The fact is there are quite likely to be other EPMU members who support the Act party, or for that matter the National Party or Winston First or even the Libertarianz… this is likely to be the case for every union in New Zealand due to the monopoly powers granted by the Employement Relations Act.

That such statements have been made, which are entirely and obviously political, and which are not based on factuality (a percentage of EPMU members, however small, more than likely are supporters of right wing parties), point to the fact that this matter is entirely about the politics of his decision.

That the EPMU has a contractural clause cannot not take away his right to freedom from political discrimination. If the EPMU chooses to pursue this matter, a lot more people will probably question their supposed third-party status than have up to now.

I think about the only outcome from the EPMU can be: “We welcome Shawn Tan’s decision to stand for parliamentary office. The EPMU is an organisation that is actively involved in politics, and a range of people who support different political parties are involved in our union. Shawn Tan is free to continue to work at the EPMU if he does not wish to take time off for campaigning. If he does wish to take time off to campaign, then he has the choice to take unpaid leave between now and the election.”

Anything else looks like the EPMU are bullying him out of a job because of his political views. I agree with several other people that Shawn Tan seems like he’s a bit of a flake–anybody flip-flopping around like he does between parties is a bit suspect. But that has nothing to do with his job competence.

Tan comes across flaky while the EPMU has followed the rules but looks far from smart.

Where I disagree entirely with many comments is the ingrained view that ACT and other parties can’t do anything for the “workers”. With more successful businesses, things won’t improve for employees. There must be checks and balances but fundamentally without business growth this is no growth for employees.

There is a real distinct between “workers’ rights” and union rights which aren’t necessarily the same thing.

I don’t think he has any integrity at all based on his fickle political allegiances.

That’s what is in store for Tan’s attorney after a Tribunal Hearing. What a ham-fisted bunch your Trades Union must be if they insert a clause in their OWN employment agreements which contravenes the majority of human rights legislation in the western world!

Then, there is the process: If it is sadly true that the union chief has broad-emailed the membership, any rights owed the unfortunate employee have been abrogated by the public airing now given them!

I know nothing about “ACT” but it is beyond belief that any political party would stand on a platform of removing anyone’s rights, be they workers’, etc… You are surely kidding to argue this is the reality?

I think the Union is in for a blast from the Judge/Adjudicator who has this tacky mess placed before him/her! Given the Union’s desire to broadcast the circumstances, I wager the Media will be at the courthouse door to report the outcome. Red for embarrassment I suggest!

I would love to see the uproar here if this was the opposite scenario. Be honest boys, you would be screaming bloody murder if somebody got fired or suspended for running for Labour/Greens etc. You would go on about political freedoms being raped etc etc….

Sheesh. Balance please?!

“You need to learn how to condense/distill your arguments.”

You need to figure out the difference between before tax and after tax income, too, but I don’t see you doing so.