If National wins ...

[Daytr]

Question BP. Are all unionists or unions the same? I agree this is an intolerable example of discrimination, I wouldn't call it bullying though.
I'm not sure you know what that term means. There has been plenty of bullying by certain employers over the years though that unions have had to stand up against. Even in NZ...

This is a bad example of one union or union management & I am sure there have been others at times, but it doesn't mean all unions are the same or do this sort of thing which is the inference by saying "unions" in your initial post.

Its like saying all National MPs are up for paying bribes and making up fraudulent invoices or bullying waitresses for that matter. Of course they aren't, only some of them are. Mind you, people do get tarnished by association or supporting certain dodgy actions.

[BlackPeter]

Question BP. Are all unionists or unions the same? I agree this is an intolerable example of discrimination, I wouldn't call it bullying though.
I'm not sure you know what that term means. There has been plenty of bullying by certain employers over the years though that unions have had to stand up against. Even in NZ...

This is a bad example of one union or union management & I am sure there have been others at times, but it doesn't mean all unions are the same or do this sort of thing which is the inference by saying "unions" in your initial post.

Its like saying all National MPs are up for paying bribes and making up fraudulent invoices or bullying waitresses for that matter. Of course they aren't, only some of them are. Mind you, people do get tarnished by association or supporting certain dodgy actions.

Hi daytr, ....of course are not all unions and unionists the same. You might remember that I recognised as well in previous posts the historic need for the union movement - and I still see today a role for them in improving workplaces and particularly in making them safer. And sure - if people want to form a club (union) to improve their negotiation position for better salaries, than I guess this is legitimate as well - so why not?

It gets however ugly if these unions start to force innocent bystanders (by harming them or their career opportunities) to do what a union thinks is best for the respective union. I call this bullying, but if you have a better word for it, than I am happy to use that as well.

BTW - one definition of "bullying" (lifted off kidspot.co.nz) I would subscribe for is:

Bullying is when a person or a group repeatedly and intentionally uses or abuse their power to intimidate, hurt, oppress or damage someone else.

Actually - I think it fits well to describe the actions of the PPTA. PPTA is doing this repeatedly (actually to any junior teachers working at charter schools), and they abuse their power to intimidate these people and to damage their careers. Whats wrong with using this term to describe the actions of the PPTA?

With power comes responsibility. For some reason I can remember many more examples where (particularly public sector) unions abused their power, than cases where they demonstrated their responsibility for the common good, but I am sure there must be some examples for the latter as well ...

[craic]

If it is a legal requirement for a teacher to be placed at another school to fulfil the requirements of the profession then I believe that the heavy hand of the minister concerned should be coming down. Where is Suzan Devoy ? She has more than one hat to wear in this arena. Where is the Maori leadership when one of their own is being railroaded for attempting to bring his abilities in this field to his own young people

[elZorro]

Good call, I get a lot of laughs out of it as well. I think El Zorro is trying the Crosby-Textor methodology if the narrative is said/written often enough we might start believing it :P

Well, it works for Crosby-Textor..

Glad I'm some entertainment value anyway.

[Daytr]

Fair enough BP.

Why you probably remember more negatives than good outcomes is that is what makes news. Unions doing their job & getting better outcomes for workers over the last 100 years or so doesn't sell newspapers. I think you just need to look at workers conditions compared to the start of the industrial revolution and how they have gradually improved says what unions have achieved & I don't think the achievements would have been the same without them. Like any organization there are bad eggs and corruption and abuse of power. Politics is full of it. I remember when the contracts bill came in the early 1990s and soon as the bill was signed one of NZs biggest corporations at the time tried to screw its workers. And there was pressure from management not to do any collective bargaining. You could feel your job being threatened by just talking about it. And this company was probably one of the better big corporates at looking after its staff back then.

Hi daytr, ....of course are not all unions and unionists the same. You might remember that I recognised as well in previous posts the historic need for the union movement - and I still see today a role for them in improving workplaces and particularly in making them safer. And sure - if people want to form a club (union) to improve their negotiation position for better salaries, than I guess this is legitimate as well - so why not?

It gets however ugly if these unions start to force innocent bystanders (by harming them or their career opportunities) to do what a union thinks is best for the respective union. I call this bullying, but if you have a better word for it, than I am happy to use that as well.

BTW - one definition of "bullying" (lifted off kidspot.co.nz) I would subscribe for is:



Actually - I think it fits well to describe the actions of the PPTA. PPTA is doing this repeatedly (actually to any junior teachers working at charter schools), and they abuse their power to intimidate these people and to damage their careers. Whats wrong with using this term to describe the actions of the PPTA?

With power comes responsibility. For some reason I can remember many more examples where (particularly public sector) unions abused their power, than cases where they demonstrated their responsibility for the common good, but I am sure there must be some examples for the latter as well ...

[Daytr]

The link below is just an example of how long John Key has been lying not only to the NZ public but the international community.
He still thinks saying the same BS over & over will eventually mean people will believe him.
I think he is coming unstuck on this ridiculous notion over the Saudi Sheepgate saga, which has made headlines around the world.
Not for the first time in 2015 has National made international headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Apparently NZ is 100% pure as it promotes itself. This National government's record on the environment, climate change and conservation is a disgrace.
This is from 2011.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...lk/9480610.stm

[BlackPeter]

The link below is just an example of how long John Key has been lying not only to the NZ public but the international community.
He still thinks saying the same BS over & over will eventually mean people will believe him.
I think he is coming unstuck on this ridiculous notion over the Saudi Sheepgate saga, which has made headlines around the world.
Not for the first time in 2015 has National made international headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Apparently NZ is 100% pure as it promotes itself. This National government's record on the environment, climate change and conservation is a disgrace.
This is from 2011.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...lk/9480610.stm

You are right ... there certainly is a huge gap between what New Zealand claims to be - and in what it is. "clean and green"? Well, some parts of New Zealand might be green for parts the year (some even for the whole year), but as a country we are certainly not "clean".

We are (per capita) one of the largest rubbish producers in the Western world and still distribute many tons of absolutely unnecessary packaging materials and millions of plastic shopping bags per year. How many other civilised countries do you know where basically all drinks are sold in one-way containers? Our high ways and rest places feature fast food litter spread around.

We are big energy consumers and do feature in the top half of the per capita energy consumption of OECD countries (despite a quite benign climate), our pesticide use tops most developed nations (per sq km of production land) and we are typically much slower in banning dangerous substances than other civilised countries. Example: NZ was the last developed nation to ban leaded petrol (in 1996 - so it was in that case a National government which cared) and one of the last to ban DDT (in 1989 - i.e. something Labour can claim).

So - I agree: lots of opportunities to improve. However - our relative "green and cleanliness" ranking did did not improve during Helen's reign and didn't got worse during John's. As long as our people don't care, our governments won't either. You first would need to change peoples attitudes ... and this is unlikely to happen if the observations are only used in a blame game where the opposition of the day happens to make the government of the day responsible - no matter who is in government and who is in opposition.

[Daytr]

BP, I think there is quite a difference between the Left & Right or National at least in this regard.
National has had a strong agenda to promote fossil fuel & mining exploration and exploitation. It has 'entertained' & encouraged the likes of Stat Oil and Trans Tasman Resources. It has openly encouraged the rapid intensification of dairy & as recently as in the last month has expressed that there is room for more dairy conversion. Not only are these sorts of policies ever going to be environmentally friendly they also are counter to what macro economics is telling us in regards where investment and the future lies and its not where they have been leading the country. Meanwhile they have ripped apart DOC and slashed its budget. So I would suggest National's record is ugly in comparison on the environment and addressing climate change.

[BlackPeter]

BP, I think there is quite a difference between the Left & Right or National at least in this regard.
National has had a strong agenda to promote fossil fuel & mining exploration and exploitation. It has 'entertained' & encouraged the likes of Stat Oil and Trans Tasman Resources. It has openly encouraged the rapid intensification of dairy & as recently as in the last month has expressed that there is room for more dairy conversion. Not only are these sorts of policies ever going to be environmentally friendly they also are counter to what macro economics is telling us in regards where investment and the future lies and its not where they have been leading the country. Meanwhile they have ripped apart DOC and slashed its budget. So I would suggest National's record is ugly in comparison on the environment and addressing climate change.

I guess this is the problem - all we have is fuzzy feelings and individual examples - and you find good and bad for both parties. I'd probably give you as well that the Left-Green might have better sounding environmental policies. Problem is that they never had to implement them, because they shy away from any form of responsibility. They just find it easier to sit back and criticize from a fundamental perspective without the need to balance priorities.

What I am after would be some way to measure the overall environmental performance of our governments ... and I guess this will not be easy, particularly that we might not even have in all areas the same view of what's good and what's bad.

Actually - I found something ... there is an Environmental performance index (EPI) developed for the UN ... and according to that does look NZ even quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...formance_Index

It was first taken in 2006 with NZ ranking best of all assessed countries ... and dropped by 2010 down to place 15 out of 178. Since than it basically did hold this place (plus/minus 1).

So - obviously you could celebrate place 1 which happened to be during a Labour government (though most of the things they assess are based on long term effects: air quality, water quality, land erosion, adequate sanitation, indoor air pollution, not a lot a government can change in a term or two) - i.e. its probably fair to say that it was still Labours policies (or the GFC?) which brought us down from place 1 in 2006 to the 2010 ranking of 15th. Or you could celebrate that NZ is since 2006 in the top 10% - no matter which government is running it.

Is this good enough? We both seem to feel that it is not ... but our views might be different on whether it is better to support a group of parties promising lots but not able to deliver (Labour / Green) or instead a group of parties more pragmatic but able to deliver. One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush ...

[Daytr]

NZ should stand out on any international scale as we simply have had less time to %$#& it up!
NZ has one of the worst deforestation records in history. In a very short amount of time we have done a lot of damage as a lot of NZs post European history has been in the age of machines where things are done a lot quicker & with more magnitude.
The Greens on environmental policy are pretty smart, but I do think they need to be more compromising to get some policy through. i.e. some change is better than no change. Labour's record is ok, but could be better in this regard. Nationals' record I would say is appalling & that's the difference.
By cutting budgets to things like DOC whilst at the same time targeting fossil fuel and mineral exploration says they do not value the environment and pretty much they favour development at all or any cost. National want to undermine (pardon the pun) the EPA. This is the agency that protects the environment. How can it be environmentally friendly to weaken their mandate, particularly for things like seabed mining?
I agree both Labour & National need to step up in regards addressing the need to protect both our land, sea & atmosphere & the Greens could do more to work with the major parties as well.
NZs future is with sustainable industries and tourism is probably the best of those.
People don't come to NZ for our cities its for our nature & we need to protect that better than we are now.