How's that loose change feeling?
Unions slate 'miserly' minimum wage rise
Unions have described the Government's 25c--an hour lift to the minimum wage as "miserly" and making a mockery of the Government's vow to "catch up with Australia".
25cents as a rise to the minimum wage when National are planning tax cuts for the top 7% that will see those earning over a million given a $63 000 tax cut? Add 15% GST on everyone to help fund this tax cut for the top 7% and this minimum wage 'increase' backpeddles even further.
How's that loose 'change' feeling that every sucker got conned into voting for in 2008? Those on the breadline just slipped beneath it thanks to this Government. Water saving shower heads, power saving lightbulbs and nonsense hysteria whipped up by conservative Christians over the repeal of section 59 all start to pale into insignificance when you increasingly can't make ends meet.
posted by Bomber @ 6:41 am
14 comments
14 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
How's that loose 'change' feeling that every sucker got conned into voting for in 2008?
Sucker?
Conned?
Being that I am in the top tax bracket, I am extremely happy at what National are doing.
This is the politics of envy blog.
Silly brave rich anonymous poster, this is the blog of murderous left wing envy
http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2009/11/murderous-left-wing-envy.html
A 25 cent increase is a pathetic insult. I fully agree with the unions. It isn't much of a surprise though, is it? National policy basically caters to the rich at the expense of the poor.
As for the anon, envy? lol no amount of money is worth one's empathy for other people.
how the fuck can you expect the min wage to go to $15!! hard working, trained, student debt ridden workers may be on $22-26 ph if lucky. People stacking shelves do not deserve $15.
Oh the unions have slated it have they?
Well what a HUUUUGE surprise that is. Tell us: what exactly where the unions doing from 2000 till 2008?
That's right, not a fucking thing because "the unions" i.e. the Labour party were in power, having all their long serving members put into cushy jobs by Helen and co.
Now all of a sudden the sky is falling? Give me a break, they had 9 years to raise the minimum wage all they wanted a didn't do it so they can kindly shut the fuck up and wait til they're back in power because all the whining in the world won't make a difference.
1)
Why don't they deserve $15 p/h? I'm one of those hard working, trained, student debt ridden workers. Sure it'd be nice if I were paid more, but why should the lowest income workers have to suffer? Especially when the pay gap is as wide as it is.
2)
The unions were lobbying for pay increases and other employee rights. And in some cases got them. University unions are one example I know of. The unions aren't a political party btw, but a union of workers in a sector. Not sure where you got your info from? Also, yes Labour had 9 years to raise the minimum wage - and they did. It rises proportionately - its a process. Again, where do you get your info from?
I'm honestly confused, unless you're being satirical?
Well what a HUUUUGE surprise that is. Tell us: what exactly where the unions doing from 2000 till 2008?
$7 (1999) to $12 (2008). Lowered the age for mininum wage from 20 to 18. For 16 to 17 year olds, new entrence wages of 80% can only be paid for the first 3 months then the adult minumum wage applies etc
http://www.acepay.co.nz/minwage.htm
Just putting it out there.
I see Phill - labour took 9 years to increase the minimum wage by $5 - that's 55c per year.
Yet now Labour and their union sock puppets get preposterously ambitious and decide that the minimum wage should be increased by $3 after barely a year in opposition?
For that ridiculous demand to be even remotely credible Labour and their union stooges would have to have increased it by a damn site more then $5 spread over 9 years.
But don't let me stop you from telling us all how sweet life was under Labour/union rule Phil, it really is good for a laugh.
You asked a question, I answered.
Its funny how the answer of a question must immediately imply Im a labour supporter with a delusional view of a Labour induced utopia... Hilarious
Read Edwards's post then find out what a union actually is and does.
While I'm here 55c wouldn't be a bad start.
I didn't think edward's post warranted a response but here goes:
- he seems to be of the opinion that the unions and the labour party are to completely separate entities which they very clearly aren't. Do you really want me to list all the labour MPs that are ex (or current) union officials or go into the amount of money that the unions hand over to the labour party?
He seems to think that everyone "deserves" at least $15 dollars per hour regardless of what they do, despite the fact that this would mean an unprecedented raising of the MW. This is clearly an ideological belief rather than anything else and I don't see any point in arguing with that - do believe this too Phill?
After telling us that the MW should magically be bumped up by this historically large percentage he then back flips to say that the MW "rises proportionately - its a process" which indicates that he didn't bother to read the article. If he had he would have seen that it stated the lifting of the MW was being done in line with inflation, as it was last year. What the hell would raising the MW be proportional too, apart from edward's socialist fantasies?
You say that 55c would be a good start, what do you think the MW should realistically be and how do you think businesses will fund this extra expense Phill, bear in mind that raising it too much will prevent many businesses from actually employing people. Because you are aware that raising the MW by too much will result in job losses aren't you Phill?
Hi Steve,
Yes, I am of that opinion. And it's an opinion based on fact and knowledge of a few unions. Where are you getting your opinions from? If you mean that they share certain philosophies, then yes, but why should that be surprising? Why to should it be surprising that some Labour MPs have union backgrounds? Are you not aware as to why the Labour Party is called the Labour Party? Are you not aware of its history or its overseas counterparts? The party is (supposedly) about the working and middle classes. This isn't 'socialist fantasy', i'm just stating a fact.
And yes, I do believe that people deserve $15 p/h. And yes, this is partly my ideological belief, but not only that. Minimum Wages are a minimum LIVING wage. And low income earners are struggling to live and look after their families. That too is a fact rather than 'socialist fantasy'. For you to dictate what my opinions are is merely you setting up a straw man to knock over. You don't get to define my opinions or infer anything past the simple fact based reply I initially gave you.
Finally, saying I back flip only demonstrates that you didn't understand the point I was making. But then, I shouldn't expect more from someone who has more ad hominems and logical fallacies in their posts than actual points should I?
That fact that you aggressively imply that Phill or I are delusional fools waiting for a Labour Utopia, merely for correcting or countering some of your incorrect statements (Labour didn't raise minimum wage; unions are a political party etc.) and denouncing our political associations which you are the one who invented in the first place, merely denotes that you're the one with political or ideological motivations who is, as i've shown, incapable of civil and reasoned discourse and critical thinking skills in debate. I suggest you take your pathetic straw men arguments elsewhere if you don't want to be constructive.
Edward 1 Steeeeeeeve! 0
It's been a fun fight, but Steeeeeeve! really mate you've been out argued. Ed lands some solid knock out blows there.
(btw - I think the National Party research team really need to lift their spin game)
If you can't pay people more than $20 an hour
- then maybe you shouldn't be in business ?
Post a Comment
<< Home