So it begins...

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › So it begins...

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 30

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1959076 16-Feb-2018 12:19

tdgeek:

The unions aren't the basis, Labour is the workers party, National is the businesses party, so both sides have their two key sectors of the population. If Labour moved away from being the workers party, then it would be a party the doesn't support workers or businesses, now that would be weird. The unions are just more obvious than the relationship that National has with businesses, other than that its just the same

Totally wrong.

National is not affiliated to any group in the same manner Labour is TIED to the unions. National has NO group with whom they must comply. You are making some dangerous assumptions about something you know little about.

National voters are from all sectors of the population. I could say that National voters are the educated voters, but that would be an assumption like I see in this thread.

All financial donations to National are voluntary and business's actually donate to all parties including Labour. However, with Labour a portion of the Unions subscription gets paid directly to the Labour party as of right. Quite wrong imo.

Unless within 3 months of an election, the Union must also agree to the appointment of the Labour Party Leader. Also quite wrong imo.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959077 16-Feb-2018 12:23

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Do you honestly believe that if Labour dropped support for unions, they could continue to exist?

Another way of looking at that might be where else could the unions go? They would probably stick with Labour regardless of what it did.

I don't think so, it's more likely they would start another party, very left wing. Andrew Little would likely be leader.

Ultimately, it won't happen, Labour are happy to be largely influenced by Unions.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959079 16-Feb-2018 12:25

networkn:

"The New Zealand Labour Party was formed in 1916 by various socialist parties and trade unions. It is thus the country's oldest political party still in existence"

Sounds like they were pretty much the foundation.

Do you honestly believe that if Labour dropped support for unions, they could continue to exist?

I never suggested that might drop support for unions.

The labour force in NZ has 15.2% union members in it. Thats why I dont agree with intermixing or replacing the word workers with unions. if generally all employees were union members then yes I would agree, but for every union member employee there are over 5 that arent

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959080 16-Feb-2018 12:28

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Do you honestly believe that if Labour dropped support for unions, they could continue to exist?

Another way of looking at that might be where else could the unions go? They would probably stick with Labour regardless of what it did.

Unions hold a lot of power in NZ still. They have great influence over their members votes and behaviour. I recall a number of years ago the junior Doctors striked over pay and conditions. My wife wouldn't participate. She turned up to work regardless, believing that pay wasn't something that should compromise patient care. It was very very nasty toward her. Same with a bus driver I knew. He was spat at, abused and for more than a year afterward, was shunned socially at work. He still believes it has impacted his career.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959081 16-Feb-2018 12:29

GV27:

tdgeek:

The unions aren't the basis, Labour is the workers party, National is the businesses party, so both sides have their two key sectors of the population. If Labour moved away from being the workers party, then it would be a party the doesn't support workers or businesses, now that would be weird. The unions are just more obvious than the relationship that National has with businesses, other than that its just the same

This would be correct if, say, the Business Roundtable directly voted on who the National Party leader was. It is not the same.

The membership of The New Zealand Initiative comprises about 70 members, mainly large New Zealand companies. That's hardly a NZ business equivalent of the unions

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959084 16-Feb-2018 12:37

Pumpedd:

tdgeek:

The unions aren't the basis, Labour is the workers party, National is the businesses party, so both sides have their two key sectors of the population. If Labour moved away from being the workers party, then it would be a party the doesn't support workers or businesses, now that would be weird. The unions are just more obvious than the relationship that National has with businesses, other than that its just the same

Totally wrong.

National is not affiliated to any group in the same manner Labour is TIED to the unions. National has NO group with whom they must comply. You are making some dangerous assumptions about something you know little about.

National voters are from all sectors of the population. I could say that National voters are the educated voters, but that would be an assumption like I see in this thread.

All financial donations to National are voluntary and business's actually donate to all parties including Labour. However, with Labour a portion of the Unions subscription gets paid directly to the Labour party as of right. Quite wrong imo.

Unless within 3 months of an election, the Union must also agree to the appointment of the Labour Party Leader. Also quite wrong imo.

If you wish to use the fact the unions are an organistion that you can see and feel, and that has ties to Labour, thats fine. If you ignore the relationship that businesses have with National because they dont have an "organisation", thats fine also. Head in the sand stuff. Its the same thing except one is open and transparent, the other isn't. And neither has any organisation that they must comply. Labour doesn't comply with what the unions want, they do give them a vote as they represent the employees by way of registration and membership, as does Labour's policies support employees. But it seems that if a group is an organisation then thats all that matter. The wants and desires of medium and especially large businesses off course has no effect on Nationals policies and behaviour? Off course it does. And there isnt anything wrong with that. They support the Govt that favours them

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959087 16-Feb-2018 12:44

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Do you honestly believe that if Labour dropped support for unions, they could continue to exist?

Another way of looking at that might be where else could the unions go? They would probably stick with Labour regardless of what it did.

Unions hold a lot of power in NZ still. They have great influence over their members votes and behaviour. I recall a number of years ago the junior Doctors striked over pay and conditions. My wife wouldn't participate. She turned up to work regardless, believing that pay wasn't something that should compromise patient care. It was very very nasty toward her. Same with a bus driver I knew. He was spat at, abused and for more than a year afterward, was shunned socially at work. He still believes it has impacted his career.

Union membership is 15.2% of the labour force, 2016, it will be less now. Health is a biggie. I'm surprised if unions abuse and spit on their members that it hasn't gone to court. They may hold good power in the few industries that bother with them, but most dont as per the numbers quoted. I personally think unions should go, the ECA seems to work fine, but clearly some industries such as health have a big divide between the employers and employees. Ironically Health's major employer is the Govt. Yes, great for your wife, I would too. But its bad for the employer to use patients as a lever as well. In this case the employer is the Govt, but it could be a private business. Maybe the ECA still needs work

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#1959103 16-Feb-2018 12:52

tdgeek:

If you wish to use the fact the unions are an organistion that you can see and feel, and that has ties to Labour, thats fine. If you ignore the relationship that businesses have with National because they dont have an "organisation", thats fine also. Head in the sand stuff. Its the same thing except one is open and transparent, the other isn't. And neither has any organisation that they must comply. Labour doesn't comply with what the unions want, they do give them a vote as they represent the employees by way of registration and membership, as does Labour's policies support employees. But it seems that if a group is an organisation then thats all that matter. The wants and desires of medium and especially large businesses off course has no effect on Nationals policies and behaviour? Off course it does. And there isnt anything wrong with that. They support the Govt that favours them

Again, let me know when large corporates directly vote on the party leader. This is something you seem to be struggling with. Continuing to compare this with policy influence is false equivalency.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959127 16-Feb-2018 13:24

GV27:

tdgeek:

If you wish to use the fact the unions are an organistion that you can see and feel, and that has ties to Labour, thats fine. If you ignore the relationship that businesses have with National because they dont have an "organisation", thats fine also. Head in the sand stuff. Its the same thing except one is open and transparent, the other isn't. And neither has any organisation that they must comply. Labour doesn't comply with what the unions want, they do give them a vote as they represent the employees by way of registration and membership, as does Labour's policies support employees. But it seems that if a group is an organisation then thats all that matter. The wants and desires of medium and especially large businesses off course has no effect on Nationals policies and behaviour? Off course it does. And there isnt anything wrong with that. They support the Govt that favours them

Again, let me know when large corporates directly vote on the party leader. This is something you seem to be struggling with. Continuing to compare this with policy influence is false equivalency.

No, I'm not struggling. I don't have a deep seated bias that causes me to get upset if my party is talked negatively against. When did I say that corporates vote on National leader? Its already been discussed that while the unions do have a say the Labour leader vote, 20%, is not decided by them or a requirement of them, they have a say. Nothing wrong with that.

Both Labour and National have a policy influence by their target market. I thought that was obvious. The target market wants to influence the party, the party wants to keep them happy and on side, nothing wrong with that also, its the human way and the way of doing business

The struggle is that if one side has a registered organisation, that off course means that this organisation runs the whole show, thats silly. And to press the point that the other side does not get heavily influenced by its target market as there is no registered organisation, is quite short sighted. They both get influenced and they want that, to keep their target market happy and on side.

None of which has anything to do with this thread, again.

mrfte

83 posts

Master Geek

#1959133 16-Feb-2018 13:32

The suggestion that Charter school teachers having to meet "standards" set by unions is a blatant display of the power unions hold over Labour.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959138 16-Feb-2018 13:41

mrfte:

The suggestion that Charter school teachers having to meet "standards" set by unions is a blatant display of the power unions hold over Labour.

That is a big issue in the US. I've yet to see the word union mentioned in any articles on the Labour issue on Charter Schools.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1959158 16-Feb-2018 14:14

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

tdgeek:

The unions aren't the basis, Labour is the workers party, National is the businesses party, so both sides have their two key sectors of the population. If Labour moved away from being the workers party, then it would be a party the doesn't support workers or businesses, now that would be weird. The unions are just more obvious than the relationship that National has with businesses, other than that its just the same

Totally wrong.

National is not affiliated to any group in the same manner Labour is TIED to the unions. National has NO group with whom they must comply. You are making some dangerous assumptions about something you know little about.

National voters are from all sectors of the population. I could say that National voters are the educated voters, but that would be an assumption like I see in this thread.

All financial donations to National are voluntary and business's actually donate to all parties including Labour. However, with Labour a portion of the Unions subscription gets paid directly to the Labour party as of right. Quite wrong imo.

Unless within 3 months of an election, the Union must also agree to the appointment of the Labour Party Leader. Also quite wrong imo.

If you wish to use the fact the unions are an organistion that you can see and feel, and that has ties to Labour, thats fine. If you ignore the relationship that businesses have with National because they dont have an "organisation", thats fine also. Head in the sand stuff. Its the same thing except one is open and transparent, the other isn't. And neither has any organisation that they must comply. Labour doesn't comply with what the unions want, they do give them a vote as they represent the employees by way of registration and membership, as does Labour's policies support employees. But it seems that if a group is an organisation then thats all that matter. The wants and desires of medium and especially large businesses off course has no effect on Nationals policies and behaviour? Off course it does. And there isnt anything wrong with that. They support the Govt that favours them

You are just twisting words now to suit your own political need. We have simply stated fact and you accuse us of having our heads in the sand. You are entitled to you opinion which all your responses are.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1959161 16-Feb-2018 14:23

Rubbish. I don't have much of a political need at all, given that while I voted Labour last year its almost always been National prior to that

But how is this. Labour should be renamed the Union Party as the unions control everything. National operates independently from their business supporters. They dont waiver to cater for the wants and desires of the business target market

This thread is just like the other. Bagging and agreeing.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1959163 16-Feb-2018 14:31

He's making the point that political parties have a number of regular donors and have a relationship with those donors on that basis. Seems a legit point to me and party neutral. Applies to the green party as much as the national party.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1959169 16-Feb-2018 14:37

tdgeek:
mrfte:

The suggestion that Charter school teachers having to meet "standards" set by unions is a blatant display of the power unions hold over Labour.

That is a big issue in the US. I've yet to see the word union mentioned in any articles on the Labour issue on Charter Schools.

I was watching the debate on the education amendment bill last night. Unions got a significant mention last night. Essentially charter schools are beyond the reach of the unions, and education is a union stronghold, so the unions are desperate to get rid of them when they can.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 30