victory in the employment court
Spotless lockout unlawful, rules judge
Posted at 5:46pm on 23 Jul 2007
An Employment Court judge has ruled that a lock-out involving 800 hospital workers is unlawful.
The Service and Food Workers Union took the matter to court 11 days after the cleaners, caterers and orderlies were shut out by Spotless Services.
The union argued that the company’s demand to have a minimum number of staff on duty during strikes, which was the basis of the lockout, is illegal. It said the demand was an attempt to compel workers to give up the right to strike.
The union told the court on Monday that Spotless must pay wages that workers have missed out on during the lockout.
Spotless said it had to lock out the workers because their strike was unsafe for patients.
The union was unsuccessful in an attempt to get a temporary injunction to stop the lockout when it first started.
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
The unions behaviour during this strike has been disgusting, protesting at private homes of board members does nothing to help their cause.
They have no grounds for a pay increase yet seem to think they deserve one as of right, if these “workers” are so badly treated why do simply not go and get another job?
I hope the cleaning company stick to their guns.
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
BB
“They have no grounds for a pay increase yet seem to think they deserve one as of right….”
Dare you to think the same the next time you’re sick in hospital and the cleaners are cleaning up your crap, blood, and/or vomit.
The government has provided $16 million in extra funding to our DHBs for extra pay to the workers and all the other contractors have passed it on apart from Spotless who would rather reward their overseas shareholders instead.
“…if these “workersâ€? are so badly treated why do simply not go and get another job?”
So employers should be able to mistreat their workers as long as the workers have somewhere else to go that perhaps might just treat them better?
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“Spotless says it is committed to passing on district health board cash to its employees. But it wants the right to decide how the cash is allocated. It believes there may be a case for some differentiation of wages between different occupational groups such as cleaners and orderlies.”
Didn’t have all the facts. Took enough searching to find them though.
So Spotless gives itself the right decide how other peoples money is allocated to its workers? Riiight.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The NZ Green Party is dominated by people who are too far to the left.
If the Green Party really cared about the environment they would de-couple environment issues from left wing issues.
As Peter Dunne said (last election): “Watermelon” Party. Give the public a choice> Green (as in mainstream environmentalist) or Socialist.
“Green� capitalism: German Greens adopt new economic programme
“If the state effects social justice all too bureaucratically, then we end up with an expensive and incapacitating welfare state,� the Greens write. “Green politics require an encouraging and enabling state, which does not curb social life but opens it up.�
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/gree-j13.shtml
[In Germany, the Green Party is highly successful — it’s the junior coalition partner in the national government and has 55 seats in the national parliament …]
jh
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Greens need to swing to the centre, interim leader says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070719.BCGREEN19/TP Story/National
July 24th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Ah Sleepy. The cash goes to Spotless from the DHB. Its called a contract. Then Spotless allocate it to the people THEY have employed. Thats called an Employer/employee relationship. I hope this helps.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:39 am
JH argues that the Green party should decouple environment issues from left wing issues.
My view on this is that it is a bit simplistic to expect a part to only campaign on environmental issues. By decoupling environmental issues from other economic and social issues may or may not gain extra votes. The problem is, the impact of humans on the environment is very closely tied up with all the other economic and social issues.
Take the example of overpopulation. If we decouple this and treat it simply as an environmental issue, then how do we deal with it? Perhaps we campaign for free access to contraception? But will this work in isolation from everything else? It is a well known fact that the countries with the lowest birth rates are also the most economically developed countries, and additionally, the countries with a smaller gap between rich and poor often have lower birth rates than those with a bigger wealth gap (for example, many European countries have lower birth rates than the United States). So to deal with the issue of overpopulation without also dealing with issues of economic development, and how wealth is distributed in society may be ineffective.
I could continue on with many other examples, but I think you can see my point: you can’t treat environmental issues independently of other issues. Therefore it makes good sense for the Green party to campaign on economic and social issues as well as the environment.
This does not mean the Green party has to have a “left wing” leaning. It just happens that many environmentalists (but by no means all) think that “left wing” economic and social policies are more conducive to building a society which is environmentally sustainable. I won’t argue this point one way or another. However, personally, I would not vote for a centrist or right wing green party.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“They have no grounds for a pay increase yet seem to think they deserve one as of right”
No grounds for a pay increase? How about the fact that their pay is lousy and the cost of living is increasing? I quite like the idea of hospitals being kept clean, and I’m quite happy to pay somebody a decent wage to do the job. If Spotless don’t like that, why don’t they find another area of business?
By the way, this short video of cleaners pickets singing and dancing to an old Mau movement song is really great - if only more demos were like this!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7oT7H3qcuLs
July 24th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Have you got a youtube of the person eyeballing the police at the last at the last issue (Progressive Enterprises)…saw it on TV news.
Of course social issues and environmental issues are connected (eg to what degree is the DPB an incentive to have a child…and where does the buck stop when people of limited means have large families..etc. but this issue is about socialists controlling unions..and having seen lessons from the past (of excesses from the left and the right) how far do we want to go???
Hell will freeze over before certain Green MP’s are acceptable to the public…..(like when the bloke with the bible in Cathedral Square is dean of Chch Cathedral)
jh
July 24th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Roman.
The money isn’t from the DHBs. Its extra money from Central Government. Nothing to with the contract between DHB and Spotless or employee/employer relationships. Hope this helps.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:28 am
However the far left [and far right] has [have] had a lot of success at elucidating issues in black and white terms and stirring up the masses* [citation needed] (in fact they are sitting there like vultures waiting for the Big One predicted in Collapse.
jh
July 24th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Thats why its such a stupid idea to contract our healthcare to the private sector. Profit margins come at the expense of the workers having put up with extremely poor pay and now the Government has to pay out an extra $16 million just to ensure that the contractors pay their staff properly on top of what they already pay Spotless.
Private sector efficiency ha ha. Efficient at ripping off its workers AND the government. Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson were idiots. Its beyond a doubt now.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Wake up Sleepy and please expain why for all the billions extra put into heath we have not seen any extra operations.
So much for the efficiency of the public sector….
There is no point exploiting anyone as they just leave. You seem to be living in the 70’s. But I guess attitudes like yours show why the greens only poll 5%. Its a shame.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
My understanding was that the Union set out a precondition for negotiation, -acceptance of the DHB contract terms- before it would sit down with Spotless and Spotless wanted to talk first. Heard that on the Radio and have no way to verify it. If so, the union wasn’t asking for “more” money and Spotless wasn’t being unreasonable because they hadn’t yet seen the agreement the DHB signed up for… but the outright hostility between the two makes for some ugly negotiating styles and uglier outcomes.
So maybe this isn’t exactly the way it’s been characterized by either side? Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Roman - please explain “all the billions extra” and “no extra operations” in terms of a specific time frame… There are lots of reasons why you can spend money on health care and not have extra operations. It’s a very VERY specific outcome you’re looking at, and it is only a small measure of the overall health of the nation. How much is the expansion and modernization of Wellington Hospital costing? I don’t know the number but from the work on that site I kinda think it’s not a SMALL number :-)… and that’s the other part of it. If you invest in infrastructure the payback is not the same year as the investment.
Neither of these speak to the relative efficiency of public and private sectors in delivering health care. Personally I like the public sector model, as it works and works pretty well in every civilized nation on earth.
If there is a private sector model to compare it with that works better, I have yet to hear of it. Not saying its perfect or even really really efficient, but that the other models all seem to be worse.
respectfully
BJ
July 24th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Roman,
Nice pun mate. Very funny.
“….please expain why for all the billions extra put into heath we have not seen any extra operations.”
As bjchip explained the example of surgical operations is a very arbitrary and limited criteria on deciding if the extra money is well spent.
A good example of the waste in the health sector is the amount of administration and management staff working in the public sector. And whos responsible for the unnecessary duplication in healthcare administration? Oh. Your mate Ruth Richardson’s misguided and deluded belief that splitting up health administration into unnecessary seperate, duplicated administrations with private sector managers would somehow produce “competition” and “efficiency”. Ha ha. PPPs are asking for corruption and exploitation. One sector has every incentive to give away money and the other sector has every incentive to take that money and the other sector has an obligation ensure that its shareholders gets the majority of the money.
A good example of waste and inefficiency in the private sector healthcare is the United States who pay twice per capita what we pay for worse health outcomes. In the banning junk from schools I explain my belief that public sector healthcare needs to be reformed, but for the above reasons I think PPP is not the way to go.
What happend to that threat. Couldn’t find it when I searched.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Found it.
As aside I no longer believe that it should be up to the State to provide healthcare for its citizen’s, because a peverse result is that people have no incentive to look after they’re own health as they’ll be looked after at more health-conscious people’s expense who have to pay the same or more in tax. That doesn’t mean that I support the profit-motivated private health companies providing our healthcare, but I think it should be totally delinked from government funding and that people who make wise health choices should be rewarded, not punished.
Our health service (including ACC) should be set up as independant non-corporate trusts that would be paid for by individual’s compulsary signup to an insurance scheme, administrated by a central body (government?) to reduce unnecessary duplicated administraters and managers. The staff would be incentivised through performance bonuses for producing positive results in healthcare outcomes rather than for making the most profits or having the least costs.
The trusts should be regularly audited by an independant body (government?) and the results made public so that people can make their decisions based upon who to join on the ability of the organization rather than the costs of care.
This would motivate the organization and its staff to improve their performance as they would be able to share more of the “profits� that would result from the improved health outcomes rather than in the traditional private health system where whoever owns the company reaps the majority of the profits. The number of providers should be limited to prevent the bloated private beauracracy that exists in the United States, which caused the health costs to accelerate rather than decrease.
Some time of course would be required to phase in the reform, which would allow time for people to be made aware that their poor decisions would have an impact on the provision of healthcare and would all them to adjust their lifestyles. Healthcare provider’s should not of course be able to target people with congenital conditions in order to skew their “health outcomes”.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I meant.
“One sector has every incentive to give away money and the other sector has every incentive to take that money and has an obligation to ensure that its shareholders gets the majority of the money.”
July 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
fwwog i know that these issues are close you your hearts
but the unuion were also locking out management,
issues like this won’t get you into Government,
you do want to be in the next government don’t you fwwog,
or are you ready to repeat Rod Donalds mistake,
pivotal decisions fwwog,
July 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
now listen up fwwogs,
there is no way in hell that helengrand will survive another term,
our economy is collapsing fwwog,
john key say 80 cents
BJ says we undervalued at one of USA dollars
I personally think BJ an optimists,
and the people will turn to John Key to fix it, fwwog
be there fwwog be there,
yous get in now, I told you before,
to be a pivot, John Key will have to deal with you
get Ministers of State for Environment and Conservation,
July 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Christchurch Politics
Green ought to pull yourselves together,
front up to next Mayor of Christchurch
Bob Parker,
now Green,
I hear Bob Parker is very green and used to talk about a rabbit proof fence around Akaroa to keeps yous Green away from the commercial sites,
I f yous get your heads around it, we sack regional Council and you Green environmental people get all that money for proper environmental things and I mn girls,
July 25th, 2007 at 9:23 am
The argument about who manages hospitals best reminds me of the Railways. Richard Prebble made a good case that they were inefficient and wasteful, but , on the otherhand, privatisation hasn’t worked in the UK…. so it would seem that good management is the answer if you can get it.
jh
July 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
pq said: … get Ministers of State for Environment and Conservation
Not sure these should be the highest piorities forthe Greens - think we could do far more to further Green policy with Ministers of Transport, Energy & Housing.