Kiwiblog

CTU President Helen Kelly has said:

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said all workers should be able to get similar increases.

She said some vulnerable workers struggled to get any increase at all.

“It would be great if all workers had the same bargaining power and influence as judges and were able to get pay increases like that,” she said.

Judges have no bargaining power at all. An independent tribunal sets their pay unilaterally.

So is Helen Kelly saying she would like all workers to lose their bargaining rights, and have a tribunal set pay for all workers?

The best ads this election have been the ones not from the parties. The CTU have alerted me to their final anti-National ad. Not as funny as their first couple but still a lot better than most out there. They try a bit too hard on this one, but the Borat part was good.

A second ad from the CTU. Very funny and much better than the official Labour ads.

Not bad actually. I enjoyed it.

A birdie pointed this out to me. These are all quotes from the CTU’s submission on KiwiSaver

A key issue is the minimum worker contribution rate. We have previously submitted that there should be a 2% entry point in addition to 4% and 8%.

However, 2% is better than no contribution. Also a 2% deduction may be a better point of entry for new savers to establish a savings habit. The major concern is that thousands of workers will either opt out or not opt in to a KiwiSaver scheme because the minimum employee contribution rate is too high.

So what could possibly be the objection to a lower entry rate of 2%? If it is a concern that 2% from a worker (even with tax credits and employer contributions) will not deliver an adequate lump sum (or annuity) for retirement, then surely a lower than desirable balance is better than no balance.

Union officials are reporting that there is quite a lot of resistance among low income workers to join at a minimum of 4% of gross salary (which of course is more than 4% of take-home pay).

The fact is that there are now significant publicly funded benefits to belonging to a KiwiSaver scheme. In addition, the voluntary action of joining triggers employer contributions of up to 4%. It is therefore extremely unfair to set the bar too high at 4% minimum contribution and we urge the Committee to recommend a 2% option.

In this case, I am happy to agree with the CTU! Of course they do go on to say they would rather have a scheme where the employers pays 9% and employees 2% or something, but this will mean that low income workers who were funding KiwiSaver thorugh their taxes will now have a greater ability to go into it, and receive the generous 2:1 subsidies that apply to everyone earning up to $52,000 a year.

The Herald backs Clark and Key in agreeing to debates between the two of them only:

They need make no apology for that. Theirs are the only parties capable of forming a government. Far from undermining MMP, their joint decision is perfectly in line with the way MMP has developed in this country. After 12 years, the voting system has not produced a three- or four-party contest as it did in Germany, the only close model.

There, the two smaller parties each attract around 10 per cent of the vote and can claim significant places on the stage at each election. The most successful of our smaller parties have half that support and it becomes harder to argue that they should be included in televised debates while others should not. …

National and Labour have a legitimate shared interest in minimising third-party influence. They are under no obligation to let minnows enjoy their limelight. They obviously see their prospects best served by a simple two-sided debate. The rest will no doubt get a separate televised forum for their contest.

And there is a debate on TV One on 27 October between the six minor parliamentary parties.

Meanwhile Pundit has a copy of the letter sent to Clark and Key from TVNZ and TV3 jointly:

A joint letter from news chiefs at TV3 and TVNZ last Monday pleaded with both Helen Clark and John Key not to turn their backs on multi-party debates, insisting they were of “fundamental importance in an MMP environment”.

I have said I think there should be one debate with all eight leaders. I would have four debates – two head to heads, one with all eight and one with only the minors.

But I do think people over-state MMP as the reason for including the minors. Social Credit has twice as many MPs as Jim Anderton, yet Bruce Beetham never got invited to the debates.

But talking of debates, the Alliance is complaining the CTU has refused to allow them to attend a Meet the Parties meeting in Christchurch:

Alliance Party Canterbury Convenor Quentin Findlay says the the local Council of Trade Unions leadership has locked the Alliance out of the debate.

He says Alliance members would be picketing the venue and would accept a last minute invitation to speak.

“All we are asking is for a chance to speak. No special treatment, we just to want to talk to the workers.”

Mr Findlay says the Alliance is a strongly pro-worker party that strongly supports the Union movement, and had not taken the decision to go public lightly.

The NZ Herald reports on how Labour authorised and may have to include the cost of two CTU ads which promote Labour and attack National.

Labour, and Labour candidates, should be very careful about accounting for union activity on their behalf. Such as this one below:

Here we have a Service and Food Workers Union car (and presumably staff) helping erect Labour Party hoardings in Rimutaka.

Gooner at No Minister has a similar story, sighting an EPMU vehicle being used in hoardings in Northcote.

Labour seem so short of volunteers that they can only get their hoardings up with union staff and vehicles.

Will the unions declare the cost of their vehicles and staff as a donation to Labour? Will Labour include the costs of said staff and vehicles in their expense declarations?

If union staff were doing this in their own time as volunteers, there would be no question of this being an expense. But by using union cars, and doing it during work time, I think there is a reasonable case that it becomes corporate assistance and a market rate should be calculated for what the car and manpower would cost.

Keep the photos flowing and mark down locations, dates and times. They may become evidence!

Matt McCarten has lashed the CTU for not supporting the junior doctors on strike – all but calling them scabs:

There is a sacred principle among trade unionists: when a group of workers is on strike you support them to the hilt. To side with the boss is the most serious of all crimes.

Working-class history is full of epic struggles that led to better wages and conditions. Crossing a picket line banished the offender to lifetime alienation as a “scab” with whom no working person of good character would associate. …

So last week I was gobsmacked to see the head of the trade union movement publicly attack the junior doctors’ two-day strike and their union leadership. It’s not as if CTU president Helen Kelly doesn’t know any better – her parents were staunch unionists.

This is harsh stuff from the head of UNITE Union about the head of the CTU, especially as UNITE is affiliated to the CTU. This may be the opening shot in replacing the Government friendly leadership with more aggressive leadership.

Kelly says she hopes the strike “doesn’t give unions a bad name” and the doctors’ union is not a “modern union”. This is because it focuses too much on getting better wages and conditions for its members and lacks professional advisers, “such as policy analysts, economists, lawyers and advocates”. Its crimes include not attending talk-fests with Ministry of Health and DHB officials and other unions to “work towards a better health system”.

She seems to think a modern union levies its members to employ “professional advisers” so they can have meetings with the ever-expanding health bureaucracy. Maybe the doctors are smarter than she thinks. I’m told that if all the DHB bureaucrats had to go into hospital there wouldn’t be enough beds available. I’m sure you need a talk-fest to see what the real problem is.

McCarten is right that there are more administrators than hospital beds.

The doctors’ union says it costs the taxpayer $100 million for locums. They say the $300-$500 an hour paid to locums during the strike, for the jobs that pay them $23 an hour, is more than their entire wage demand.

So instead of attacking the union, the president of the CTU should be demanding that Cunliffe stop lining up with the hospital bosses and make sure the doctors get a decent salary.

Otherwise, the doctors’ accusation that the CTU president seems more interested in looking after her mates in the Government than workers does seem to have a ring of truth to it.

Hasn’t a CTU official just been made a Labour candidate? Really what McCarten seems to be saying is that the CTU should put the interests of “labour” ahead of “Labour”.

Where do I start. How about with the CTU:

“The current Easter Sunday trading restrictions ensure that retail workers have at least some ability to participate in the huge range of family, community and religious activities that take place around New Zealand over Easter,” said CTU secretary Carol Beaumont.

I find it interesting that given a choice between being pro-worker or anti-employer they go for anti-employer.

I would expect unions to strongly advocate for penal rates on public holidays, and to advocate that no employee should be forced to work on a public holiday, but why do unions campaign to make their own members poorer by removing the right for low paid workers to earn extra money by working? They claim they support higher wages for workers, yet support a law which prevents them from earning higher wages.

If a couple both on $15 an hour had the ability to volunteer to work on Good Friday, and they were not normally rostered on those days, then they could earn the equivalent of $37.50 a hour which for one day’s work would be $600 of extra earnings for their family.

They could then take the family away on holiday the following weekend when things are less crowded, because they were able to earn that extra $600.

The Press attacks the Government for not changing the status quo:

What this shows is that the Government is gun-shy about taking leadership in election year over an issue which is highly sensitive for many Christians and trade unions.

Religious opponents of allowing general trading on Easter Sunday believe that commercialism would somehow undermine the spiritual meaning of Easter, while trade unions argue that trading-hour liberalisation would expose employees to the risk of exploitation. Yet neither of these arguments is convincing.

Better by far that the Government had acted to at least ensure that the trading regime was consistent and logical, rather than allow the law to continue to make an ass of itself during future Easter weekends.

The Dominion Post is more pointed:

Going to a brothel yesterday was fine by the Government. Going to a garden centre wasn’t, The Dominion Post writes.

That – presumably – is not because the Government believes a dalliance with a prostitute is a more appropriate way to mark Good Friday than sowing some sweetpeas, but because New Zealand’s Easter shopping laws remain a hotch-potch of anomalies and absurdities.

Queenstown and Taupo shop owners could happily open their doors without fear of fines because they are deemed to be tourist areas. Their near neighbours in Wanaka and Rotorua could not. Dairies and service stations were allowed to open. Garden centres were not – but many did anyway.

It is small wonder that the laws and the fines that go along with breaking them are regarded as a final remnant of the days New Zealand was run, as former prime minister David Lange put it, like a Gdansk shipyard.

The best reform suggestion comes from Jim Donovan:

The usual arguments are trotted out by the pro-restriction lobby: it’s one day families can all rely on to get together, it’s a mark of respect to our religious and cultural heritage, it’s one day that sporting and cultural festival organisers can rely on  … That’s fine for those people who want to put aside those particular days for the things they want to do; but why … should everyone else be captive to those special interest groups’ demands, especially when the vast majority actually take no part in the special events on those holidays? The pro-restriction lobby then trots out pieties against crass commercialism and abuse of workers’ rights.

Jim sums up the usual arguments from the statists who want to force their views on everyone else. He then makes a proposal:

Get rid of public holidays altogether, and in return increase annual leave entitlements by the same number of days. Say you currently get 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays; instead you’d get 30 days annual leave, to take whenever you like.

To cater for the people who want to fix certain dates for religious or cultural activities, you could allow them to nominate up to, say, 5 days a year where they can definitely take time off (i.e. the employer has no choice). To avoid gaming, once nominated those days MUST be taken, unless the employer and employee otherwise both agree. Of course you’d have to allow for essential services, but I’d keep it a very short list.

I like it.  Those who want to have Easter together can do so.  In fact under the current law they can’t as they could be forced to work Easter Saturday and/or Easter Monday. Jim’s proposal would give certainty to families who want some guaranteed time together, but allow freedom to choose for everyone else.

The economy, businesses and consumers would effectively gain several days trading a year. And here’s the greatest advantage – ordinary workers would be free to take more days off when they and their employer agree, not when someone else outside the relationship says they should. For example, families could organise get-togethers when it suited them – and avoid the peak fares and traffic jams of the most popular days.

Indeed. Why let a stupid Gregorian calendar formula dictate when you must take a day off.

I’d bet that most people and businesses would prefer the latter. And think of the administrative simplicity. Unfortunately, too many vested interests love the petty power, anti-competitiveness and big-noting associated with public holidays.

It would be great for religious diversity also.  Jews and Muslims could nominate as of right five of their religious holidays as days they get to take off. As could Buddhists, Hindus. And Americans here could take the 4th of July off.  At present no employee gets to decide as of right a single day they take off. This proposal would give them an inalienable right to take five days off that they nominate and choose, plus another 25 days by mutual consent.

Jim Donovan for Minister of Labour I say.