to companies with fewer than twenty employees but now the government plans to extend the 90 day trial period to cover all companies and so all new workers could be subject to the scheme. Some people believe this places workers in a vulnerable position but the government claims it creates jobs because businesses will be more willing to take on a new worker.

Do you think the 90 day trial law should be extended to cover all companies every time someone starts a new job?

Now this is a far better question (for judging if someone agrees with the Government’s proposed law change) as it tells people what the current law is, tells them what the proposed change is, and summarises arguments for and against.

Colmar Brunton found 60% in favour of extending the 90 day law to all companies.

This is a good example of the importance of poll questions. And again it isn’t that one question is necessarily “good” and one is “bad”.  It is about whether one can fairly interpret the poll result as reflecting what the public think of a proposed law change.

It is quite clear that the UMR result can not be used as representing public opinion on the Government’s law change. All it can be used for is representing whether people think there should be some sort of generic appeal from dismissal decisions – no details on who the appeal should be to – which is crucial. And an appeal is not the same as the right to take a personal grievance and get compensation etc.

One has to wonder why the CTU did not ask the same question as One News? The answer is obvious.

Heather Smith was publicised in the union’s “name and shame” campaign after being sacked by Stokes Valley Pharmacy in Hutt Valley.

She had worked there for almost three years, but had to re-apply for her job late last year after the business changed ownership and name, and was sacked a few weeks later.

Now this case concerned me. Because the 90 day grievance free provisions are meant to apply to new employees only, not existing employees. I wasn’t convinced that a change of ownership could change things.

If her job was truly made redundant and she applied for a new job, then that may be a grey area – but if she was carrying on in much the same job then it would not be a true redundancy.

So I checked with the Minister’s office, and was told that the case the CTU had highlighted had gone to court – something not mentioned in the original media reports. This is a good thing, as it looked like the 90 day period had been misused.

And the court has ruled:

The first employment case brought to court under 90-day trial laws has gone in favour of a dismissed employee, prompting the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) to send a warning to employers.

Backed by the CTU, Ms Smith’s case ended up in the Employment Court, which ruled in a decision released today that the new employer had not complied with contractual requirements of the Employment Relations Act relating to the trial period, meaning laws preventing Ms Smith taking a personal grievance case were nullified.

The court also referred to “good faith” expectations and said the employer had not lived up to those in its dismissal of Ms Smith and there were grounds for a personal grievance.

CTU president Helen Kelly said the employer had relied on the law for complete indemnity from standards of decent employment practice, but was found to have breached both good faith requirements and terms in the employment agreement.

This is a good ruling by the court, and I am glad the CTU helped take the case. Unions do often play a valuable role in protecting some workers.

However I believe it was wrong to include this case as one of the 90 day examples, when there was in fact a lawsuit underway arguing it was not covered by the 90 day law. And indeed we have found out that the law is not as wide reaching as the CTU claimed.

We don’t know the employer’s side of the story, as they were not interviewed. What we do know, is that Florence Cohen (let us presume they made a typo” is a Labour Party activist.

Now this does not mean Florence’s version of what happened is not correct. But the failure to identify her as a Labour activist is significant, considering the Labour Party is campaigning to get rid of the law, and this means an activist is hardly someone unbiased.

In the comments Trevor Mallard tries to spin this as:

Lots of people join political parties after being treated unfairly. Good on you Florence.

Sadly for Trevor, the Labour site shows Florence joining in April 2009, and the law only came into force in March 2009, so it is impossible for Florence to have only joined Labour after a dismissal at the end of a 90 day probationary period under the new law.

I want to stress that I think Florence comes across well on the video, and I am not disputing she may have had a negative experience under this law. I don’t want people attacking a 17 year old who may have done nothing wrong.

My criticism is of the CTU for not doing full disclosure. Being a partisan activist is relevant information if you are put forward as a “victim” of a law your party strongly opposes.

The PM was quite bolshie this week about the CTU’s open letter and threats to cut off political co-operation. He reminded the CTU’s Helen Kelly he’d broken a National Party promise by heeding union pleas not to break what he called the union “monopoly” on collective bargaining. It’s something the CTU should “think about,” he said.

So let’s see if I have this right.

Prior to the last election the CTU ran advertisements and explicitly campaigned against National. They even targeted senior MPs in video ads.

Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.

Instead John Key gives the CTU direct access to him. And even better he agrees to hold off on implementing two of National’s election policies – employer consent for access, and removing the union monopoly for collective bargaining.

So just think about this. He has a National/ACT majority. He could implement his entire election policy and in fact some of ACT’s. But instead he agrees to defer two policies to keep happy the very same organisation that campaigned against him.

18 months later, he announces that one of the two deferred policies will be implemented. A policy that was explicit election policy. And on the basis of this, the CTU claims it will call for strikes, industrial action and refuse all co-operation.

There is a lesson in this for John Key. As admirable as it is to be Mr nice guy, and try actually extend the hand of friendship to the CTU, despite them campaigning explicitly against you, it was always doomed to fail. The CTU will always put first its desire to get Labour into office, and was always going to turn around and crap on you. They just needed the excuse.

I mean does anyone really think it is a rational decision to declare you are now against all free trade agreements and will try and stop them, just because a union now has to let an employer know at least a few minutes in advance if they want to visit?

The PM should get on and implement the remainder of the 2008 industrial relations policy. Unions should indeed not have a monopoly on collective bargaining. A group of employees should be able to negotiate a collective contract themselves without needing to form a union.

Likewise a lawyer should be able to represent a group of employees, and negotiate a collective contract on their behalf. You do not need a union to negotiate a collective contract. Labour merely passed a law requiring it. Under the former law, there were quite a few collective contracts that did not involve unions.

The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has welcomed the Government’s decision not to support the reintroduction of youth rates.

So the CTU is happy.

Opposition leader Phil Goff welcomed the decision.

“It’s crazy to suggest that any young person doing the same job exactly as older people should be paid automatically at a lower rate. It didn’t add up,” he told reporters.

As is Phil Goff. This means it must be wrong!

Goff’s own statement shows a total misrepresentation of the situation. Having a lower minimum wage for teenagers is exactly that – a lower floor. How the hell you translate that into “should be paid automatically at a lower rate” I do not know. Once again, for the really stupid people, – this is about a floor – not a ceiling, not an automatic rate that you must apply to teenagers.

In today’s NBR 24/7 column I rip into the Govt’s decision:

It really brings into doubt the seriousness of the Government in terms of job creation, when it persists with a law that has clearly priced many teenagers off the job market. …

Most teenagers are not seeking full-time employment. What they desperately want is to gain some work experience, and to gain some extra money on top of whatever parental or student support they have.

By agreeing to vote down Sir Roger’s bill, the Government is saying we want young people to be unable to gain work, unless an employer thinks they are worth almost $13 an hour. …

Later this year, overall unemployment should start tracking down. If youth unemployment remains persistently high, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves.

There are 45,000 teenagers unemployed. This decision is a very bad one.

BUSINESS BOSS Phil O’Reilly is predicting 2010 will be a year of industrial strife and an “ugly” budget that will bump up the GST rate.

O’Reilly, the chief executive of Business NZ, said he expected “fireworks” from public sector unions as the government tightened the screws on spending, and Finance Minister Bill English has said total government spending cannot increase more than $1.1 billion in the May budget, a difficult task considering that public hospitals alone have been soaking up an extra $700 million a year in recent budgets. English has warned public servants such as teachers and nurses not to expect pay increases that are “out of line with realistic expectations”.

More than 50,000 primary and secondary teachers will negotiate a new pay deal with the government when their current agreement expires at the end of June.

“I think we will see quite a few sparks fly,” O’Reilly said. “Government departments are being told how much they can spend so you’re going to see an ugly budget from the perspective of government spending and that will impact people like the state sector unions, the teacher unions and so on. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of that was turned into industrial action.”

NZ Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said O’Reilly was being “hysterical” but warned that public sector workers would not tolerate zero pay increases or cuts in services.

“We are ready for that kind of a year but we hope commonsense will prevail.

I am all for common sense. Common sense is that the economy has grown only 0.4% in the last six months, so pay increases greater than the rate of economic growth are not common sense. Likewise borrowing more money to fund pay increases is not common sense when you are borrowing $240 million every week just to pay for current salaries.

WORKERS WILL be allowed to swap one week of their holidays for cash from next year.

The government will introduce legislation early in 2010, despite opposition from unions who see it as a move to rewind the Labour government’s law change two years ago, which increased the minimum annual leave entitlement for fulltime workers from three to four weeks.

This was of course election policy. It also may not mean great change for some people as if you do not take all your annual leave, and leave your job, it gets paid out to you anyway. Also it gives an employee the right to sto an employer closing the business for four weeks over summer, and forcing them to take four weeks leave then. They can now only be forced to tale three weeks leave, and get the fourth paid out as extra salary.

The government will also legislate to standardise the rate at which leave is calculated. There will be a single rate of pay for all leave whether annual, sick, bereavement or public. …

Wilkinson said the only workers who would be worse off under the changes were those who engaged in “gaming” the system; for example, by manipulating their work hours to maximise their pay while on leave.

Under current law, holiday payments factor in penal rates in the four weeks before the holiday. An employee could exploit that by working considerable overtime before going on leave.

Seems sensible, and much much easier administratively.

Wilkinson said the review was needed because the current system was so complex and confusing that even the courts had trouble determining disputes between employers and employees over rates of pay for leave.

“We are not reducing entitlements. We think the new formula for relevant daily pay will be easier to calculate. We also think it will be fairer to employees and employers and prevent the `gaming’ of relevant daily pay calculations.”

I suspect very few employers apply the law absolutely correctly because it is so difficult to understand. Most just pay leave at the normal rate anyway I suspect.

Helen Kelly, president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and a member of the review panel, was worried the government would allow bosses to transfer days in lieu and public holidays to avoid paying double time.

Although she was happy with the proposals as they stood, she was concerned that the final legislation could go further than the report, leaving workers worse off.

“There should be a condition [in the legislation] that the reason for transferring is not to avoid paying time-and-a-half.”

Nice to see a constructive approach by the CTU. They will of course be against the cashing in a weeks leave, but pleased to see not against the other changes necessarily.

Some workers spoken to by the Star-Times were pleased to hear of the law change, saying they would be keen to cash in their leave. Others though, would not. “Hell no, I don’t need the money…I would rather take the break from work,” said one.

And now they will have the choice, so both camps can be happy. Different employees have different needs. Those with kids probably love having a 4th week leave. Those without kids are more likely to love being able to earn some extra money by only taking three weeks. And there are also those in positions who find it hell to take too long a break, as the work piles up so much in their absence. So not treating all employees as wanting the same thing is good.

Among the 241 submissions was a call for March 18 to become a public holiday. Wilkinson said she was “amused” at the suggestion but was not interested in “legislating for behaviour that condones hangovers or the over-indulgence of alcohol”. March 17 is St Patrick’s Day.

Heh.

I attended the Council of Trade Unions biennial conference in Wellington this week. It was the first time in a decade that trade union barons turned up when Labour wasn’t in power. …

Key finished his speech, bravely took questions from the floor and good-humouredly responded to all attacks.

I can’t recall how often PMs Bolger or Shipley addressed the CTU Conference, but it wasn’t that regular and I’m not sure they ever agreed to have an open mike at the end of the speech. And it has become quite a hallmark of Key that he will take questions, even from the most hostile audience. Long may it last.

When one union, aligned strongly with the Labour Party, blamed him for its current pay problems he reminded them he’d been the Prime Minister for a year during a recession whereas Labour had governed for the past nine years when there were surpluses.

Key cheerfully suggested that maybe the blame for their low wages was best directed to the Labour Party. That shut them up.

Heh.

It was my first opportunity to assess both Key and Goff as presenters and leaders. Key was at the top of his game – warm, respectful, self-assured.

He exuded confidence and sometimes even bordered on belligerence. When union boss Andrew Little queried the Government’s intention over ACC Key dodged the question.

Instead, he jabbed a cheap shot at Little, who is also the Labour Party president, referring to him as the next leader of that party.

Probably was a cheap shot, but some shots are too tempting to pass up!

But his flippant dismissiveness aside, his support for low-paid workers seems heartfelt and genuine. Key isn’t a great political orator but came across as decent and likable. Only a fool would believe Key can be taken out by Goff any time soon.

And this is from the leader of NZ’s most militant union!

Goff is a polished performer and his speech the following day pushed all the right buttons for his audience. He is a man under pressure but he’s a pro from way back.

However, I couldn’t help feeling Goff’s delivery was a campaign stump speech written by one of his staff. Unlike Key, it felt that he was talking at the audience rather than to it.

It is an interesting observation from Matt, as I had much the same reaction when they both spoke at the Family First organised Forum on the Family. Goff was very good, very professional and performed well. But Key, especially in the Q&A, can connect with the audience in a way Goff can’t.

Trevor Mallard was a distraction sitting behind Goff all through his speech, visibly chewing gum like some sort of goon from central casting.

Maybe Labour’s image consultants could have a word with their in-house gangster next time he accompanies his new leader.

Sounds like a bit of bad blood there, which is interesting as if Labour wins, Trevor will probably be Minister of Labour.

The Government is reviewing personal grievance claims procedures to make them less onerous on employers.

John Key told the Council of Trade Unions the personal grievance process needed to be more coherent and easier.

“Substance-over-form issues are the area of concern – where someone has genuinely done something that warrants dismissal but because [the employers] haven’t followed the rules absolutely perfectly, they lose. It can be very expensive for small companies.”

Well overdue. Even large companies with scores of lawyers often fail to follow perfect process, and have to pay out money no matter how justified the dismissal is. For small companies, it is far worse, as they do not have access to in house legal advice, and often they just have to carry on with someone who is not up to the job, for fear of having to do a big pay out if they take action.

Quite like the gall of John Key in announcing the changes at the CTU conference, along with this report:

John Key laid down a challenge to teachers yesterday – sacrifice part of a pay rise so school support staff can have one.

Speaking at the Council of Trade Unions’ conference, the Prime Minister was challenged by Frances Guy from the teachers’ and support staff union, the NZ Educational Institute, over the nil pay increase offered to support staff. …

Mr Key said the staff were in a difficult position in their negotiations because of the fiscally restrained environment.

“Maybe one option is you guys ought to go and talk to your fellow unions and say, ‘Let’s have teachers taking less of a pay rise so it can be put toward education support staff’. See if they support you.”

Oh that is wonderful. What a cunning response. Of course Labour is outraged:

Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous” to propose setting the education groups against each other.

Outrageous Fortune perhaps

Council of Trade Unions economist Bill Rosenberg says rather than pull back spending, New Zealand needs to borrow more to keep the economy ticking over.

“Making sure that all of us have enough money to spend to keep the economy going, to keep jobs going and make sure the economy doesn’t go into a downward spiral.”

I think someone needs to explain to the CTU that when you borrow money, you have to pay interest on it, and have to pay it back one day. And the more interest you have to pay on debt, the less money there is for hospitals and schools etc.

I look forward to hearing whether Labour endorse the CTU’s call for bigger deficits and more borrowing. So far they have voted for or indicated support for an extra $6 billion a year of borrowing, so I guess they do.

A snap of Sir Roger with Salient Editor Jackson Wood, showing off one of the badges funded out of compulsory student association fees that say “Leave us alone Roger”.

The irony is that it is fact the compulsory student associations that won’t leave students alone. And that they spend their compulsory funds on stupid badges.

I doubt anyone actually believes the press releases from various student unions, but just in case. First of all OPSA:

ACT’s bill differs from previous attempts at voluntary membership. It will not only force voluntary membership on all campuses irrespective; but it is essentially the same as the “full-blown” type tried in recently in Australia, where institutions are not allowed to charge a compulsory services levy and use this to buy services from students’ associations.

The bill is in fact very much in line with the three previous bills in the 1990s. They all allowed individual students to decide whether or not to join. The current law was a last minute compromise by NZ First.

The issue of service levies has arisen, because it has become de facto compulsory membership in some areas with an institution funding an association through this back door.

Then Te Mana Ākonga:

“The National government have expressed previously that they would like better outcomes for Māori in education. TMA questions how this view is possible if they take the reliable tools we have, this being our voice and the right to express our autonomy” said Poutu

Except Maori students do not have autonomy. They are forced to join the compulsory student associations. Post VSM, Maori student associations could actually compete for members with the main student associations. Students should have a choice as to whether to join any or all of the main campus association, their faculty association, a Maori association if they are Maori.

Then Albany Students Association:

The Albany Students’ Association, a not-for-profit incorporated society that currently serves over 7,000 Massey University Albany campus students, relies heavily on student membership levies and, without them, would be economically crippled. “Contrary to what the ACT Party is suggesting, students are able to opt out of membership if they do not want to be a part of their students’ association, but most of them appreciate and support the fact that we provide student-focused services such as Orientation; student publications, independent advocacy advisors, and welfare services.

They contradict themselves in the same paragraph. They claim with compulsion they would be crippled, yet also claim students can opt out and the fact most don’t is because they do such a good job.

NZUSA do the same:

“Independent representation, advocacy and support, sporting and cultural clubs and social events such as Orientation would all be under threat in the unlikely event that this Bill succeeds, and all in the name of choice – which already exists!” said Blair.  …

New Zealand would do well to heed the lessons from the disaster that recently unfolded in Australia, which saw associations collapse nationwide under a voluntary system, …

I think the SAs must think MPs are morons. They keep claiming there already is choice, yet also claim that voluntary membership will see associations collapse.

What they really mean is that students have choice, in the Cuban sense of choice. A Claytons choice.

NZUSA vows to fight to keep students in the driving seat and interfering politicians out, and to win the battle to protect universal membership and retain quality advocacy and representation for New Zealand students. They deserve nothing less.

Oh really NZUSA should feature in a George Orwell novel. Their fight to stop students being able to decide whether or not to join a student assocaition they label as fighting to keep students in the driving seat.

It sounds like apartheid era South Africa’s defence of the “homelands” on the basis of keeping Black South Africans in the driving seat.

And then they use the Orwellian term universal membership and call it something to be protected. This is like calling armed forces conscription “universal service” and pledging to fight for the right fo young people to be conscripted!

Finally they push the myth they represent New Zealand students. They do not. No one body can represent NZ students. Students have diverse views on issues, and students should be able to decide to fund the views they agree with.

The CTU also joins the fray. Yes the Council of Trade Unions. Their members lost the right to have compulsory membership in the 1980s but they battle for student unions to remain the last hold out

CTU president Helen Kelly said the bill guaranteed the loss of essential student support services.

“Student associations provide critical services such as student loan advice, welfare support, advocacy services, sporting and cultural clubs and facilities that are all essential for student welfare,” she said.

“The loss of these services would be incalculable.”

What a load of nonsense. Student Loan advice?? VUWSA (for example) couldn’t even balance its own budget for most of the decade. Their history of financial mismanagement would make them as suitable to be student loan advisors, as it would be Charlie Sheen to give monogamy advice.

Advocacy services, means advocating for Labour and the Greens – not an essential service. Students should get to choose their advocates.

And is the CTU really claiming that sporting and cultural club are “essential” for student welfare? Oh my God what would we do without the chess club.

Of course that also assumes these clubs would disappear under VSM. They won’t. They just won’t get grants to subsidise (generally) their travel. But the vast majority of clubs will carry on – with students deciding to join and participate in them – as they do now.

Telecommunications engineers continued their strike against a division of Telecom yesterday as the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) called on the Government to halt negotiations over broadband with the company.

I’m not exactly what you call a cheerleader for Telecom, and I’m not saying who has the better case in this dispute with the EPMU and engineers. But I am firmly against any suggestion the Government intervenes in the dispute by trying to heavy Telecom re broadband.

The Government should make decisions around the fibre to the home project purely on what will achieve the best result. Now personally I think lines companies have a lot to offer as well as telcos, but I want it decided on best return for investment – not intervening in an industrial dispute.

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union said the pay out was “underwhelming”.

“Unless employers are willing to meet this subsidy with a substantial top-up of their own it’s unlikely to be accepted by workers,” national secretary Andrew Little said.

“As far as the EPMU is concerned, this will be a bottom line.”

This staggers me. Andrew is saying that employers should pay employees more money to work less hours as a way to stop businesses going broke and/or having to lay staff off.

If your staff hours reduce by 10% yet your staff costs only decrease 5%, the company is arguably in a worse position – they have lower productivity as they are effectively now paying a higher hourly rate.

Luckily the CTU is being more rational:

However, the Council of Trade Unions welcomed the announcement, saying the union’s members wanted to protect employment and the package provided “a real basis for business and unions to work to save jobs”.

“We will always advocate that the package could have included a higher rate of pay. But the government contribution was essential to make this idea acceptable to workers,” CTU president Helen Kelly said.

The CTU does also say they would like employers to contribute:

“We expect responsible employers, who will also benefit from this scheme in terms of retained staff, and reduced costs associated with redundancy, to also make a contribution to the lost wages, since clearly there are benefits for businesses that do this.”

But the difference in tone and substance is significant. The EPMU is saying they will have nothing to do with the scheme unless employers pay staff to not turn up to work. They say it is a bottom line.

The CTU far more rationally says “Hey this is a good scheme, we would like employers to contribute, and think it benefits them to do so”.

Anyway the EPMU has made itself clear. Any site where they represent workers should be prepared for big job losses, as they won’t co-operate with helping save jobs.

This is one of those situations where people might ask what hat is Andrew wearing when he condemns the scheme, as oppossed to the CTU that welcomed it?