NZ Herald plagiarist declares MP’s bill “mean spirited”

I note with wry amusement that this week’s column is a lot shorter.  Not easy to write your own stuff, is it?

Industrial strikes were a part and parcel of growing up in the 1970s and 80s.

My first job as a journalist at the age of 18 was to report the outcome of a meeting between the management and the union at a freezing works company in Palmerston North.

I had been sitting outside the conference room for hours, waiting for the parties to emerge, when legendary union leader Blue Kennedy popped his head out of the door. “Has the girl gone home?” he asked, meaning the secretary.

“Yes, Mr Kennedy,” I squeaked.

“Well, can you make us a pot of tea and bring in some biscuits, then?” he asked nicely.

I did and an agreement was reached and the workers and bosses were happy – and so too was I, because my interviews with the protagonists made Morning Report.

I grew a little tired of covering strikes as a regional reporter; sometimes the reasons for strikes seemed trivial in the extreme.

Sometimes?

Of course, these days things have settled somewhat, but there are still unions looking for any excuse to disrupt the employer’s business.

Nevertheless, Kerry McIvor isn’t impressed with Jami-Lee Ross’ bill.  She thinks it will be mean!

But I would hate to think MP Jami-Lee Ross’ private member’s bill will ever see the light of day. He’s looking to allow employers to bring in volunteers and contractors to do the work of striking employees, a move now barred under section 97 of the Employment Relations Act.

She then makes a bizarre claim:

Unions don’t take strikes lightly these days. It’s no longer “all out brothers” at the drop of a cold pie on a smoko floor. It’s a measure of last resort, usually employed by low-paid workers or those in dangerous or physically strenuous jobs.

It should be a fundamental right of a worker to withdraw their labour if they feel they are being unfairly and unjustly treated, without the employers being able to hire scabs.

Heh, don;t take strikes lightly eh? What the the greedy Maritime Union? 20 odd hours a week, $90,000 per annum…and they wanted more.

She is also wrong about withdrawing labour. The workers can still withdraw their labour…that right is not removed by the bill. The right of a business to have continuity is now going to be protected…a right they had until 2000 when Helen Clark’s union friendly government took it away.

The fact she uses the word scabs shows where she is coming from…cap doffing union scum, in the thrall of union bosses.

If Kerre McIvor wants to talk about rights then she should understand that Clark’s bill in 2000 removed numerous rights that employers previously enjoyed. Jami-lees bill simply returns that right.

  • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

    Kerre McIvor is a Disco Stu groove cat daddio…

  • Michael

    No consideration given to the employers who put their money at risk to employ people and have commitments to fufill. In certain industries there are key dates that have work that must be completed.

    For example, if bank/legal staff went on strike on Gypsy Day (when farm sales settle) the effect would be catastrophic.

  • chadchambers

    Anyone know what the rules will be regarding the picket-line? I’d say the picket-line will get a whole lot more heated if this legislation goes through.

    • SJ00

      The rules will be, those on strike will have to let the workers (thats scabs for you Chad) through to let them to do the strikers job. If they don’t or they block a public road or cause trouble, no doubt the cops can be called to arrest them. Simple rules for simple people.

      • chadchambers

        I can see a few major shit-fights ahead. Jayme-lee’s members bill is going to create a lot more problems than it is going to fix.

        It’s divisive.

        Jamie Lee Ross, 28 years of age, never had a real job….

        • Sponge

          Yeah and all of the Labour pollies have right?

          So long as everyone obeys the law there should be no issues or shit fights at all. Those honest and trustworthy unions wouldn’t advocate breaking the law surely?

          • chadchambers

            Trouble is, the law is changing every day at the moment, under urgency too.

          • Sponge

            Bollocks – Labour used urgency far more often than this government.

          • chadchambers

            I’ll have to take your word for it.

          • Goldie

            Making stuff up does not help your case Chad.

        • Dave

          And I suppose you have had a real job Chad, do tell please, how many years have you worked 16 hour days, then rushed home to eat a meal and do your accounts, you see Chad, thats the life of many employers. Now, do tell us bout your REAL job Chad

        • SJ00

          How many problems were there prior to the current law being introduced? This law just puts us back to that level. There will only be problems because the unions will deliberately create problems.

          Whats a real job? Maybe he worked at places like McDs or cleaned toilets or meat works or a factory.. yip, they aren’t real jobs.

          Which means, according to the Chad Standard, Gareth Hughes, Jacinda and anyone else under 40? can’t pass laws as they also haven’t had a real job..

          • chadchambers

            Are they really the ones creating problems? My understanding is the proposed roster system is the problem. Being on unpaid standby sounds like crap to me.

          • Dave

            Firstly, answer my question above Chad.

            Secondly, if people DONT want to work and get ahead, and they also don’t like the roster, they are always welcome to ask for a different non roster position, and leave. By leaving the position, it frees it up for those that are willing to work and get ahead. Unfortunately, a lot of those willing to work are immigrants, who know the true value of really working.

            Again, answer my question above, please outline your previous work, REAL JOBS Chad before critisising others.

82%