Posts Tagged ‘ Unions ’

9 day working fortnight idea nutty

I genuinely thought the 9 day working week idea was one of those headline grabbing ideas from the ‘economic summit’ that would whither and die when the MSM got bored and moved onto the next exciting thing.

It immediately brought to mind the 40 hour working week the socialist French Government imposed a few years ago. ‘Strangely’ enough productivity dropped and now they are unraveling the whole mess. Continue reading

Union BS just in time for the election

Found this gem over at Whaleoil

Seems that although Labour and Friends have tried real hard to stop the nasty ‘right wing’ from spreading their nasty evil this election with the EFA, the Unions on the other hand are niiiiiccccceee and goooooood. They are there to help you and protect you from the nasty capitalists (repeat 100 times before bed).

This little work of useful electionerring is courtesy of Labours Mates, the Unions (not sure which one) but probably the CTU…

Isn’t it funny how it’s somehow bad for the weirdo Brethren to support National, requiring draconian legislation, endless leftist navel gazing, hand wringing, silly plays and books, but when it’s a semi commie trade union that doesn’t count, somehow it’s OK??? really?

I note that the CTU in the interests of informed debate haven’t bothered to ‘inform’ the public exactly how an Aussie ACC provider would be bad, or why the hell we need a state run bank when there’s plenty of other private ones doing a perfectly effective job (including locally owned banks) for the majority of the population. 

Clearly these numb skulls think that merely invoking the mystical words, “sell” and “privatise” will press all the right buttons in the gullible public… sorry guys, the ‘public’ have been buying this shit for three terms now and it’s proved to be as empty as your leaflet.

Best you save you long suffering members union fees for the fight NEXT election.

Funny how no-one mentions that the money spent on these ad’s isn’t some big corporate or wealthy individual with profits to splash around, but some poor sod factory worker on minimum wage that’s coughed up their union fees in order to get some representation in the event of an employment problem, instead the CTU is pissing their very hard earned cash on supporting the Labour Party… nice, good one guys!

I’d like to see just one of your ‘organisers’ face up to some guy with 6 kids on the poverty line in South Auckland struggling to make ends meet, and explain how taking his union fees and defending something as esoteric as Kiwifuckingbank is good value for his fees?

And while their at it, explain how a National Government is going to see increased Road Tolls??? I’m totally lost on that one, is that because you think they’re bad so therefore they will drive up the road toll, because that’s just totally effed up and shows how completely out touch you really are.

Twat of the week award goes to the CTU, well done guys, wise use of your members money!

Recognising Reality

Bill English has released a tiny bit of National’s policy relating to a probation period for employees…

The policy, which will apply to businesses with fewer than 20 workers, allows employers to dismiss staff in the first three months without risking a personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520300

I can see why National is leaving it’s policy releases until the last minute. Anything, no matter how insignificant is being met with howls of exaggerated outrage by Labour’s proxy campaign assistants – the Unions, and Labour’s hysterical labelling of the policy as a “Charter of Abuse” is such a silly over-reaction.

The policy to formalise what businesses already do – getting rid of unsuitable staff – is probably a sensible move. It recognises reality, some people might seem fine in their interview, but don’t fit into your team, or for any number of reasons just don’t work out. It cuts both ways because some employees leave if they don’t like the job and employers can’t sue them for the costs of employing them or the lost opportunity if they had found someone else. 

It’s fairer on employees and employers that there is a formalised probationary period. At least both parties know what they are walking into. Some employers won’t have a probationary period, some will. Let’s face it, I’ve had a few jobs where the employer made it pretty clear that I was on trial, and that’s just common sense. Why should an employer be stuck with someone unsuitable for the job?

Some employers will behave unfairly towards employees, no amount of legislation will prevent this as there are ways around the law, and the few who do miss-treat employees find themselves in employment court which is as it should be. But these bad employers are a minority, the majority will on balance attempt to be fair with their employees.

On the other side there are also a small minority of employees who are either unreliable or clearly unsuitable for a particular job and business is not a government run welfare agency and they shouldn’t be forced to continue to employ an unsuitable or hostile employee.

No system is perfect and this sensible tinkering with employment law should not be written off just because Labour has mobilised Unions to shriek and scream their heads off.

Here’s a photo of the most hard working Minister Auckland’s ever had, burning the Employment Contracts Act (which by and large has managed to remain intact through Labour’s term in power)