Kiwiblog

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.

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.