Comments on: Greens applaud a petrol company! http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/ hopping along the corridors of power Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:18:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: CutFoldGlue http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11990 CutFoldGlue Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:57:30 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11990 Behind the times here, but just want to point out that the other brands owned by Restaurant Brands (that is, Pizza Hut and Starbucks) do not pay youth rates either. Nor does the Restaurant Brands contact center where Unite and Supersizemypay had all those strikes. Anyone been to Pak'n'S(L)ave in Glenn Innes lately? Go there about 4.30pm and you'll see: they've hired a whole lot of kids who look about 10.. seriously. Behind the times here, but just want to point out that the other brands owned by Restaurant Brands (that is, Pizza Hut and Starbucks) do not pay youth rates either. Nor does the Restaurant Brands contact center where Unite and Supersizemypay had all those strikes.

Anyone been to Pak’n'S(L)ave in Glenn Innes lately? Go there about 4.30pm and you’ll see: they’ve hired a whole lot of kids who look about 10.. seriously.

]]> By: peterquixote http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11815 peterquixote Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:40:42 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11815 jeez fwog $10 not much, it not great fwog, jeez fwog $10 not much, it not great fwog,

]]> By: ChrisBishop http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11811 ChrisBishop Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:30:58 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11811 KFC is owned by Restaurant Brands. KFC is owned by Restaurant Brands.

]]> By: Duncan Bayne http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11807 Duncan Bayne Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:03:24 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11807 > I dispute the causality of minimum wages leading to higher unemployment. Okay then - on what grounds? I'm guessing this means that you also dispute my argument that rather than setting a minimum value of labour, minimum wage laws set the minimum value a person's labour may have in order that employing him becomes worthwhile? > I dispute the causality of minimum wages leading to higher unemployment.

Okay then - on what grounds?

I’m guessing this means that you also dispute my argument that rather than setting a minimum value of labour, minimum wage laws set the minimum value a person’s labour may have in order that employing him becomes worthwhile?

]]> By: insider http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11805 insider Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:19:42 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11805 Greenfrogred Yes but the question is, did Mobil and Caltex employees achieve elimination of youth rates years earlier without a union? If so, is that actually an indictment of the EPMU's advocacy, as BP workers might have got there earlier without their 'help'. It might be argued that the collective agreement may actually have disadvantaged union members by allowing BP to hide behind it and pay below the market value for at least three years (which is when Caltex dumped the rates). The other question is, why aren't the media asking such questions rather than just accepting propaganda at face value? Shouldn't the key question be - BP what took you so long? Greenfrogred

Yes but the question is, did Mobil and Caltex employees achieve elimination of youth rates years earlier without a union? If so, is that actually an indictment of the EPMU’s advocacy, as BP workers might have got there earlier without their ‘help’. It might be argued that the collective agreement may actually have disadvantaged union members by allowing BP to hide behind it and pay below the market value for at least three years (which is when Caltex dumped the rates).

The other question is, why aren’t the media asking such questions rather than just accepting propaganda at face value? Shouldn’t the key question be - BP what took you so long?

]]> By: stuey http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11803 stuey Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:08:00 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11803 I dispute the causality of minimum wages leading to higher unemployment. I dispute the causality of minimum wages leading to higher unemployment.

]]> By: greenfrogred http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11802 greenfrogred Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:56:47 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11802 Insider, no Union supports youth rates. Get real!!! Insider, no Union supports youth rates. Get real!!!

]]> By: greenfrogred http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11801 greenfrogred Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:39:00 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11801 Duncan Bayne, we may as well lve in different worlds. The ideal minimum wage for employers is <b>$0.00</b>. That, of course is slavery. Government regulation re the minimum wage is designed to set a balance between the interest of employers to remain profitablem and teh interests of employees to earn enough to maintain themselves and their families without taxpayer funded social assistance. Neither stakeholder should ever be dominant - the objective is to attain an appropriate balance that both parties can live with. The ultimate alternative is a class war, and if the workers win, the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Do we really want to go back to that, Duncan. Thought we might have all learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union - there are lessons for those of you on the right, not just those of us on the left. Duncan Bayne, we may as well lve in different worlds.

The ideal minimum wage for employers is $0.00. That, of course is slavery.

Government regulation re the minimum wage is designed to set a balance between the interest of employers to remain profitablem and teh interests of employees to earn enough to maintain themselves and their families without taxpayer funded social assistance.

Neither stakeholder should ever be dominant - the objective is to attain an appropriate balance that both parties can live with.

The ultimate alternative is a class war, and if the workers win, the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Do we really want to go back to that, Duncan. Thought we might have all learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union - there are lessons for those of you on the right, not just those of us on the left.

]]> By: insider http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11798 insider Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:02:14 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11798 It might be interesting to know whether Caltex and Mobil had negotiated their decision not to use youth rates with a union. If the answer is no, that could mean that young BP workers have missed out on higher wages due to being represented by a union....... It might be interesting to know whether Caltex and Mobil had negotiated their decision not to use youth rates with a union. If the answer is no, that could mean that young BP workers have missed out on higher wages due to being represented by a union…….

]]> By: Sam Buchanan http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11797 Sam Buchanan Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:55:10 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/03/13/greens-applaud-a-petrol-company/#comment-11797 Duncan makes a good case of exposing the immorality of the capitalist system. It's hard to argue a moral case for using the threat of force against those (in this case corporations) who, left to their own devices, would refuse to respect the human needs of those whose time they purchase (and the purchase of parts of their lifetimes is conducted under duress unless they have other options for feeding /clothing/housing themselves). You can argue that it's a practical necessity at the present time - but that doesn't make it moral. There could be a case for dropping all legislation regarding wages and conditions, while also dropping all legislation restricting the right to unionise, strike, etc. Allow workers to organise how they will, appoint representatives as they choose, to support each other in solidarity strikes when they choose to, and otherwise stop government interfering in their exercising of their collective strength. Probably a recipe for increased confrontation, but I think we'd quickly find out who needs who. Duncan makes a good case of exposing the immorality of the capitalist system. It’s hard to argue a moral case for using the threat of force against those (in this case corporations) who, left to their own devices, would refuse to respect the human needs of those whose time they purchase (and the purchase of parts of their lifetimes is conducted under duress unless they have other options for feeding /clothing/housing themselves). You can argue that it’s a practical necessity at the present time - but that doesn’t make it moral.

There could be a case for dropping all legislation regarding wages and conditions, while also dropping all legislation restricting the right to unionise, strike, etc. Allow workers to organise how they will, appoint representatives as they choose, to support each other in solidarity strikes when they choose to, and otherwise stop government interfering in their exercising of their collective strength.

Probably a recipe for increased confrontation, but I think we’d quickly find out who needs who.

]]>