sharetrader
Page 807 of 833 FirstFirst ... 307707757797803804805806807808809810811817 ... LastLast
Results 12,091 to 12,105 of 12491
  1. #12091
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGR367 View Post
    Looks like Labour is wrong again on this one as per this opinion with data https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/immigr...-part-solution
    I don't have access to that item, but if the article implies net immigration has nothing to do with Auckland house prices, then it is 98% likely to be wrong.

    Housing affordability? We'll know all about it after the elections.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9174...bility-measure
    Last edited by elZorro; 22-04-2017 at 07:47 AM.

  2. #12092
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    1,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Bill English did all that, Iceman? I heard that the Govt sent in the Ombudsman at the appeal stage to argue the case for the Crown as an interested party, against the fairer pay. Then the appeal court ruled in favour of the original plaintiff, that there was a valid argument for fairer pay. After that, the court advised that if the situation wasn't sorted, they'd set the rules, and it might have included backpay for the workers in the three female-dominated career areas.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...t-on-equal-pay

    So if National hadn't organised a compromise situation with staggered pay increases, the court could have imposed something more expensive. This deal does look like taking the place of Bill's tax cuts, though.
    Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11842682

  3. #12093
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Just for you EZ, in case you missed it !! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11842682
    Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.

    Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:

    DAMNING INQUIRYToday's historic pay equity agreement can partly be traced to a damning inquiry five years ago which involved a senior public servant going undercover in a rest home.
    The author of that report, former Equal Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor, said today she was celebrating a deal that would greatly benefit 55,000 low-paid workers.
    Ms McGregor famously posed as a care worker in a retirement home for a week in January 2012 as part of her year-long Caring Counts inquiry. Her report concluded that aged care was a form of "modern-day slavery". It also generated momentum for a legal challenge against the Government, which effectively sets the pay rates through its subsidies to aged care providers.
    Speaking to the New Zealand Herald today, Ms McGregor was reluctant to take any credit for the settlement. "I am proud to have been part of the catalyst, but I think the equal pay movement has been around for a long time."
    Ms McGregor, now the head of public policy at AUT, said going undercover helped to get public attention for workers who had until then been invisible. She said the settlement would send a strong message to the public that their work was hugely valuable.
    "One of things that was quite remarkable when we did our human rights report was the degree to which the public felt embarrassed that carers looking after their elderly were paid so little for the job they knew they couldn't do. When I worked in the sector, I was physically unable to lift people and hoist them and toilet them. This will now show the public that the job has value."
    Opposition parties have criticised the National-led Government for resisting change and fighting Kristine Bartlett all the way to the Supreme Court.
    But Ms McGregor gave some credit to the Government, saying it had now settled on two of the major recommendations in her report; pay equity for carers and compensation for carers' travel between clients.
    "I think it is fantastic news that women have finally got equal pay, or at least something towards equal pay," she said. "Whether I agree that that's the true value of an hour of caring work is another matter."
    - NZ Herald and NZME
    Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.

    https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/

    From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:

    Terranova (Bartlett's employer) sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and this leave was granted.
    Note that the Attorney-General took part in the Appeal case as an “intervener”. This means that he was granted leave to appear because even though the Crown was not an original party to the litigation it had a significant interest in the case, given its role in funding the industry. His position basically was that the Employment Tribunal got it wrong, that the EPA did not mandate the decision that had been reached. If the Attorney General’s argument succeeded then the whole case would have failed and the Government would have been off the hook, at least for now.

    Thankfully the Court of Appeal saw it differently and ruled that the EPA should allow a Court to look at different industries and rule that workers in one industry are being underpaid and therefore discriminated against.
    On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.

    http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-service...draft-bill.pdf

    I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.

    Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.

    Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):

    [79] The Attorney-General’s position is that evidence of what employers pay male employees in comparable roles in other sectors is unlikely to be relevant but in the abstract, as a matter of law, it is impossible to say it could never berelevant. Systemic undervaluation is in a different category however. It isclearly outside the scope of the Act and accordingly evidence about it can never be relevant. In effect, it was a step too far.
    [80] The position of the Attorney-General, therefore, is that the Employment Court’s answer to Question1 was wrong but the answer to Question 6 can stand.


    SCHEDULE
    Questions answered by theEmployment Court
    Question 1
    In determining whether there is an element of differentiation in the rate of remuneration paid to a femaleemployee for her work, based on her sex, do the criteria identified in s3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act require the Court to:
    (a)Identify the rate of remuneration that would be paid if the work were not workexclusively or predominantly performed by females, by comparing the actual ratepaid with a notional rate that would be paid were it not for that fact; or
    (b)Identify the rate that her employer would pay a male employee if it employedone to perform the work?

    Answer: Section 3(1)(b) requires that equal pay for women forwork predominantly or exclusively performed by women, is to be determined by reference to what men would be paid to do the same work abstracting from skills, responsibility, conditions and degrees of effort as well as from any systemic undervaluation of the work derived from current or historical or structural gender discrimination.
    This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.
    Last edited by elZorro; 22-04-2017 at 10:07 PM.

  4. #12094
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,390

    Default

    I wonder why he Labour Government didn't sort it out when they were in power? Their mantra appears to be that they will solve all the countries problems "When we are in power"

  5. #12095
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Well I had missed it, maybe because of the name on the top of the article. Audrey tends to side with National, no matter what.

    Here's a more balanced part of a Herald release:



    Here's a link to the painfully slow process of the court case.

    https://nzaca.org.nz/policy/equal-pay-case/

    From The Standard, details on the govt's opposition to the equal pay case:



    On 20th April, National released the draft of a new bill to restrict any chance of this court case result being used more widely. It's a big document, they've been working on this in the meantime.

    http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-service...draft-bill.pdf

    I put it to you, Iceman, does this look like the actions of a government that is fully behind equal pay and all of the ramifications of that? They can dress it up all they like, it could have been settled years ago, there could have been backpay, and it's only $500mill a year for the next four years. They're gritting their teeth and making a PR job of it, that's all.

    Two people were sent into the appeal court on behalf of the Attorney General, J C Holden and C Fleming.

    Here is what the Appeal Court said about their input (on behalf of the govt as an interested party):

    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]

    This particular rest home had some male carers who were paid at the same low rates as female carers. It's the second part of the last answer that is important. It relates to "systemic undervaluation". The Attorney General (National Govt) was hoping that systemic undervaluation could be ruled out of the Act. The courts said no, the appeal court said no as well, the ruling had to stand.
    Why don't you publish a book on the subject? You've already got the first seven chapters in the above posting.

  6. #12096
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Why don't you publish a book on the subject? You've already got the first seven chapters in the above posting.
    No, I don't need to, others will, more likely. I think the point I'm making is that we have to look behind the TV items and pro-National commentators to see what this government is really up to. They're keen on immigration, for several reasons, like its ability to keep wages down, and they're a big employer. It boosts property values, and most of their MPs have a piece of that. It makes the economy look good, and because the Crown has property, it boosts their asset values and make the govt look like they have a better set of books.

    But it's causing havoc with Auckland house prices, and therefore wages will have to go up to meet rent costs, and more will rent. Their motorways are full to bursting at regular times of the day, with ever more cars on the road. This wastes human time.

    Far better that we look at Labour's policy of capping net immigration at around the historical 25,000 per year, unless there is a very good reason to change that. We need to more fully employ the people we have here now. Preferably in the regions.

  7. #12097
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    No, I don't need to, others will, more likely. I think the point I'm making is that we have to look behind the TV items and pro-National commentators to see what this government is really up to. They're keen on immigration, for several reasons, like its ability to keep wages down, and they're a big employer. It boosts property values, and most of their MPs have a piece of that. It makes the economy look good, and because the Crown has property, it boosts their asset values and make the govt look like they have a better set of books.

    But it's causing havoc with Auckland house prices, and therefore wages will have to go up to meet rent costs, and more will rent. Their motorways are full to bursting at regular times of the day, with ever more cars on the road. This wastes human time.

    Far better that we look at Labour's policy of capping net immigration at around the historical 25,000 per year, unless there is a very good reason to change that. We need to more fully employ the people we have here now. Preferably in the regions.
    That should cover chapters 8, 9, and 10.

  8. #12098
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    That should cover chapters 8, 9, and 10.
    You must have a short attention span, FP. I've only written a few sentences. Have a look at the appeal court case transcript, that's wordy all right.

    I've just taken on a new employee, who was commuting to Auckland for work every day. It added an extra three and a half hours to his day at least, and he hated that. Now he just has to cut across town to work, and I think the work here is more interesting and better paid. His efforts are now being spent manufacturing export goods, not on stuff that would sell to local investors, like new houses.

  9. #12099
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,390

    Default

    He must be a Labour supporter - a National voter would have had the nous to get a job in Hamilton in the first place - or move to Hawkes Bay where the sun always shines on the worthy.

  10. #12100
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    I've just taken on a new employee, who was commuting to Auckland for work every day. It added an extra three and a half hours to his day at least, and he hated that. Now he just has to cut across town to work, and I think the work here is more interesting and better paid. His efforts are now being spent manufacturing export goods, not on stuff that would sell to local investors, like new houses.
    That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.

  11. #12101
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton NZ
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.
    The job was only available because we'd bucked a nationwide trend and invested more than normal in R&D over a few years prior. Now we have reasonable export orders for niche products that have no useful competitors. I want to see a govt in place that understands what is required to get more businesses doing the same. It's relevant.

  12. #12102
    always learning ... BlackPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Canterbury
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.
    You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.

    He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government .
    ----
    "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)

  13. #12103
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    1,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPeter View Post
    You might be here a bit harsh on EZ. I think what he wants to tell us is that his company flourishes thanks to the outstanding economic conditions created by the current government. His and many other companies are doing that well that they are able to employ additional people, further improving the economy.

    He is basically asking us to help him to keep this great government in place to make sure that he is able to employ still more people under the next National government .
    And the economic stability he can see ahead with another National led Government after the elections this spring have given him comfort and security :-)

  14. #12104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    That must be the least relevant post ever made. I certainly wouldn't put that in the book.
    Dont be so dismissive of EZ. Have you ever manufactured or exported anything???

  15. #12105
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Pepper View Post
    Dont be so dismissive of EZ. Have you ever manufactured or exported anything???
    That's almost as irrelevant as eZ's post.

    Have you ever fried an egg?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •