Fair payment to be scrapped if National get in

[Lilith7]

National says it would immediately scrap the fair pay agreement & several other things, if it becomes the next govt. They just may be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so; there are after all, quite a lot of workers who will benefit from this, & so it smacks of not wanting to give working people a fair go.


And really, their claiming that its 'socialism' reminded me of this: 


“Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

 

Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.

 

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

 

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

 

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

 

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

Harry S Truman





https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-nat...ted-debate

"Workplace Relations Minister Michael Wood said the bill was a step towards reversing the "radical deregulation of the labour market" 30 years ago when a then-National government stripped back collective worker rights through the Employment Contracts Act.

At the time National MPs claimed productivity and wages would improve, which Wood said had not eventuated.
"The promises that they made in that funk of deregulation, that they still live in a fever dream of, were proven to be false."

Wood said the legislation was about supporting the most vulnerable workers, including the essential workers who'd "kept us safe through Covid-19".

It would stop a "race to the bottom", where lacking adequate regulation employers were inclined to drive wages and conditions down to stay competitive.
Wood, as with other Labour MPs, also paid tribute to the late union leader Helen Kelly, saying the law invoked her "most important values and contributions".
"That was the value that we are better off when we are together when we bring everyone to the table, including working people."

Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson said the 1991 changes and reduction in wages were "not by accident, but by design".

"Today we turn that around," he said, to loud cheers from the Labour caucus.

Robertson said it was not a bad law for good employers, who would no longer be forced to drive their wages and worker conditions down to stay competitive.

"This is a day for employers to celebrate just as much as employees."









https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...-and-scrap

[king1]

it did seem just a little bit like sour grapes to me, no plan of his own to make things better for the country, just undo everything Labour has done...

[Lilith7]

it did seem just a little bit like sour grapes to me, no plan of his own to make things better for the country, just undo everything Labour has done...

Yes it does look very like that. Which has the unfortunate effect of making the Nats & their leader look rather childish, & unable to cope well with any tiny gain for working people.

[nzoomed]

The real irony was watching luxon work at a McDonalds yesterday!

[Lilith7]

The real irony was watching luxon work at a McDonalds yesterday!

Not sure if he's trying to show that he's just a worker, just one of the people, just like everyone else - or perhaps worse, that any McDonalds worker can, if they work hard enough, one day become leader of the National party.

[king1]

The real irony was watching luxon work at a McDonalds yesterday!

Not sure if he's trying to show that he's just a worker, just one of the people, just like everyone else - or perhaps worse, that any McDonalds worker can, if they work hard enough, one day become leader of the National party.

I read it as a cautionary tale of how those with wealth and means become so out of touch with reality that they believe they are relatable to the very people they need to stay put for them to have their wealth and means

[nzoomed]

Not sure if he's trying to show that he's just a worker, just one of the people, just like everyone else - or perhaps worse, that any McDonalds worker can, if they work hard enough, one day become leader of the National party.

I read it as a cautionary tale of how those with wealth and means become so out of touch with reality that they believe they are relatable to the very people they need to stay put for them to have their wealth and means

Quite true!

[Lilith7]

Not sure if he's trying to show that he's just a worker, just one of the people, just like everyone else - or perhaps worse, that any McDonalds worker can, if they work hard enough, one day become leader of the National party.

I read it as a cautionary tale of how those with wealth and means become so out of touch with reality that they believe they are relatable to the very people they need to stay put for them to have their wealth and means

Well then - perhaps a mandatory 3 months or so living & working on the lowest income every year they're in the beehive might help keep them grounded & in touch with reality.

[jilledge]

The problem with fair pay agreements is that employers can just say that they abiding by Govt. rules/regs, and people who work harder won't be rewarded. The ones who don't want to work harder will be the ones who are rewarded. It removes the incentives for people to work to get ahead.

It seems to me to be that the people who want to do the bare minimum will be the ones who support this.

[Praktica]

The problem with fair pay agreements is that employers can just say that they abiding by Govt. rules/regs, and people who work harder won't be rewarded. The ones who don't want to work harder will be the ones who are rewarded. It removes the incentives for people to work to get ahead.

It seems to me to be that the people who want to do the bare minimum will be the ones who support this.

"It seems to me"...the disease of the 21st century - lazy ignorant opinions.

[SueDonim]

The problem with fair pay agreements is that employers can just say that they abiding by Govt. rules/regs, and people who work harder won't be rewarded. The ones who don't want to work harder will be the ones who are rewarded. It removes the incentives for people to work to get ahead.

It seems to me to be that the people who want to do the bare minimum will be the ones who support this.

It would be hard to get around it unless the employees are brow-beaten into silence about their salaries AND they don't know what they should be getting which is what I hope we would move away from. Salaries have largely been "secret" since compulsory unionism was disbanded. Some degree of equal pay for equal work needs to be in place and we need to be much more open about salaries so that people know whether what they are receiving is fair.

Having worked under both collective and individual employment agreements I can see benefits and drawbacks on both sides. Workers need relativity with others doing the same work, but those who work harder do need to be respected, appreciated, encouraged and rewarded. A concept that seems to me to be losing ground today with so many people unwilling to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Can't help it - the Nats will be the 'unfair pay party'?

Such a good look. But honest...

[Lilith7]

Can't help it - the Nats will be the 'unfair pay party'?

Such a good look. But honest...

Hmm...the 'Unfair pay party'. That might just stick!

[jilledge]

Can't help it - the Nats will be the 'unfair pay party'?

Such a good look. But honest...

Hmm...the 'Unfair pay party'. That might just stick!

Wouldn't it be unfair if two people got paid the same, but one worked twice as hard?

It would be fair if the person who worked hard got rewarded for their hard work - don't you think?

[king1]

Hmm...the 'Unfair pay party'. That might just stick!

Wouldn't it be unfair if two people got paid the same, but one worked twice as hard?

It would be fair if the person who worked hard got rewarded for their hard work - don't you think?

yep and that should come by way of individually negotiated rates, performance bonuses and commissions etc...  

The Fair Pay acts purpose is to set *minimum* terms and conditions by occupation or industry

[Lilith7]

Fairly obviously fair pay is about fair pay; i.e. a reasonable amount of money for a reasonable amount of work.

[Zurdo]

A productivity payment ? Then those who work harder will earn more. Been there, done that - it doesn't work.

For me. The lazy buggers cut corners and churn out more work.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Hmm...the 'Unfair pay party'. That might just stick!

Wouldn't it be unfair if two people got paid the same, but one worked twice as hard?

It would be fair if the person who worked hard got rewarded for their hard work - don't you think?

Fair pay doesn't mean extra effort cannot be rewarded. It just means people who work should be paid fairly. It is about the employers really, more than the employees.

So imagine a base rate being set at the fair pay level. Productivity then allows for additional reward...

[jilledge]

Fairly obviously fair pay is about fair pay; i.e. a reasonable amount of money for a reasonable amount of work.

You'd think - but that isn't what it is about. 

If you're going to go on about something at the very least get a basic understanding of it. 

The information is literally at your finger tips

---

Wouldn't it be unfair if two people got paid the same, but one worked twice as hard?

It would be fair if the person who worked hard got rewarded for their hard work - don't you think?

Fair pay doesn't mean extra effort cannot be rewarded. It just means people who work should be paid fairly. It is about the employers really, more than the employees.

So imagine a base rate being set at the fair pay level. Productivity then allows for additional reward...

Yeah, but the reality is vastly different; employers will say that the Govt. has determined what a fair wage is for a certain job, and that's that - coupled with the fact that directors now have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to get the best possible return, unnecessary pay rises will potentially open them up to legal recourse. 

This type of thing benefit the ones who don't really want to work hard, or who want to do the bare minimum, whilst people who want to work hard for a greater return will not - accordingly the hard workers will work less... It's like that old fable; let me dig it out:

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/abou...a704cb76d8

[king1]

Fair pay doesn't mean extra effort cannot be rewarded. It just means people who work should be paid fairly. It is about the employers really, more than the employees.

So imagine a base rate being set at the fair pay level. Productivity then allows for additional reward...

Yeah, but the reality is vastly different; employers will say that the Govt. has determined what a fair wage is for a certain job, and that's that - coupled with the fact that directors now have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to get the best possible return, unnecessary pay rises will potentially open them up to legal recourse. 

This type of thing benefit the ones who don't really want to work hard, or who want to do the bare minimum, whilst people who want to work hard for a greater return will not - accordingly the hard workers will work less... It's like that old fable; let me dig it out:

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/abou...a704cb76d8

So employers are going to somehow convince the masses that they are not allowed to be paid any more because the government said so... I don't think people are that stupid.  

The employees that demonstrably deserve to be paid more will be attracted by the employers that recognize the benefits to themselves.  Those that insist on paying the minimum will end up with the least productive staff.

oh and welcome to our humble corner of the internet...