Kiwiblog

Martin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:

Some Auckland surgeons are being paid more than $6000 for a day’s work at a public hospital.

My God. They are part of the 1% scum.

The Waitemata District Health Board scheme has divided doctors over concerns that the surgeons involved can earn nearly four times as much as general physicians and psychiatrists on their collective agreement’s top step.

Income inequality alert. This is evil and must be stopped.

The Waitakere “pilot” project pays orthopaedic surgeons a contract rate of $2200 for each total hip or knee replacement package of care. This comprises $1320 for the operation plus $880 for daily patient review, any call-backs during the hospital stay, availability for six weeks after surgery and a six-week visit.

A fixed cost per operation. We can’t have that.

On the union-negotiated multi-employer collective agreement, specialists of all kinds on the highest step earn an annual base salary of $206,000, or $99 an hour, but this increases to around $170 an hour when leave, KiwiSaver and allowances are factored in. Some specialists are paid above the collective’s rates.

Good God, they get paid even more than stevedores.

Senior doctors’ union executive director Ian Powell said the split rates undermined the team-work that was critical to the safety of patients in a complex public hospital.

Oh yes, because one doctor is paid more than another, they will compromise patient safety. I have to say I don’t know any doctors like that.

So why is the DHB doing this nasty income inequality with its doctors?

DHB chairman Lester Levy said the pilot had worked very well.

The rates paid to orthopaedic surgeons were around 60 per cent of private-sector rates. The scheme had led to a number of surgeons opting to do less private-sector work in favour of doing most of their work on public patients.

Productivity was up by a third. Costs shrank 12 per cent for hips and 16 per cent for knees because of a 40 per cent reduction in patients’ average length of stay in hospital, less time in theatre and fewer staff being involved in treatment.

Bringing previously out-sourced surgery in-house saved the DHB $3 million in the last financial year. Patient satisfaction was high and the transfer rate to North Shore Hospital was low.

So paying some staff more has saved the DHB money, improved productivity, reduced lengths of stays in hospitals, increased patient satisfaction and reduced the transfer rate.

But despite this, the union is against this because not all staff are paid more, only some.

Labour should be welcoming what Lester Levy is doing. Rather than contract their operations out to the private sector, the Waitemata DHB is now doing them in-house.

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

WHAT THEY GAVE
(2008 donation in brackets)
* Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union: $40,000 (2008: $60,000)
* Dairy Workers’ Union: $25,000 (2008: $12,000)
* Maritime Union: $18,500 (2008: none disclosed)
* Meat Workers’ Union: $18,000 (2008: $25,500)
* Service and Food Workers’ Union: $15,000 (2008: $20,000)
* FIRST Union (not affiliated): $4000 (2008: nil)

Donations of over $30,000 must be disclosed within 10 days of being made, but those over $15,000 but no greater than $30,000 do not have to be disclosed until the party does its annual return by 30 April 2012.

The unions here have disclosed early in response to inquiries by the Herald, which is commendable.

In total they gave $110,500 of donations above the disclosure threshold in 2011. In 2008 it was $117,500 so not a lot of change.

National’s donations over $30,000 have already been disclosed and commented upon. It will be interesting to see in early May who else donated above $15,000.

Also of interest is a new requirement (proposed by me, amongst others) that for the first time parties have to reveal the number of donations they received below the individual disclosure limit – in bands. This will give us a more holistic look at how parties are funded, and will also be out in May.

John Pagani blogs:

When ministers sit around next year asking if they what policy they can tweak here and there to increase wages and reduce poverty, they should look at increasing the minimum wage and increasing union membership so that wages rise as the economy recovers.

There – fixed, and they didn’t need to spend a dollar in the stretched budget. In fact, people who earn more pay more tax, so it helps the budget.

Pagani has made the same mistake the Greens have made. They seem to think that money prints on trees.

If an increase in the minimum wage pushes wages up for those on the minimum wage by say $800 million, then yes at 12.5% tax that will be an extra $100 million of PAYE tax collected.

However those businesses will have their profits reduced by $400 million (as money does not grow on trees as the left always assumes) and at 28% company tax, that is $224 million less tax. Hence the Government has $124m less tax revenue overall. So rather than help the budget, it actually does the opposite.

Also ironic that Pagani thinks increasing union membership will help the budget. The only budget most of them help is the Labour Party’s. And at least one of them don’t even pay PAYE tax on behalf of their employees – preferring to spend it on political campaigns instead.

Chris Trotter writes:

WHAT MUST LABOUR DO to be welcomed back by ordinary Kiwis? What are the things it has to find, and what must it lose?

The first thing it has to lose is trade union affiliation. The big private sector unions still associated with the Labour Party: the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) and the Service and Food Workers Union; must be cut loose – and soon.

I write those words with a heavy heart, because it was the affiliated union vote that elected me to the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party way back in 1987. In those grim years unionists were the backbone of the opposition to Rogernomics. They kept the flame of the true Labour faith flickering through the party’s darkest days. And it was the block-votes of the trade union affiliates which kept Helen Clark’s political machine ticking over so reliably for the 15 long years it controlled the party.

Even so, it’s time for them to go.

If Labour wants to do the working-class a big favour it will purge its party of these oligarchs and welcome workers into the party as ordinary rank-and-file members. Who knows, if enough of them join up, they might even be able to persuade Labour’s MPs (including those who owe their positions on the Party List to the machinations of the Affiliates Council’s wise old heads) to rebuild New Zealand’s trade unions to Twenty-First Century specifications – most particularly by requiring them to operate, from bottom to top, as inclusive, transparent and recognisably democratic institutions.

Cactus Kate has details of the impoverished wages that the wharfies are striking over at the Ports of Auckland.

Their oppressive employer is only paying them:

• An average full-time wage of $91,480
• Free medical insurance for not just the stevedore, but their entire family
• Three times the statutory sick leave entitlement, being three weeks a year accumulating up until nine weeks.
• Fully paid in-house training (no qualifications needed)
• Five weeks annual leave

The wharfies will be disappointed Labour did not win the election, because Labour’s proposed Workplace Commission could have ordered Ports of Auckland to pay them more money, in line with a industry standard they set.

Phil Goff claimed today that Labour is not directed by any unions. It is of course just a coincidence that the CTU wrote their workplace relations policy which gives them pretty much everything they asked for.

Only 7% of private sector workers are in a union, yet they dominate Labour. Whale has a list of the backgrounds of the Labour List.

80% of their top 10 have a union background, and 70% of their top 20.

The current average of the public polls has Labour projected to get 35 MPs. Of those 35, 22 or 63% would have a union background.

I’m all in favour of unions helping out employees who chose to join. I’m not in favour of them controlling the Government.

And no I’m not in favour of business controlling the Government either. And in the last three years business organisations have been significantly critical of many Government decisions such as keeping WFF and interest-free student loans.

I want a Government that governs in the national interest, not in the interest of the powerful groups that constitute their party.

Could you imagine the outcry if National allowed (for example) the Regional Chambers of Commerce to actually join the National Party, get seats on selection committees, have votes at conferences where their vote counts for much more than individual members, vote on party policy with their weighted numbers and gets a seat on the ruling Board?

When will someone in Labour be brave enough to reform the party, so it is one (natural) person, one vote? Parties should be comprised of individuals, not of corporate entities.

Derek Cheng at the Herald reports:

The Labour Party’s vision for the future of work and wages is virtually identical to a unions’ wishlist outlined at the party’s annual conference a year ago, prompting questions about their influence.

Of course it is identical. Labour is effectively the parliamentary wing of the unions.

It is incredible to consider that Phil Goff who supported so many of the reforms of the 1980s, is now pushing a return to the 1970s.

What other new policies will Labour announce? Maybe ..

• No Sunday trading, to give workers a break
• A retail pricing commission which sets maximum retail prices to stop consumers from being ripped off
• A rent freeze

What other 1970s policies should Labour resurrect?

Whale shows us what Middle Earth would look like under Labour’s industrial relations policy. Enjoy and share.

This policy is so backwards, so appalling and so one-sided I don’t even know where to start. It is clear that the unions have written this, because they have got everything they could think of.  The policy is here.

It includes:

• A 15.3% increase in the minimum wage, including for youth.
• Labour will appoint those union bosses who fail to make their caucus to a new Workplace Commission that will have the power to determine Industry Standard Agreements for entire industries – unionised or not. This is all but a return to the days of national awards. No employer and employee will be able to agree to terms less than those set out by the Workplace Commission
• The Workplace Commission will be able to set a standard for an industry for “union rights”. This could mean anything, from employers forced to fund unions themselves directly to guaranteed access to any workplace at anytime for recruitment purposes.
• The Government will fund unions (“provide resources”) s they can better understand the new law and “build capacity for negotiations”. This means hire more staff. The same staff who come election time turn out en masse for Labour putting up their hoardings, using union vehicles etc etc. This is Labour’s backdoor funding of itself.
• Workers who are not in unions will be “provided with information and advice about joining the relevant unions”
• Will repeal the 90 days laws, despite the evidence that 40% of those hired under it would not have had job offers without it
• Labour will legislate to allow contractors to collectively bargain, as the Australian actors union demanded. Goodbye Wellington and NZ film industry. They really are Hobbit haters.
• State agencies will be told to blacklist companies who tender for work if they are seen as anti-union (‘not respecting the right of their employees to join a union”)

This is their worst policy, by far. The unions are getting their payback for their many donations to Labour – not just money, but especially of personnel and buildings and vehicles. Remember many of the unions are actual affiliate members of Labour, so the more employees they push into union membership the more money Labour gets from those unions in membership subs. This policy is all about appeasing the union masters.

I never thought I would see the day that a party (other than Mana) would effectively propose a return to national awards. Here’s what those good old days looked like:

The only good thing about the policy, is it should send Labour down in the polls further. The Roy Morgan poll out today has just had them drop to 28%.

Felix Marwick from ZB tweeted:

Getting releases from unions about Labour’s wages policy before I’ve been sent the material by Labour. Embargo times are different too.

Well at least the unions are getting to release Labour’s wages policy for them, rather than have Whale Oil do it like he did for ICT.

No surprise the unions are doing releases on it, as they of course would have written it.

But in another policy, a key organisation mentioned turns out to know nothing about the policy proposal. This is NZ on Screen. Labour’s policy says:

Labour will consider expanding the role of NZ Onscreen as a broader online content storage facility and will actively encourage new business models where NZ creative content can be distributed online in an affordable and accessible way.

Russell Brown notes:

It’s not clear what content an expanded NZ On Screen would be storing or how a strictly non-commercial public-good service would facilitate new business models.

Exactly. NZ on Screen (a wonderful service) provides content for free, and has no access controls, tracking, charging etc. So touting it as a business model is like touting a foodbank as a new business model for Woolworths.

So it is no surprise perhaps that NZ on Screen has tweeted:

To clarify for those interested, we have had no conversations with Labour about this policy: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5794027/Labour-reveals-radical-internet-ideas it’s news to us too!

Oh dear, this is not the sign of good policy formulation.

I’ve actually recruited people to join a union in the past, and believe some unions do a good job of advocating for their members. There are some bad employers out there, and sometimes a collective approach is desirable in dealing with them.

But a real issue I have with many unions, is that they are literally part of the Labour Party, and put the interests of the political party ahead of the interest of their own members. A situation in Australia is a prefect example of this.

A federal Labor MP, Craig Thomson, is under huge scrutiny as when he was the head of the Health Services Union he spent around $150,000 on his union credit card including several prostitutes. He sued Fairfax a couple of years ago who reported this, but has now dropped the lawsuit, but Fairfax has all the documents under discovery.

There is no doubt he stole money off the union, and used their funds for his personal expenses. He denies he hired prostitutes and say someone else signed the chits.However the escort agencies were also rung from his cellphone and handwriting experts say the signatures are his.

There’s a more detailed post on this from someone in Australia tomorrow, but I want to focus today on the issue of why has he not been charged? Well simply because the Police say they can’t investigate unless the union complains.

So why has the union not complained? Wouldn’t any other organisation that had someone do this, complain?

The answer is because he is a Federal Labor MP, and if they complained, then he might be found guilty and might have to resign his seat which would cause a by-election. And if Labor lost the by-election, they may lose Government.

So to protect their mates in Labor, the union won’t complain to the Police. Never mind the fact $150,000 of their members fees were spent by this Labor MP. They put protecting Labor above their own members interests.

Okay imagine you are NZUSA. Your source of income is about to be cut off. Your best hope of surivival is to appeal to National MPs not to continue their support for the VSM bill.

So after hours of brain-storming, what do you come up with as the best way to convince National they are wrong.

You get the Maritime Union to put out a press release stating their support for compulsory membership, and demand National drop the bill.

Yes that should do it.

I can’t think of anything more likely to convince any doubting MPs in National they should support the bill, than having the Maritime Union speak out on the virtues of compulsory membership.

It’s like getting Graeme Burton to come out against the three strikes law. Fail.

I got sent documents over the weekend from a film industry source, detailing the outraegous behaviour of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, an Australian union.

It seems Disney has already made an unofficial decision, not to shoot anymore in New Zealand, because the union unreasonable blocks immigration permits.

But what is happening with the Hobbit is even worse than that, and may lead to the shut down of much of the NZ film industry – if the Hobbit moves off shore (as reported here as likely).

This union is thought to have less than 90 members in New Zealand, and is threatening the jobs of up to 3,000 people. How do they have such power?

The International Federation of Actors (FIA), of which the vast majority of performer unions around the world are members, resolved that the time had come for performers around the world to support their colleagues in New Zealand and seek a union contract for all performers on The Hobbit.

Yes, this Australian union has arranged a global boycott of the Hobbit.

And what are they calling for?

“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.”

And here is the irony.It is illegal for Peter Jackson to do what they call for. Why? Under the current law, only a registered union can enter into a collective contract, and the MEAA is not a registered NZ union.

The Employment Relations Act states a NZ union, must be an incorporated society under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. The MEAA is not. Screen Hub reports:

NZ Actors’ Equity is a trade union in NZ, an affiliate member of the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) under its MEAA name. It was struck off the Ministry of Economic Development’s (MED) Register of Incorporated Societies last week under its registered name of Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

So there is no legal entity to negotiate with.

The union has called a meeting tomorrow to discuss their action. It is:

Tuesday, September 28 at 7pm, at Grey Lynn Community Centre, 510 Richmond Rd, Grey Lynn

I hope lots of media attend, and ask questions about why this Australian uion has arranged a global boycott of The Hobbit, on the basis of an illegal demand.

Peter Jackson makes the point:

In a four-page statement last night, the usually media-shy Jackson said he was a “very proud and loyal member” of three Hollywood unions and “not anti-union in the slightest”.

He always honoured actors’ union conditions if they were union members, and the MEAA had a clear agenda “based on money and power”.

“I can’t see beyond the ugly spectre of an Australian bully-boy using what he perceives as his weak Kiwi cousins to gain a foothold in this country’s film industry. They want greater membership, since they get to increase their bank balance.

“I feel growing anger at the way this tiny minority is endangering a project that hundreds of people have worked on over the last two years, and the thousands about to be employed for the next four years, [and] the hundreds of millions of Warner Brothers dollars that is about to be spent in our economy.”

And some useful quotes from Screen Hub:

According to one producer Screen Hub spoke to, the Equity/MEAA approach is akin to sending out suicide bombers. If inbound production diminishes or disappears from our shores, actors will lose work along with everybody else. Given the reliance on inbound production to sustain much of the industry in terms of day-to-day employment of contractors, “We might as well pack up and go home,” said one film industry lawyer.

If this Australian union manages to kill off the NZ film industry, where do you think some of these films may end up? Australian perhaps?

The Herald reports:

They entered the hotel shouting slogans against the Government’s changes, which include making it easier to fire workers, extending the 90-day trial for new staff and tightening union access to workplaces.

Despite protesters repeatedly charging the police line, shift commander Wayne Kitcher said there were no arrests or injuries to officers.

Politicians including Prime Minister John Key were actually next door at the convention centre but Unite union general secretary Matt McCarten said he was pleased with the 300-strong turnout.

Matt needs to visit Sky City more often. The convention centre is not the same as the hotel.

Incidentally while I am a total supporter of the right to peacefully protest – charging Police lines is not a peaceful protest.  It is by definition a violent protest.

I’m not sure what they have in the walls, but in the convention centre one couldn’t hear any noise at all from outside. When the conference finished at midday or so, the only protester there was a men’s rights nutter (I understand he has been in court over possessing a knife in an MPs office).

“I think today was a declaration of war by John Key – a lot of workers voted for him because they thought he was moderate and would do what was best for the country. Well, the mask has come off.”

Umm these changes are incredibly moderate. They were mainly in the 2008 election manifesto.

Former Green MP Sue Bradford was one who broke through security with about 40 protesters. She said she had been “belted in the face” by police.

“I’m sure I will end up with a few bruises.”

You physically charge at the Police (which is actually an assault) and complain that they do their job and stop you getting through.

Sue should just be glad that the Police were not allowed to use tasers!

The Press reports:

Lives and property could be put at risk after a Christchurch firefighter was banned from helping his volunteer brigade, a fire chief says.

Sumner Volunteer Brigade chief fire officer Alan Kerr said he was “riled” that a young firefighter had been told he was no longer allowed to volunteer after becoming a full-time paid firefighter.

“It’s unfortunate. A situation could occur where lives or property could be put at additional risk because we are down a man,” Kerr said.

The Sumner brigade struggled to find volunteers as most residents did not work in the area during the day, he said.

Most New Zealanders regard our volunteer fire fighters as community heroes. The professional fire fighters union sees them as scabs, and the hatred goes back decades.

In their ideal world, their would be no volunteer firefighters. Every town or community in NZ, no matter how small, would have a paid unionised fire fighting service – even if they only got one call out a year.

New Zealand Professional Firefighters’ Union president, Steve Warner, said the decision was made last week to decline the firefighter’s request to remain a volunteer mainly because of conflicts with rank.

Volunteer brigades such as Sumner – which came under the Christchurch Fire Service jurisdiction – often attended the same jobs as paid city crews.

A situation could arise where a paid firefighter could hold a higher rank in their volunteer brigade, Warner said.

If paid and volunteer brigades were to both attend an incident, the firefighter in his volunteer role may take command over his official superior, he said.

Note the “could”. Also note that this bogus concern is trivial. You can simply have a rule that if paid and volunteer firefighter are both in attendance, a volunteer firefighter does not take command if they are also a paid firefighter of lower rank.

Kerr said he could understand that a rank clash, from the union perspective, was a valid problem, but that was not relevant in this case.

The firefighter was young, did not hold any position of rank, and would not have been sent to jobs outside Sumner, he said.

“If any paid firefighter is willing to put the time into their community, he should be allowed to,” Kerr said.

As I said, the concern about rank is bogus. The union is maintaining its decades long hatred of volunteer fire-fighters and does everything it can to overcome them. Their hope is that if volunteer brigades fail due to lack of volunteers, then the union can take it over as a paid station.

1. Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill – Tau Henare
2. Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill – David Clendon
3. Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill – Sir Roger Douglas

Tau’s bill requires all votes on strike action to be secret ballots. In theory almost all unions do this anyway, but there has been some dispute on the West Coast recently about whether this does always happen, so it will be good to have it a legal, not a voluntary, requirement to prevent intimidation.

David Clendon’s bill is inherited from Jeanette and regulates the use of smart meters. Not sure of all the details, but it looks to be worth supporting at first reading anyway so a select committee can look into pros and cons.

Sir Roger’s bill will allow the Government to set a different level of minimum wage for younger workers. I welcome it as there is pretty clear evidence that the huge increase in youth unemployment is bext explained by the scrapping of the youth rate for the minimum wage. National will be nervous about being seen to be “cutting wages” but I hope they will support it to select committee, so arguments can be heard about the linkage.

Rather than cut the minimum wage for any current workers, what I would do if I was the Government is just use it to increase the youth minimum wage more slowly than the adult minimum wage.

I have not followed the bus dispute in Auckland very closely, but find this story interesting:

The Employment Relations Authority has made public its recommendations to settle the pay dispute between NZ Bus and Auckland drivers.

The ERA suggested a wage increase of 4.2 per cent for the first 16 months, back-paid to July this year, then 3.9 per cent for the next 14 months from November next year.

Both increases amounted to 70 cents an hour.

The collective agreement would expire on December 31, 2011 after the Rugby World Cup, ERA recommended.

NZ Bus agreed to the recommendations and requested they should be released to the public.

So the employer is willing to accept the ERA recommendation, but it is the union that is not.

I note inflation is now running at 1.2%.

The Herald reports:

Corrections Minister Judith Collins has accused prison union bosses of “living a jet-set lifestyle” on the taxpayer after they received $127,000 in expenses from her department in one year.

I wonder how many other unions receive taxpayer funding. I know many Government Departments pay staff more if they join the PSA which is a form of indirect funding.

The Dom Post reports on how unions are against ACC rewarding employers with safe workplaces:

The Government is set to reintroduce lower ACC levies for firms with the best safety records, a move unions claim will see bosses cover up accidents.

Sigh – the paranoia is rampant. Do they actually have any proven examples of this happening from last time? Failing to register workplace accidents is basically a criminal offence. So unions are saying we should not reward safer workplaces because they think so many employers are criminals who will cover up accidents. Really – at times they are just dinosaurs.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said he wanted an upcoming review of the corporation to consider bringing back “experience rating” of the 1990s, which saw employers pay levies according to the number of accidents in their workplace.

It’s called a carrot. The left want only a stick – prosecutions after the fact if an accident happens. I would much prefer getting the incentives right before an accident by having some carrot.

Last week Tane at The Standard said:

But in a capitalist system any benefit from productivity increases goes directly into the pockets of business owners. You need a mechanism to translate that into wages. And that mechanism is decent employment protections and a unionised workforce that has the strength to bargain decent wage increases.

I found that statement interesting. In some ways it is not surprising as Tane is employed by a union – of course he would say or think that. But what is revealing is that this seems to be the only way he thinks wages can increase. He over looks:

• Business owners voluntarily give staff pay rises. This is not uncommon in smaller businesses. I have worked in a small business where the owners hated the fact they could not pay the staff more, but once it was more profitable they increased wages.
• Individual staff who perform well get increased wages in recognition of their good performance.
• Staff are paid more to retain them in a competitive market
• Staff get promoted and get paid more for taking on more responsibility
• Staff are shareholders in a business

And so on. Now of course the above do not apply in every case. I am not saying every employer is a good employer who will pay reasonable wages. Unions make a lot of sense for some staff. But that is very different to generalising that a unionised workforce is how you increase wages. I would actually argue that a focus on collective contracts can sometimes hold wages back as employers have to pay bad staff much the same as good staff. The classic example is teaching – I think the best teachers should be on $100,000+ but there is no way that will happen until you have performance pay so that the bad teachers are not paid the same.

The CTU is planning a “name and shame” campaign against employers that “exploit” workers under the new trial period law.

I don’t actually have a problem with this. Community reaction is one of the factors that is an influence on business decisions.

The vast majority of businesses will use the law responsibily. Many will not even ask for such trial periods in contracts, and generally there is no logicial incentive to dump a new employee if they are performing well. It costs money and time to recruit and train staff. The notion that there will be masses of employers sacking new workers on Day 89, just because they can, is ridicolous.

However there are some bad employers out there. They actually piss me off a lot, because it is the “bad” employers who lead to calls to regulate this and regulate that.

If an employer really does “exploit” a new employee, sacking them on whim, then unions have every right to highlight this.

But I would warn the unions to be careful about assuming all, or even most, dismissals during the 90 day period are “exploitive”.  That new sales rep may have proved unable to make any sales. That new cleaner may just be generating too many complaints from clients. Or that new staffer might just be an arsehole who is disrupting everyone else in the office.

In the end, what I am saying is each situation should be judged on the facts, not just given a pre-determined label.

Amazing. The Herald reports:

Auckland bus drivers are being advised by their union to “borrow” cash from their passengers today, after being shocked to learn they will not receive their weekly wages in time for Christmas.

Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said he suggested they withhold cash takings until receiving wages into their bank accounts from NZ Bus tomorrow, to ensure they and their families will not miss out on Christmas trappings. …

He said that as long as drivers did not admit to depot managers why money was missing from their fareboxes, they had 24 hours to repay it.

“But the problem is that not many passengers are travelling today and the drivers are not taking much cash.”

Just incredible. Gary is complaining that there may not be enough cash to steal. And let there be no mistake, “borrowing” cash from your employer without permission is theft.

The union leader said the company was more in tune with the yuletide spirit last year, when it paid drivers two days before Christmas Day, which fell on a Wednesday.

Of course employers should be flexible with pay dates around Xmas, but nothing excuses encouraging “helping yourself” to the cash.

Thanks to the help of some volunteers going through dozens of set of annual accounts, Kiwiblog is able to present some original research on big money in politics. We have gone through the annual accounts of every union and business group we could find.

The findings may surpise some. The unions are far wealthier than the business groups.

There have been 256 unions registered in New Zealand. To make it easy we have only focused on those that are millionairres – have more than one million in equity.  There are 19 of these, including the NZCTU – their federation.

We looked at three financial indicators:

1. Income or Turnover – this gives you an idea of what they can do if they apply a percentage of their income to politics
2. Current Assets – basically cash in bank plus debtors etc
3. Net Equity – the total net assets of the union

The table is below:

So the top 19 unions have:

1. $73 million of income
2. $29 million in the bank or other current assets (note they may have current liabilities also)
3. $63 million in equity or net assets

Also as a minor note, five unions have yet to file their 2007 accounts.

Now compare this to the major business groups:

There are various small town chambers also but they have little money. The Business Roundtable is as unincorporated society and the Wellington Chamber of Commerce a company so their accounts are not public. But in each case I have checked my ballpark estimates with the organisations and they have confirmed they are in the right ballpark.

So we can see that the business groups have under half the income of the big unions. And the Business Roundtable has less turnover than some student associations. The CTU has a bigger budget than Business NZ.

So there is no doubt unions have far more income and money than business groups. So the next question is do they spend it on politics and elections?

If we look at the Electoral Commission’s register of third parties, we see not a single business group listed but 12 unions (including NZUSA) listed.  So they have the ability to spend $1,440,000 on direct election advertising.

But that is only part of it. The unions try to influence the elction in multiple ways. For example:

• Donations to political parties
• Direct election advertising
• Use of union vehicles for hoardings construction
• Allow staff to work on election campaigns as part of their day jobs, using union e-mail addresses
• Supplying staff to Labour’s factory to sort and fold over one million direct mail envelopes

The worth of the staff contribution especially can not be easily estimated but it is massive. readers have sent in several photos of union vehicles beign used by Labour candidate and union e-mail addresses being listed as campaign contacts for various electorates.

If even just 200 union staff (three per electorate) spent 160 hours on the campaign, that is equal to a million dollars equivalent wages.

Of course we don’t know the total amount of money spent by unions on electioneering. Perhaps any successor to the Electoral Finance Act should force unions (and other bodies that get involved in election campaigns) to disclose their total involvement. That would be a step towards transparency you could argue.

Now this is not unique to New Zealand. In the last Australian election, the uniosn spent over $10 million campaigning to help the Labor Party. The total spending by business groups was $32,000. So unions outspent business groups in Australia by 300 to 1.

The purpose of this article is not to advocate that unions should not be able to spend their money campaigning. Far from it. It is to reinforce two points:

1. Unions have significantly more money than business groups
2. Unions get engaged in election campaigns at multiple level, in a very partisan way, while business groups tend to just publish manifestos, push policies and organise seminars and forums

I actually think NZ needs a pro-business, pro-market, low-tax lobby group to match the unions in terms of involvement in campaigns. A NZ version of the Americans for Tax Reform or UK Taxpayers Alliance. It wouldn’t be a thinktank (NZBR and CIS do wonderful jobs there) but an aggressive lobby group that would aim to lower taxes, keep government spending under control and support policies good for taxpayers.

Without such a group, the big money spending in elections will continue to be dominated by unions.

A scrap between medical unions:

Ian Powell, executive director of the senior doctors union, defended the “inalienable right to strike” in a weekend speech. But he said it was being misused, and therefore undermined – to the detriment of patients’ safety – by unions clustered around Deborah and Terry Powell’s company, Contract Negotiation Services (CNS).

Ian Powell is certainly not the first person to note the effect of Deborah Powell on the health system – her unions do tend to strike without fail.

Ian Powell characterises the CNS unions as “bargaining agents”, in contrast to the “broader-based unionism” of his own organisation.

He told a dental conference on Saturday that bargaining agents focused on what they could “scratch out” of the health system, while unions like his also focused on what they could put into it.

“Regardless of motivation, seeing patients as weapons is an inevitable consequence of a bargaining-agent approach, whereas the broader unionism approach sees them as natural allies.”

Not unfair criticisms.

Deborah Powell accused Ian Powell of hypocrisy, saying his own union had come close to strike action.

“I suspect his motivation is to support the Labour Government, as the CTU unions seek to do.”

Also not unfair criticisms back.

I actually don’t like it when unions fight each other as it is just like the Iran-Iraq war – never knowing what side to back

The Hive has an interesting piece on the proposed merger of United, the NDU and SFWU. They say it will be around the same size as the EPMU, and in a position to take the presidency of the CTU with Laila Harre as the candidate.

One big question is whether the combined union will join the Labour Party. Unite is not an affiliate member, but NDU and SFWU are I believe.

On a related issue, NZPA reports today:

Council of Trade Unions (CTU) president Helen Kelly told the party’s congress today it would run a major campaign, with its affiliate unions, to help the Government win a fourth term.

The Australian unions spent $10 million helping get Labor elected there. Who knows how much will be spent in NZ, but remember money in politics is only bad, if it is used to campaign against Labour, not for it.