Just putting a pin in this day.
A hell of a lot is riding on this election. A hell of a lot could change if we get a genuine change of government. A hell of a lot of policies near and dear to my heart could be implemented, or not, depending on how the votes fall.
And a hell of a lot of you have already voted so this post is coming a little late in the proceedings!
But what I’ll be thinking about, as I go to vote tomorrow (what can I say, I have a thing about the ritual of voting on election day proper) is the Pike River families.
I’ve written previously about my involvement in the Stand With Pike campaign. Biases on the table, and all that. And there’s a very clear choice before us: Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, the Māori Party and United Future have all committed to re-entering the Pike River drift by the end of 2018 if they’re in the next government. Nick Smith called that “a stunt”. Nick Smith is a nasty little bully.
But there are broader questions at stake, too. Like, are we okay being the kind of country where 29 men die on the job, and no one is ever held properly accountable? Are we okay with politicians milking tragedy for sympathy and kudos then fighting every stage of the way not to learn the lessons of their deaths?
Do we say that people at work get to have a say in their own health and safety, or do we give Peter Talley a knighthood?
Do we value the lives of West Coast miners? Or are they just “ferals“?
Is justice for sale if you’re rich enough?
Do we put people first, or money?
It is no secret that I have my criticisms of Labour and the Greens, nor that I think a real opportunity has been missed, especially given the treatment of Metiria Turei, to build popular support for significant, real change in how our government operates. (This most excellent video by Jim Sterling makes every point I would on that general topic, but slightly shoutier, with way better graphics, and talking about video games, not nzpol.)
But in the next 24 hours we can make a material difference for the Pike River families. We can elect a government which will deliver them justice and closure. We can draw a line about what is and isn’t acceptable in our country, and build on that to deliver justice and fairness in the face of rampant corporate greed for everyone.
That’s what I’m going to vote for.
April 2017: a hell of a month offline, so damned quiet around here. But I’ve managed to do a bit of writing elsewhere, so don’t fret!
Today at The Spinoff: Enough bullshit. After all these years the Pike River families deserve answers
Something you notice about with the Pike crew is how they speak in the abstract. “Our boys.” “Our men.” It’s a natural coping mechanism. No one could survive six years with no closure, no justice, and very little hope, feeling every bit of the grief you’re entitled to when your husband or son goes to work one day and never comes home. Fighting just to get a basic investigation of the crime scene where he died, and accountability from the people whose inaction or negligence or outright greed killed him.
I got involved early with Stand With Pike, by virtue of being the closest millennial to hand when the crew were trying to get the word out about their picket, battling West Coast cellphone drop-outs and Facebook’s clunky Page Manager app. Contrary to the fever-dreams of Matthew Hooton, I’m not paid for it. It’s just the right thing to do. Because it’s so counter to every value I hold, that after six years, no one has been really held to account for letting 29 men die. Anna and Sonya and Dean and the others should not still be fighting for answers and justice. They should never have had to fight for it at all.
And a few weeks back at Overland: In New Zealand, where abortion is still a crime
Today, getting an abortion in New Zealand can involve five separate medical appointments: the initial pregnancy test and referral to an abortion provider (if your doctor provides referrals), two appointments with certifying consultants (if they both approve you), an initial consultation at the abortion clinic, and the procedure itself. …
In the 1970s, the Sisters Overseas Service helped fly women who wanted an abortion to New South Wales. We like to think those days are behind us, but in 2013, a young woman from Wellington was reduced to crowdfunding $7,000 to fly to Melbourne for hers.
How have we let this go on?
Back to the keyboard …
St John ambulance drivers aren’t asking for much: regular breaks, fair pay, and not being sent out on their own to deal with dangerous or violent patients.
But that’s apparently too much for St John – a charitable organisation whose values include “doing the right thing” and being “straight up” – who have not only taken legal steps to close down collective bargaining, but docked workers’ pay 10% for taking industrial action.
Let’s be really crystal clear here – we’re not talking about strike action. Ambulance drivers who are members of FIRST Union are still showing up to work on time and getting the job done. They’re just wearing a t-shirt that says “Healthy ambos save lives” while they do it.
Side note: what is with some employers and a kneejerk hatred of cool union t-shirts?
What’s struck me is the number of comments I see from people – “ordinary” New Zealanders, if you like; people who don’t spend nearly as much time as you or I nerding out about politics – asking how this is legal. This can’t be okay, surely? How can the boss take 10% of your pay just because you’re wearing a silly t-shirt?
Well … no one likes to hear “I told you so.” But here we are.
In 2013 the National-led government introduced the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Among other things, it included:
- docking pay 10% for industrial action – if an employer couldn’t be bothered figuring out the proportion of work being affected by, say, an overtime ban (or, perhaps, just punishing workers for wearing t-shirts!)
- making it easier for employers to walk away from collective bargaining and industry-wide agreements, which maintain basic standards of pay and conditions and stop cowboy operators undercutting everyone else by paying poverty wages
- removing mandatory minimum rest breaks and giving almost all the power to the employer to decide what a “reasonable” break would look like
- weakening protections for workers like cleaning and catering staff, whose jobs might get taken over by new contractors who want to pay them less
- tightening the rules around strikes so bosses’ lawyers can tie unions up in legal action for months over a typo.
The law weakened the position of workers and their unions, and strengthened the ability for dirtbag employers to be dirtbags. That’s precisely what it was designed to do.
And of course there was resistance. Thousands of people rallied in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch against the bill. There were submissions, and op eds, and public speak-outs.
And National did what they have done so well for eight years: they dodged the issues. When unions pointed out that this law would remove the right to a rest break, Simon Bridges said “It’s about flexibility, we can’t have teachers and air traffic controllers just walking off the job to have a cup of tea, can we?” – as though this answered the question, as though this would ever happen. When unions pointed out people could be disadvantaged by not being on the collective agreement for the first 30 days in their new job, Michael Woodhouse said “It’s about fairness!” – as though it’s fair to expect someone new to the job and new to the company to know what to expect, what to negotiate for. As though 90% of employers bother to genuinely negotiate individual agreements with workers who don’t join the union.
Maybe unions could have done a better job talking about these issues. Maybe the media could have done a better job getting government ministers to actually answer the questions put to them (instead of, say, using a workers’ rally to attack Grant Robertson for being gay, as occurred in one particularly shameless piece).
The point now is that the industrial action being taken by people who do an incredibly important job, driving bloody ambulances, is making many people realise how broken employment relations are in New Zealand. Yes, folks: your employer can dock your pay 10% because you and your coworkers stand together and wear union t-shirts while doing your jobs. That’s not fair. That’s not about flexibility. That’s not something we like to think of happening in our country.
So tell St John. Tell every employer who tries to walk away from the bargaining table when they don’t like people taking a stand for health and safety and decent work: it’s not on. It’s not how we do things. And tell the politicians, too. Because laws change when we make them change.
I’m sorry, I simply couldn’t resist the potential for porcine punnery on this one, inspired by Bill Rosenberg’s comments on Stuff. A good headline sells a story – and that’s what we’re seeing with the latest hapless chapter of Michael Woodhouse’s tenure as Minister of Workplace Relations.
Thanks to apparent machinations from the Collins faction of the National caucus, Woodhouse is trying to sell a watered-down piece of health and safety legislation as the real thing. (Dammit, should have done a homeopathy headline, the #Twitterati love mocking homeopathy!)
Take it away, Patrick Gower:
Three words that no Cabinet minister can ever want attached to high-profile legislation: “joke”, “madness” and “botch”.
I know some lefties who are concerned about the focus on the sillier aspects – the fact that worm farms are being classed as high risk isn’t actually the problem, the fact that dairy farms aren’t being classed as high risk is, despite being the sites of a huge proportion of workplace accidents.
Besides, worms can be violent, man.
But the silliness is an important part of the story. This government has passed many a law which was poorly-thought-through, ineffective, inconsistent, or based on bad political policy. They weren’t PR disasters because they’re too complex, too difficult to explain in the one-sentence intro to an article. Experts shouting technical jargon at each other doesn’t make good TV.
Worm farms are high risk? Now that people can wrap their heads around while they’re eating their dinner (assuming you don’t suffer from a strong visual imagination, in which case thinking about worms while you’re eating spag bol might not be a great idea.)
That tells you, far more effectively than any clinical explanation could, that this process has been botched. That this government just doesn’t have a strategy – and thus that their health and safety legislation is not based on making sure all workers get home safe at the end of their shift.
It’s also a great example of how universalism makes for a much easier policy sell. As Labour found with their Best Start policy in 2014, as anyone who’s ever dabbled with tax law can tell you, as soon as you start making exceptions for this industry or that product or the other
A simple, powerful law – all workplaces must have health and safety reps, if the workers there request one – was an easy sell. The Pike River families supported it. Unions supported it. Labour would probably have been forced to vote for it. A victory for National’s dedicated campaign of portraying itself as centrist and reasonable.
Instead, they’re making fumble after fumble trying to spin a coherent story from contradictory parts, and it’s doing far more damage than pretty much anything the Opposition could have done to them.
For the purposes of illustration, Michael Woodhouse = Mark Sanchez, and the National Party caucus = Brandon Moore’s butt. Let us hope – and this is the only time I’ll ever say this – the Opposition can be the New England Patriots.