The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0.
Here’s a cool animation of Wal-Mart’s spread across the US (click the image below to launch it):
Wal-Mart is the largest corporation in the world by revenue, and the largest private employer in the world. Here’s a little Wikipedia info on them and a page dedicated to some of the criticisms of the chain.
(Via: BoingBoing)
Some of our friends on the Right have been putting themselves through strange mental contortions over the recent series of posts we’ve had on the impact of National and the Left on wages. To recap: we’ve shown that National let the minimum wage stagnate while inflation ate its buying power, the Labour-led Governments have increased it, we’ve shown that the income of the typical Kiwi (the median) went down under National once you adjust for inflation and has gone up significantly under the Left as a result of policy choices taken by the parties when in power. Further evidence for this is that Kiwis wages fell as a share of GDP under National and that share has increased under Labour.
Now, thanks to Redlogix’s research, we can see that the shrinking slice of the cake that working Kiwis got under National and the increasing size of the slice since 1999 is not simply an international trend. Unlike Kiwi workers, Australian workers did not see their share diminish during the 1990s because they had a Labor Government and kept strong work rights laws. It was only when the Howard Government began to put in anti-work rights laws that the share began to fall. (sources: Aus, NZ)
Oh and if you’re worried about the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand - there’s your problem, Kiwi workers get a smaller share of GDP compared to their Aussie mates (see here for how the wage gap opened at the same time as the % of GDP gap). Who has the policies to increase Kiwis’ share and, so, close to wage gap? Who will keep on raising the minimum wage and strengthening work rights? Not National, the Left.
Speaking in Rotorua earlier this week, John Key offered the following reason why you should vote for him to be Prime Minister:
“The only time we’ve won the rugby World Cup we had a male Prime Minister.”
You make my stomach turn, Mr Key. You’re just another sexist old bigot.
Stuff reports that “a British commercial for a chocolate bar featuringThe A Team star Mr T has been pulled over concerns it could cause offence to homosexuals”.
Here’s one airing locally that’s likely to cause some controversy too. It’s from a campaign by athletic gear manufacturer Skins called (perhaps tellingly) “Beyond reason”.
Today’s front-page story in the DominionPost on New Zealand First is a complete beat-up. It starts off:
More questions have been raised about donations to NZ First over a $20,000 deposit to the party’s bank account that does not appear on its register of declared donations.
Really? The story goes on:
The Dominion Post has obtained a deposit slip showing $19,998 was deposited in one or more cheques into the party’s coffers in December 1999.
One or more cheques? For $19,998, not $20,000? The most likely explanation for that number is that the deposit form included two cheques for $9,999.
The donation, banked into the party’s Westpac account, fuels the issue of big-business donations to NZ First - a party that has proclaimed that it does not take money from big-business donors.
How does it do that if it is a deposit slip? We are not told who the donors are.
Electoral Commission records for 1999 show that NZ First did not declare any donations of more than $10,000 - the threshold requiring such a donation to be reported.
If the deposit was for two cheques for $9,999 both cheques would be under the threshold and would not be required to be declared. The deposit would be perfectly legal.
Contacted for comment yesterday, the party leader, Winston Peters, said: “Phil, I told you I’m not talking to a lying wanker like you. See you.” He then hung up.
Perhaps Winston has a point.
The National party may prefer not to have their policy examined in great detail, but in today’s Herald Nigel Haworth, professor of human resource development at Auckland University’s Business School, provides some interesting observations about their 90 no-rights plans. Nigel Haworth suggests that:
“National’s intention to introduce, if elected, a 90-day probationary employment period, possibly in the small business sector, should concern everyone who supports the building of a high-value, high-productivity economy…
What are the arguments for the 90-day probationary period? Do businesses, especially small businesses, suffer from unnecessary costs which would be eased by this proposal?
The answer seems to be no. International measures, such as the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” index, suggest that New Zealand is one of the easiest countries in the world in which to do business. The employment-related measure in the index ranks New Zealand fourth of 155 countries for flexibility in hiring and firing.
Overall, the World Bank says, all economies have different regulatory mixes and, looking at the different mixes, New Zealand’s is about as good as you get in international terms. There is not much evidence in support of the proposed 90-day measure here.”
So if we are already up with the world leaders in the flexiblity of hiring and firing why are National seeking to promote the policy? Perhaps they want to indicate to their supporters that despite their flip flops and absorbing of Labour policy, they so still have a plan that right wing proponents would be proud of?
I believe there are three core criteria on which a politician or party needs to be judged: (in no particular order) - policy, competency, trustworthiness - Do they have a good plan, are they capable of implementing such a plan, can we trust them to carry out the plan if we vote for them.
National’s flip-flops strike at trust. They’re not simply a matter of Key et al looking like damn fools for vowing to oppose things like Working for Families ‘with every bone in their bodies’ then turning around and saying they’ll keep them. They’re a sign that you can’t trust National to hold true to the policy promises it makes. If they can flip over and over again, there is absolutely no guarantee that they won’t flop back into their old attitudes if they win power.
John Key voted against Kiwisaver 40 times in the last two years, now he says he supports it. Six months into a Key Prime Ministership, do you know whether he will be for Kiwisaver or against it? How about the anti-nuclear policy, or SOE sales, or Working for Families. Do you know whether Key will stick to his current policy or flip back to his old one? No-one knows, probably not even Key himself. Will you support a candidate for Prime Minister who you can’t trust to stick to his promises?
Amnesty International does some great campaigning and human rights work around the globe and this week is Freedom Week, their annual fundraising and awareness drive.
Most people will be familiar with Amnesty’s work, especially with the spotlight they’ve helped to shine on China’s appalling human rights record in the leadup to the Olympics. What’s often forgotten is the work Amnesty does in highlighting abuses in countries that never make it to the 6 o’clock news.
But they can’t do any of this without money, and that means people like you and me donating. There are a few ways you can do this. You can donate $20 immediately by calling 0900 AMNESTY, donate online by clicking here, or you can join by clicking here.
We spend a lot of time arguing across partisan lines here at The Standard, but I think this is a cause that everyone can support.
So US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice has left our shores. She inspired protest. She met the PM and said “New Zealand is now a friend and an ally.” She provided timely distraction for Mr Peters, travelling to meet with the Pacific Island forum. But the item that stirred my Kiwi pride was reading that one of the world’s most powerful women will soon be wearing Kiwi-made, after she “felt the urge for a little retail therapy. Auckland-based designer Adrienne Winkelmann was invited into Rice’s hotel room for a private viewing.” Who says the Standard can’t do light and fluffy somtimes?
So the news went out! National DID have some policy said Colin James:
…in behind the bland one-pagers lies quite a lot of study, consultation with outsiders and internal shadow cabinet debate. A 34-page paper backed the workplace relations one-pager. Law and order policy was well footnoted…
But no, Colin James seems to have got the wrong end of the stick reports Colin Espiner:
…it appears James didn’t get it quite right - at least according to John Key’s office, which has just told me that there is no 34-page policy document on industrial relations. It is, in fact, a document that simply backgrounds previous changes in industrial law, according to Key’s office.
I’m unsure whether this is supposed to make me feel better or not. Personally I would have been happier to know that National had done more work in this area, even if it wouldn’t release it.
Sure, the vast majority of people won’t be interested in reading the detail, but I’d suggest National tread carefully lest they be accused of taking voters for granted. After all, past comments already suggest that Key doesn’t think voters are that smart:
…explaining is losing [says Key]… If you’re explaining very complex things, in the end you just won’t get there because the public can’t grasp that idea.
I guess he’s just sticking to his guns then. Does that make anyone feel better? Can’t say it’s working for me…
Brian Rudman’s piece in today’s Herald is so far the most sensible comment on the Spencer Trust affair.
He points out that funding of elections in New Zealand has for far too long been vulnerable to the cheque-books of the rich. While some may be philanthropists like Glenn, or occasional players like Jones, others such as Fay, Richwhite and Hawkins have used their influence to buy and strip our national assets.
In this election we have Merrill Lynch advising Australian sharebuyers that there may be windfall gains for Australian Insurance companies in the event of a National win and the privatisation of parts of ACC, as National are briefing behind the scenes.
Rudman makes the point that most other countries guard against this vulnerability by public funding of political parties.
Quite why the rest of our media have swallowed Sir Bob Jones’ story that a cheque made out to the Spencer Trust was meant only to be used by New Zealand First is a mystery. If Sir Bob meant it for New Zealand First why didn’t he make it out to New Zealand First? Then we’d all know he was telling the truth, and Winston would have a case to answer.
Instead it appears the curmudgeonly old raver had too much to drink and signed a blank cheque, which was then made out to the Spencer Trust by one of his staff apparently with his agreement! So whose fault is that?
This straight from Public Address - Guest writer Simon Pound:
John Key has announced the adoption of yet another flagship Labour policy having a female leader. In a one-page policy briefing released today he stated that under a National government he would undergo gender realignment to have what it takes to lead the Country.
“I’ve been up and down the country talking to people and it kept being said to me that one of Labour’s biggest strengths is that their leader is a woman. Having already adopted most of their policy platform it was a no-brainer that I should seek to become a woman.”
Classic. Click here for the full article.
The Electoral Commission has decided the EPMU can register as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act despite the National Party spending big bucks to try to stop them in the courts.
Given the EPMU is a democratic organisation representing 50,000 Kiwi workers and the other unions (dairy workers, meat workers, maritime workers and service and food workers) that will come in on this decision probably represent another 100,000 or so, this is a significant win for a lot of people.
National Party activist David Farrar was behind the original complaint against the EPMU’s registration and, as one would expect, he is unhappy about the decision and considering challenging it.
It’s interesting that when first challenging the registration David claimed he was merely doing so to point out the problems with the law. At the time the suspicion was that he and his party were actually trying to stop the EPMU’s members, and the members of other unions, from having their democratic say.
Turns out is was probably the latter. In his piece on Kiwiblog last night he begins with:
I’ve just been told by a journalist that the Electoral Commission has decided to allow the EPMU and four other unions which have chosen to be affiliate members of the Labour Party to register as a third party. This means the five of them can collectively spend $600,000 attacking National on behalf of Labour.
You’ll note that there is no mention of the flaws of the EFA in that paragraph. David’s main concern is that unions will be able to campaign against National. It’s also interesting to note he claims unions will campaign against National on behalf of Labour.
I have no doubt that the unions will campaign against National, but considering National’s abysmal record of attacking the rights and wages of New Zealand workers and their clear intention to continue doing so, it’s abundantly clear the unions will be campaigning on behalf of their members.
I guess that kind of open democratic representation is a little too hard for the National Party and its minions to grasp.
The Electoral Commission has ruled that several unions affiliated to the Labour Party are able to register as third parties under the Electoral Finance Act. Their registration was objected to initally by David Farrar, the National Party frontperson who is the principal behind the registered third party known, ironically, as the Free Speech Coalition.
The National Party then objected to the Commission’s original decision to register them on a legal technicality. National’s objection was upheld by the High Court, and the decision returned to the Commission.
It is encouraging to see that common sense is finally coming to the fore as the election nears and the Chicken Littles of the world such as Farrar are exposed.
Perhaps Farrar’s third party should be renamed as the “Free Speech (if it’s for National) Coalition.” It would be a more accurate description.
The Melborne Age reports that:
A writ is expected to be filed in the High Court on Wednesday alleging the involvement of the secretive Exclusive Brethren in a variety of crimes, including fraud and kidnapping.
Three sisters, from India, who say they are on the run from the religious sect, allege they can link it to numerous crimes.
The women also allege the Exclusive Brethren is involved in money laundering, immigration fraud in New Zealand and bribery of police and members of the judiciary in India.
(Hat-tip: SH)
(hattip: Kiwipundit)
The essential debate in New Zealand politics (and all capitalist economies) is between Right and Left over how big a share of the economy’s production should go to the workers who produce it (ie wages, salaries) and how much should go to the capitalists who invested in the means of production (ie dividends, interest). The default position, since the capitalist owns the revenue of production and gets to do the division, is that the capitalist gets the lion’s share but workers’ rights - the right to organise into unions, the right to a minimum wage etc - give workers the power to win a larger share off the capitalist. Labour and the Left’s policy is to extend these work rights - high minimum wage, more bargaining power for unions etc. National’s policies are the opposite - they don’t raise the minimum wage meaning inflation makes it worth less and their policies weaken the power of unions.
The simple and intended result of these policies is that when the Left is in power not only do wages go up they go up as a % of GDP, and when National is in power, not only do wages go down, they go down as a % of GDP.
(source)
National tells us they will boost growth and boost wages. Their record suggest otherwise, not only have the Labour-led Governments out-performed National on GDP growth, they’ve also increased the share of GDP that goes to workers.
Some people would have you believe that ‘the old Left-Right divide is over’. That’s bollocks. And it’s bollocks coming from National because they don’t want you to know that a vote for National is a vote for weaker work rights, that a vote for National is a vote for a smaller slice of the cake.
Should Labour be worried about today’s poll in the Herald which contrary to other recent polls showed the gap between the parties rising? Colin Espiner doesn’t seem to think so, suggesting:
I wouldn’t take much notice of the Herald DigiPoll. This one’s even worse than the last one. It was taken over THREE WEEKS and interviewed just 770 people. Most of the major polls are of 1000 people are taken over one week. Three weeks is simply too long to get a meaningful result. The DigiPoll is also an “omnibus” poll - ie political questions are thrown in alongside stuff like what brand of soap powder you buy. The DigiPoll is showing the gap between National and Labour widening when four other polls with bigger sample sizes taken more recently have shown it narrowing. I don’t think this poll is worth the cover price of today’s Herald.
And in case you missed it, he said some interesting things about Mr Key’s about face on supporting Working for Families too:
National has long said it wouldn’t change the basic structure of WFF, of course, but it had dropped hints that it was considering alterations to stop this middle-class welfare creeping quite so far up the income scale. Key has said many times that he considers this to be a disincentive to work, that middle-income families should be paying less tax in the first place rather than getting a handout, and that the “one size fits all” approach of WFF wouldn’t work.
In fact, back in 2004, Key called it “communism by stealth” and opined that “it didn’t work very well in Eastern Europe and it won’t work very well here”…
There is one danger for National in all of this, though, and that’s that it inoculates so many policies that voters begin to wonder whether there really is any point in changing governments at all. If the policy differences disappear then it really does become a straight horse-race between Helen Clark and John Key. If Key is shown up by Clark during the campaign, National has absolutely nothing else to offer besides slightly bigger tax cuts.
I recently caught a story on the radio about the gender wage gap of new graduates - and in the failed search to locate it came across some other related stories. As we head into an election campaign with political parties offering up their solutions for the future I had to ask myself - does anyone still care about the gender wage gap?
How it was
The Guardian writes that forty years ago, a group of women sewing machinists at the Ford Motor Company plant in Dagenham saw red. They discovered that men who were doing the same work as them - making the car seats for Cortinas and Zephyrs - were being paid 15 per cent more.
Where we’re at now
The latest Statistics NZ analysis of 2006 Census education and training data has confirmed the pay gap between men and women still exists, with the median personal income of men higher than that of women at all levels of education. The Herald reported:
Women in Technology founder Carol Lee Andersen told the Herald she heard of the pay differential often but believed it was getting better. A director of three human resources companies, she said men tended to be better than women at negotiating conditions.
“We are trying to educate people on being really clear about what they are asking for and, when they go to reviews, be prepared,” she said.
So because women aren’t as confident/prepared/stroppy they get a dent in their pay packet? I know there will be those who say it’s about individuals’ performance, that talking about gender inequality is past its use-by date. But this presentation [caution, linked PowerPoint] by EEO Commissioner Judy McGregor (May 2008) is a clear indication that there is an issue to address.
There are only three women in the top 50 police officers (by rank), 60 of the top 100 companies (NZSX) have no women on their boards, and there are only a few women partners in top law firms (now 16.8%).
Why would you care? Surely it’s just a matter of them doing the work, what it takes to get the job? Well I think it does matter. Not only do I want my daughters to be able to embrace opportunity and not have it predetermined by their gender, I want our world to benefit from including the experiences and perspectives of the female half of the population. Call me an idealist - but I want whichever parties make up the next government to care as well. So bring on the policy - and not just a one pager full of white space!
