A Casual Approach To Employment "Reform"

Q: What do actors, stevedores and longshoremen at the Ports of Auckland, and a whole host of other Kiwi workers have in common?

A: We're being subjected to something called "Casualisation".

What does this mean in practice? Well, it means we're not "employed" as such. We're no longer employees.
We're now contractors and we contract our services out to our former "employers".
"Big deal!" some on the Right are saying. "You're still working and still getting an hourly rate for doing so!"

Well, think about it like this. Using the film industry as an example, Frank Macskasy has characterised what happened thus: "Just imagine, you are an employee on Friday, with four weeks annual leave; sick pay; the right to join a Union if you so wish; and job security. Then you arrive at work on Monday and, by Government decree, you are now classed as an independent contractor. No more annual leave; no more sick pay; no more job security. And because you’re an independent contractor, the law forbids you the choice of belonging to a Union." Admittedly he's referring to National's passage of the "Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act" under Urgency back in 2010 in specia, and emphasizing the deleterious effects upon these particular workers of suddenly having a good chunk of  their workers' rights taken away at the stroke of a pen ... but the argument applies to all affected industries.

If you abruptly find yourself self-employed (despite doing exactly the same work as you were previously), you're suddenly saddled with a whole host of costs you didn't have beforehand. As I recently found out much to my shock and annoyance, being "self-employed" means I'm now responsible for paying my own ACC levies which had previously been met by my employers. I'm now ineligible for sick leave, annual leave, or even guaranteed hours in most of my sources of income (here I'm talking chiefly about the education rather than entertainment sector), and have had to suspend my membership of Kiwisaver in part because my employers are no longer obliged to make contributions alongside my own.

The counter-argument from the Right is that I should theoretically be able to parlay the lower costs of employing me (i.e. things my employers no longer have to do) into increased wages and increased employment.
I'm not quite sure why they assume I'm in a strong enough negotiating position (i.e. completely and utterly indispensable to my employers) to negotiate a bigger and better pay packet, given that 83% of Kiwi workers will see their wages fall this year; while our workforce participation rate and actual number of hours worked both take a nosedive. All this would appear to indicate I'm actually in a far weaker bargaining position, even before we take into account the fact that I have not actually had the ability to say to my employer "I'm prepared to sacrifice these benefits/entitlements for a small pay increase". The government has, I suppose, pre-empted this and done that for me; for little apparent gain in either real renumeration or employment opportunities.


Thanks John Key.

A Man Whose Economic Forecasting Makes Astrology Look Respectable

I see Bill English has just admitted he made up some of the figures on asset sales.

He's also said that the fiscal impact of the sales will be "roughly neutral" and will leave us with "less debt".

Well that sounds familiar. Where have we heard Bill English talking about "fiscally neutral" "debt-reducing" economic programs before.

Oh that's right, it was those "fiscally neutral tax cuts" that put a $1.1billion hole in the books.

Surely that's a one-off. Highly trained economics professionals and an experienced finance minister aren't in the business of putting out fallacious figures and then sheepishly revising them when they're caught out ... are they?

Unfortunately, yes they are.

Note what happened there. Before the election, our competent economic managers were talking about 3.4% growth for the next year. Post-election, it's 2.8%. That might not sound like much, but by my amateur calculations, that indicates Treasury was out by something like 17%. Hardly reassuring.

But don't despair! We may have screwed up and over-estimated how well the recovery'd be going by now by nearly a fifth ... but there is good news! We're actually going to grow by 3.8% the year after that! Not 3.3% like we previously claimed!

Again, these are figures out by an amount of less than twenty per cent, although this time in the government's favour. This might ordinarily sound plausible, but consider why Treasury revised its figures for growth till March '13 downward. It reckoned it had overestimated the economic benefits of the Christchurch rebuild and underestimated the severity of the ongoing Eurozone crisis.

This would be the already-much-vaunted Christchurch rebuild that's apparently going to account for 1.25% of GDP growth over the next five years, and the Eurozone crisis every man and his dog (although apparently not every minister and his lapdogs) has been witnessing deteriorate for months now.

But wait ... it gets worse. 

Pandering to National's base, pre-election English's ministry was claiming it'd be able to deliver a $1.45 billion surplus for 2014-15. Post-election it's claiming it will be able to deliver a $370 million surplus.

Wow. The Nats have somehow managed to lose more than a billion imaginary dollars out of their "Brighter Future." Presumably that's even after the well-above-valuation revenue they're expecting to reap from those well-mandated asset sales we keep hearing about.

Anyway, my point is simple. Governor Mario Cuomo pithily stated that "you campaign in poetry; you govern in prose". Or, put another way, from the perspective of a Minister of Finance wishing to maintain his ministerial salary, it's fiscally prudent to over-state how well he's doing before the election ... but the closer one's forecasts come to fruition, the more prudent it becomes to revise them downward toward reality.
Not that GDP growth forecasts from the boy who cried fiscal stimulus package actually have much worth anyway.

Of course, it's one thing to fudge one's economic forecasting; in that case Treasury's economic sooth-sayers can, as they have done, plead ignorance of changing circumstances in a "dynamic environment" as explanation (even though this looks these days more like a case of the Austrian economists burying their collective head in the sand).

It's quite another thing to simply make up numbers.

Or, being charitable to English, merely repeat made-up numbers from the year before in the hope nobody's noticed the continuing falsehood.

However, in fairness, these numbers tend to come from Treasury - a department which, as Harold Wilson observed "could not, with any marked success, run a fish and chip shop." We have thus come to expect a certain level of incompetence in the numbers department from the people we presumably pay to be reasonably accurate about the economy. With this in mind, the standard gNat line of defence when called on the frequently wild inaccuracy of a Treasury entrail reading is to pass the buck and point out that the Minister did not come up with the projection and that it's therefore someone else's fault.

Witness English's response above. When Guyon Espiner calls him on the credibility of the 170,000 jobs figure, English retreats and insists Treasury forecasting is "done independent of the government"; despite the fact he shares a "sense of confidence" in those forecasts.

With respect, the Minister should not be able to have it both ways. He can't put forward a made-up number as evidence the economic policy contained in his Budget is working (and, presumably, has been working for some years given the figure's repetition), then when called on the question as to whether it's predicting job growth for this or some other, more successful economy state that Treasury, not him, did the portent-reading. He especially can't do it when it turns out that his own government is patently unaware of any hard evidence for the number in question. Either he has confidence in his forecasting or he doesn't, and taking the above statements at face value, he patently does.

Thus, whichever way you look at it, this is a government whose economic forecasting makes astrology look respectable, which leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that a Maori economic axiom from the 1860s still holds true today. Namely, NEVER TRUST THE ENGLISH.

An Open Letter To WINZ

Follows is a letter written by one of our Christchurch-based supporters to Work & Income New Zealand.

"Kia Ora

Some of you will be aware that at the moment I am having a stoush with the Department of Work and Income, after they cut my unemployment benefit in late August. After the initial complaint to WINZ through their website, they assigned the manager of the Riccarton branch in Christchurch to deal with my case. Whilst they helped me get in contact with Studylink, and apologised initially for their mishandling of my case, events since then have shown to me that WINZ has fundamental problems needing policy change and Ministerial intervention.

As yet they still haven't reinstated my unemployment benefit - they say that they can't by law, but they expect me to struggle by on $80 a week for food. Further more their staff are seriously deficient in people skills, if not completely lacking. When I go into a department, I expect to be treated with respect and compassion, not to be looked upon as a problem and a burden. When I went in Wednesday the staff member who served me did not make any effort to do background checks, did not ask how I was or what I thought the problem was. More over when I showed him a bank statement indicating I am in serious overdraft because of WINZ's actions, he just ignored it.

WINZ put me into overdraft. WINZ can get me out of it.

I have no confidence that they can or will without Ministerial intervention. Subsequently there is an e-mail currently residing in Paula Bennett's inbox. There is another in the inbox of shadow Minister for Social Development Nanaia Mahuta.
A third one went to WINZ so that there can hopefully be a whole lot of faces drained of colour on Monday morning.

What do I think the problem in WINZ is? There are numerous problems. Some are fairly simple, yet quite fundamental in nature. Others are policy problems that may require legislative change.

1) I think WINZ needs a "fit for purpose" review - just like my old employer Environment Canterbury was subjected to. It is obvious that they have significant problems regarding their internal management; customer service; and expected outcomes.
2) Once a person tells WINZ that they are studying, they should be given a grace period to make contact with Studylink and get on a benefit or allowance. If they are on a benefit there should be a 4 week window or similar.
3) A benefit payment range, partially linked to the market - if basics are more expensive, then there should be a certain amount of leeway allowed by increasing the benefit, and lowering if the prices go do - not from week to week, but maybe from quarter to quarter (Jan-Mar;Apr-Jun...)"

- Rob G

First steps toward tackling endemic youth unemployment

What of the Real Culprits - Speech by Winston Peters

"This week the government took a major step towards cementing a two tier society in place in New Zealand.

The two tiers of our society are of course the rich and the poor or as more commonly phrased, the haves and the have-nots.

This government is made up of rich people.

It governs for rich people, its policies benefit rich people and it regards the rest of the people, who are struggling to live and feed their families, as a "problem."

The first of the poor on the government's hit list are 15-19 year old teenagers who are going to be forcibly trained to work in jobs that do not exist. New Zealand First has always been for education and training, the problem is that unemployment is rife among this group with nearly thirty percent without jobs.

Their dole is going to be stopped and paid to parents or by some other means to ensure they do not waste it on booze and cigarettes. Both these products are illegal for under eighteens to buy now.

So that means if you are 17 years old and not in training you have to ask your mother - or some other person - for several dollars if you want to splash out on something reckless like a Big Mac or, heaven forbid go to a movie.

Again, New Zealand First is all for training and education. For years we have led the field in policies to give young people an allowance while they are training. NZ First is all for teaching young people that liberty is not licence. That the twin of freedom is responsibility.

But we are nervous about a system that defeats itself before it is even started because it is unbelievably stupid to try to train people for jobs that are simply not there.

Do we really need to train Australia's work force?

We have already sent hundreds of thousands of skilled New Zealanders across the Tasman and this new scheme appears as though it has no other logical outcome.

It is all a big public relations hoax of course - something that has been designed by the government's public spin doctoring department to appease certain groups in election year. My challenge to Mr Key is this - when you said in May that you would create 170,000 jobs in four years - what did you base that promise on?

New Zealand First suggested a better form of youth training several weeks ago and we gave a real incentive for employers.

Our idea is to set up crash education courses to ensure teenagers can read and write and then establish as many trade training schemes as possible.

We even have a scheme to help employers. If they give one of these youngsters an apprenticeship, we will pay them the dole the young person receives as an initial subsidy.

Such a scheme would pay for itself as the youngster starts earning a weekly wage and starts paying taxes.

It's what you call a win-win situation.

But going back to the idea of handing out food vouchers and the like, it smacks of the sort of Victorian charity that our ancestors left the Old World to escape.

And don't think for one moment that the government will only target the young.

For many weeks there has been a barrage of propaganda aimed at senior citizens.

Teams of highly paid bleaters are bleating about the cost of superannuation.

They want the age of entitlement lifted and the amount reduced.

Who is going to suddenly employ thousands of 65 or 66 year olds?

Where are the jobs?

It's just another part of the softening up process on the way to poverty.

The government is edging towards the concept that being poor is somehow immoral.

Next minute they will be referring to the ungrateful poor.

John Key is already on record as saying people should be able to live on 300 dollars a week if they budget properly.

We are sure that people in this audience could put him straight on that one.

Only a truly rich person would tell a truly poor person to be thrifty.

It's like Oscar Wilde said..."telling the poor to be thrifty is like telling a starving man not to eat too much!"

What many people don't realize is that the pressing financial problems of our age are all man made. And we can tell you which men made them.

The leaders of irresponsible capitalism - the bankers, the financiers, the futures traders, the currency speculators and the teams of monetary middlemen created this crisis.

It was not caused by anyone in this room. Ordinary people are not guilty.

Yet the pillars of the world of finance have brought the system crashing to its knees because of their insatiable greed and their willingness to do anything to make a fast buck.

Their losses were so great in the Western world that entire governments face bankruptcy baling these people out.

Governments did not believe they could let these firms collapse. So they are pumping money into the system to prop them up.

If they stop, it's been estimated that unemployment in America alone will soar to thirty percent.

It would cause a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 20th century look like a mild recession.

But as already mentioned, the people who bear the brunt of this financial folly are not those who caused it.

Ordinary people lose their jobs, get behind in the mortgage, can't look after the kids - the human cost goes spiraling down.

And at the bottom of the heap all you get told by the smiley face at the top of the heap - is you better budget more carefully.

We want to remind ordinary people there is something you can do about your plight.

You can go and vote.

You can tick a box called New Zealand First and it might be just the best tick you've ever ticked in your life.

We will not stand by and watch ordinary people being trampled on.

We identify with the battlers and the strugglers because that's how we started out in this world.

Help is on the way at the end of November.

Let me give you this assurance. If we win - you win.

I'll repeat it - we win - you win. It's what they call a win/win situation.

And remember, it can only happen if you party vote New Zealand First in November."