And it is 3/3 against
All three major newspaper editorials have come out slamming Labour’s 1970s workplace policy. The Herald says:
It will not be easy to take the Labour Party seriously at this election if it comes up with any more policy like the one announced on Tuesday. To lift the level of wages in this country it proposes industry-wide wage orders.
Can you imagine it. The struggling corner dairy may suddenly be told that it has to pay its staff the same as the massive supermarket around the corner, even though it will force them to close.
The Labour Party would surely hesitate to propose this if there was much prospect of the party winning the election and having to put the policy into effect. Like one or two other planks in the party’s platform this year – notably the removal of GST on fresh fruit and vegetables – the policy is mainly interesting for what it says about Labour’s condition at present and how much younger members of the caucus have to learn.
Helen Clark would have never come out with such an unelectable policy. I agree with the Herald that the push for this has come from the newer MPs.
A strong economy needs to let employers prosper wherever they can and compete for the employees they need. Wages grow when employers need more people with valuable skills. A policy for productivity encourages more investment in productive activities, and better education to equip workers with adaptive skills. It does not put industries back in a straitjacket for unions’ sake. The country has been there.
It really is the Marty McFly policy.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
October 20th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Three strikes and you’re out?
October 20th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Goal !!!! (own)
October 20th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I2
Where do they come up with this stuff? Is the fuckwit Goff on the nat’s payroll?
Phil Goff. Labour’s answer to Quade Cooper!
October 20th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Come on, Labour, why can’t you help the country out by at least getting your sh*t together in opposition? This is yet another sad day for the health of New Zealand’s political system.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
So is anyone other than Labour and the standard defending this policy?
October 20th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
mjwilknz
I’m almost starting to feel sorry for you.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Can you imagine it. The struggling corner dairy may suddenly be told that it has to pay its staff the same as the massive supermarket around the corner, even though it will force them to close.
No, I can’t imagine it. Only someone on planetrightwinnuttia could.
In case you hadn’t noticed, very few corner dairies employ staff; they are almost entireley family run, mum, dad, the 7 kids.
And, perhaps you also haven’t noticved that far too many sales are not put through the cash register in corner dairies, especially when correct money is given. They are evading both GST and Income Tax. And these are the people you defend!
October 20th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Ahhh! So, Jack, all the people who would be hurt by Labour’s policy are tax evaders and deserve to be destroyed?
Seriously, this is a policy to please the unions, not win the election.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
MyNameIsJack, always happy to slander people based hypothetical what-if logic and by the area of retail that they work in. You wouldn’t be a leftie, would you?
October 20th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Thedavincimode, thanks mate. Could you spare a dollar, too?
BTW, I’m not actually a Labour or a National supporter, just someone who believes the country will do better if it has an effective opposition snapping at the heels of the incumbent. I think it very unfortunate just much Labour has given up that role. Will someone please get those guys some decent leadership?
October 20th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Whaaaaaaaaat?
I had to check the tags to see if this was posted under ‘humour’ rather than… Tags: editorials, Industrial relations, Labour, NZ Herald
This is further proof that Labour is rooted.
Even the most ardent of Labour supporters must be wondering: WTF?
Another total clusterfuck from the gift that just keeps giving….
October 20th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“Will someone please get those guys some decent leadership?”
… and a wholesale personality transplant
October 20th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Elaycee
Even the most ardent Labour haters are wondering: WTF?
October 20th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Don’t bother jackoff with facts or details, he has RHETORIC!!!
And a future being labours cheer leader. Its a sad story really… but no one gives a crap.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Somewhere, somehow, Damien O’Conner is saying “I told you so”
October 20th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
slightly
So is Auntie’s man in Kabul.
October 20th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I expect Labour is crushed that its policy hasn’t gone down well with employers, National Party activists and mouth-frothers on right-wing blog comments threads. That’s an epic fail with its core democraphic! Oh – except, er, no, it’s not.
Can you imagine it. The struggling corner dairy may suddenly be told that it has to pay its staff the same as the massive supermarket around the corner, even though it will force them to close.
This is why Australia has been stripped of its small businesses and is struggling desperately in comparison with us, for whom the low-wage approach has proved to be a gold mine.
October 20th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“Can you imagine it. The struggling corner dairy may suddenly be told that it has to pay its staff the same as the massive supermarket around the corner, even though it will force them to close.”
Ah, yes, I can. In fact, that’s exactly what both Labour and National (to its shame) have done with young workers by removing the youth wage, thereby casting thousands onto the scrap heap and dole.
DPF – I acknowledge that, to your credit, you been very critical of National on this point.
October 20th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
If anyone wnats proof of my comments in the post above this then here it is. Pollies bribing citizens to vote for them using someone elses money.
Same old same old. And we are so stupid we let the pollies get away with it all the time Talk about being morons. the pollies must be wetting themselves with laughter behind closed doors. I would.
October 20th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
If you’re going to have a minimum wage, why not have a progressive one, like progressive taxation? Small and starting businesses making losses or marginal profits pay the lowest minimum wage, while corporations making multimillion-dollar profits sit in the highest minimum-wage bracket. That way struggling businesses aren’t strangled in their cots and the businesses who can afford it can pay.
Is there some really obvious flaw to this that I’m missing? (Probably.)
October 20th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Ryan – biggest loophole I’d see is that one could set up lots of small companies so each store would be owned by a “starting business” in perpetuity. As soon as the “starting” time is up, it will be onsold to the next “starting business”.
October 20th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I was thinking it would be judged based on IRD declarations of profit, not age – just working with the assumption that most starting businesses take years before they become really profitable, if they survive that long at all.
October 20th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@ Ryan One obvious thing is big companies deploy big amounts of capital. If one dairy cant afford a wage rate it doesnt follow that someone operating a chain of 100 dairies magically can.
But why even bother trying to think up ways to deal with something the market already takes care of, without need for rules and bureaucracy.
October 20th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Well, as I said, “if you’re going to have a minimum wage…”
But the wage market ensures there are always unemployed people, while the sales market ensures there are always people who can’t afford products and services, including necessities. Those people, and people who care about those people, and people who care about how much crime is committed by those people, will always demand a minimum wage. So might as well try to work out one that works.
Then they’d be on the lowest minimum-wage bracket.
If you tie the minimum wage to a percentage of profits, it essentially becomes a tax that is paid directly to the people working in that business, for them to spend without it having been filtered through a cumbersome and inefficient redistributive bureaucracy.
October 20th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Just assume that there would be rules to aggregate start-up entities with common economic interests. Even without them, there is a disincentive for this type of carry-on suggested by ivorytowerkiwi – no employer is going frig around with this sort of malarkey – just costly and time-wasting.
Ryan’s suggestion just wouldn’t be efficient. It turns low value roles into a high value cost structure for exisiting businesses. Start-ups needing better skills would still be required to compete with highest minimum wage corporations. You penalise corporations for being successful. Why not just be honest and increase their tax (not a serious suggestion). At a headline level, it would represent a disincentive for foreign investment.
Forget it. Keep it simple and keep a level playing field. Avoid trying to turn start-ups into successes when they might not be, and established and successful businesses into losers.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
It’s not really penalising corporations for being successful – it’s more like offering a tax cut to businesses that haven’t got there yet. Remember, this is in response to a blanket minimum wage that would strangle smaller businesses to death.
Start-ups would be competing with the pay offered by large successful corporations, but that’s already the case. And the jobs that are paid minimum wage are not generally a question of skilled labour – they’re either trainable or unskilled roles. There’s a surplus of available labour for those roles, including those just entering the job market.
And it could be a disincentive to foreign investment, but wouldn’t the increased wealth at the bottom of the spectrum translate into more spending? The wealth could trickle up.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
It is important to reflect on what exactly is sought to be achieved through a minimum wage.
Is it to guarantee a minimum standard of living? Or is it to underpin an efficient labour market, but prevent exploitation and transfer pricing of wage costs into the social welfare system, and incentivise people into the workforce in parallel with a social welfare system that supports that objective? I vote the latter. If the objectives in terms of required standard of living are not met, then that is a political issue that ought to be addressed through the welfare system.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Ryan – 5.04pm
But its still asking somebody else to subsidise that startup. And it does penalise a larger company if it has a $12.50 and hour job for which it must pay $15.00 per hour. It affects not just earnings, obviously, but also rate of return. We need foreign capital to provide jobs. A cliche I know, but true.
Also, it doesn’t follow that start-ups require unskilled labour.
This issue comes back to my 5.07 pm- re the fundamental purpose of minimum wages.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Ryan
There are a couple of other points I should have mentioned about minimum wages.
First, these sorts of thing are never just at the margin. At first, having to pay, say, and extra $1 an hour mightn’t be a make or break difference. But its indexed and its also a political football, so that $1 an hour becomes $1.50 and then $2 etc. Its like borer.
Second, I would expect that increasing minimum wages will put upwards pressure on higher wages for more skilled work, which is fine, as long as there is incremental economic gain to the employer. Minimum wages are commonly seen as relativity benchmarks in pay negotiations and so, it follows that increasing minimum wages beyond the level of tension referred to in my 5.07pm will put pressure on wages across the board. Again, that’s fine if there is a return. But the historic problem we have is that over time we are increasingly uncompetitive relative to offshore labour markets where we are undercut.
Finally, there are industries – hospitality is a good example – where people bargain lower wage rates for the flexibility in having part-time work. Those industries cannot necessarily continue to sustain escalating costs that are the product of political whim. That’s a reality that is brought home if you talk to any resturateur.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
thedavincimode,so much anger against your non suit wearing average NZ workers. Start ups, a thought are you a idiot?? our counties dying, any start up quickly fucks of to china or sells out to the USA who ships our thoughts to china.WE ARE DYING thedavincimode, point out a happy thought for my country and dont say Weta.
October 20th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
A happy thought. Hmmm.
Little buzy bees buzzing around the green meadows collecting pollen for the clover honey, while moo cows graze contentedly on the green pastures and flutter their big moo cow eyelashes over their loverly big moo cow eyes.
October 20th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
All sweetly and uncomplainingly subsided by companies actually making a profit and therefore paying taxes and wages to workers who can then afford to by some food and clothes…….
October 20th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Shock horror….. we cannot have companies making a profit !! Regulate and penalise them immediately!!….. they are probably spraying chemicals on the grass which is why the cows look so contented………
October 21st, 2011 at 5:57 am
This is a wounded party who doesn’t have a clue economically and that makes them extremely dangerous. I’m assuming they are having to go extreme left to differentiate from the left leaning approach by National, but what is concerning is they don’t seem to have the slightest idea of the repercussions of their policy.
For example, I can’t imagine too many businesses being enthusiastic about this one, or anyone with a brain – sorry – right leaning. but I certainly can imagine beneficiaries and lower paid being quite happy.
The problem is however these people only have pocket money to support Labours reelection and regardless of how evil they think money is, they will be needing quite a bit of it.
Bit of a worry really if these people get back in. Based on their last effort, having corruption AND incompetence rolled into one is not a good combo.
October 21st, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Lolololol – Dairies employing staff
Lolololololol – Supermarkets not paying minimum wage
At any rate I am afraid your analogy already fails however. Industry standards have to be freely negotiated and can only happen where the majority of the industry is under a collective agreement. Even if dairies and supermarkets were in the same industry which the changes to the liquor laws would suggest they are not dairies are not covered by collective agreements at all and supermarkets are not for most employees. It seems very unlikely also that the employers in those sectors would agree to an industry standard. Pretty much 0% chance of an industry standard for your analogy.