World view – Friday

Thursday GMT

WorldWatch2

For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.

11 Comments

  1. David

     /  June 29, 2018

    Further to Pete’s supreme court post yesterday the ruling against the unions got me thinking q pur the unfortunate parallels between what is happening now back home and here in the US.
    Basically the public sector union were able to invoice government employees who wernt paid up members for negotiating conditions even if they wernt getting the same deal. One might say fair enough but it’s the unions that fund the politicians that negotiate the contracts and its deeply corrupt and conflicted. It appears NZ could be heading in a similar direction courtesy of our very weak and distracted PM.
    For a vision of the future look at the prison union and ultra liberal California.

  2. David

     /  June 29, 2018

    If you don’t want the union to negotiate for you why should you have to pay them. The unions could lose their monopoly with the court ruling.

    • Gezza

       /  June 29, 2018

      Basically the public sector union were able to invoice government employees who weren’t paid up members for negotiating conditions even if they wernt getting the same deal.

      I didn’t see that last bit in the article PG posted. Not sure what you mean here but I don’t think unions can invoice non-members for negotiating their wages & conditions here in NZ. I don’t see any real problem with non-union members accepting the same pay deal a union has negotiated for its members being required to pay a fee to the negotiators.

      If they negotiate a better deal for themselves, fair enough. That’s another matter. But taking the exact same deal is piggy-backing off union members who’ve had to pay their negotiators & that is unfair – it’s certainly not conducive to good workplace relations. It’s freeloading.

      How could it not be freeloading?

      • High Flying Duck

         /  June 29, 2018

        If the negotiated rate is a fair one that two willing parties would naturally enter into, then the employee would not be getting any benefit from the union for being paid the same rate.
        It would only be free loading if the union had negotiated special benefits that would otherwise not have been forthcoming. How would you ever know this though?

        • Gezza

           /  June 29, 2018

          If the non-union employee’s rate and/or conditions are superior to those of the union members, it’s obvious.

          If they are the same as the union members’ it is equally obvious they have been paid that rate because the employer is either obliged to pay them that to get or keep them & they are obviously freeloading. Allowing freeloading is a well-known & widely-recognised dirty employer strategy for deunionising. The screw is obvious. “Why do you need to pay those union sharks to get the pay & conditions I would give you out of the goodness of my, my owners’, the executive board, & the shareholders’s hearts anyway!” Bullshit.

          If the non union members’ rate & conditions are inferior to the union members’ there’s no problem: and it is equally obvious they have successfully negotiated with the employer themselves.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  June 29, 2018

            Having dealt wit ha unionised payroll in the past, I agree it is unlikely any non-unionised person would get the same deal.
            Unions like to complicate things and arrange extra allowances and top ups for the most minor aspects of employment instead of simply averaging out a fair rate. It is unlikely a sane person would negotiate the type of arrangement I saw.
            So perhaps you are right.

            • Gezza

               /  June 29, 2018

              Where they’ve been good over the years is in getting the fairest rate possible with an employer who would pay their workers with leftovers from the executive board lunches if they could.

  3. Patzcuaro

     /  June 29, 2018

    A shot across the bow.

  4. sorethumb

     /  June 29, 2018

    No Party for Old White Men

    A Democratic Socialist, endorsed by MoveOn, Black Lives Matter and People for Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez favors Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, free tuition at public colleges, federal jobs for all who want them, and abolishing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that runs “black sites” on the Mexican border where “human rights abuses are happening.”

    When tear gas was used in Puerto Rico, whence her family came, Ocasio-Cortez laid it at Crowley’s feet: “You are responsible for this.”

    Crowley tried gamely to keep up, declaring that ICE, for which thousands of Americans work to protect our borders, is a “fascist” organization, presumably something like Ernst Rohm’s Brown Shirts.

    While the victory of Ocasio-Cortez is bad news for Pelosi and Hoyer, it may also be a harbinger of what is to come. For the Democratic Party appears about to unleash its radical left, its Maxine Waters wing, and give its ideology another run in the yard.
    https://www.vdare.com/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-no-party-for-old-white-men

    What if diversity makes for an unstable society?

    • Gezza

       /  June 29, 2018

      Then it’s a problem. This is why I favour immigrants assimilating into the host culture rather than trying to force the host country into accepting theirs.

      Gross economic disparity & privileged elites can make for an unstable society too.