Billy, I can’t follow your reasoning. Presumably you mean that the implication of Nome’s arguments is that all those areas currently covered by statutory and implied terms and conditions should be negotiated and treated as express terms. I don’t take that from what Nome says.

I am gagging to find out Jon.

But Clint, even if Jon could get past your never intermitting belief in the omnipotence of the free market, wouldn’t it be too late to save you?

Unless Tan has something solid it’s not going anywhere. Until then you’re all just barking prematurely … and to no end …

“You also forget the Clare Curran was the PR force behind the EPMU’s fair share campaign and still has very good links with the movement. Anyone who knew anything about how Labour and the unions work would know that Curran would have had the EPMU’s backing if her candidacy was serious.” (Tane – kiwiblog 30th october 2007)

” … see EPMU President Don Pryde has thrown his hat in the ring for the Dunedin South seat and has the full backing of his union. ” (Irish Bill The Standard Oct. 30th 2007)

“Asked about whether he had discussed supporting Mr Pryde with party president Mike Williams, Mr Little said he had met to talk about the party rejuvenation in general and spoke on the need for new candidates.” (Herald Oct 31st, 2007)

All endorsed in the Standard, Herald and kiwiblog, by ‘friends’ of the EPMU.

On the other hand it is that case that Andrew Little has indicated that when he goes for Labour Party President/PM job(?) he would ’step down’ from the EPMU. http://www.salient.org.nz/features/big-dreams-andrew-little

Now, here come some of those mixed feelings. Firstly Shawn Tan sounds like a flake. A likeable flake, but a flake all the same. I would have to say that he is up there with Curren proving enough experience to do the job of MP. But, in both cases I stand to be corrected.
Secondly, I recently posted on the EPMU ‘Ticklist’. As I then wrote:
“These calls to protect workers’ rights are laudable, I personally would endorse and support the following: “Wages Policy”, “A meaningful right to be in a union”, “Right to be treated fairly and with dignity”, “Right to a safe and healthy workplace”, “Decent minimum entitlements”, “Committment to ongoing training and learning”. ”

The ‘Right to be Treated Fairly and with Dignity’? It may be the case that Tan, on the merits of his own tenure and in the way that he has dealt with this, is basically exploiting the EPMU at the behest of his new best mates, The ACT Party. Or he might just be a bit dim. But the EPMU here is compromised, and has acted in a way that embarrasses them.

On one hand, The EPMU is dedicated to protecting the ‘Right to be Treated Fairly and with Dignity’, but on the other, is acting like a dictatorial and high-handed employer, bullying a lowly employee. The EPMU may suggest they have a worker’s contract, but this contract should not be employed as an excuse to waive Tan’s Rights under BoRA should it?

After all the cant about how John Key will ‘threaten workers’ rights’, and the recent EPMU rallies, is it not now a little strange to witness the EPMU acting like the kinds of capitalist bullies they were set up to oppose? Or has their proximity to the Government sent them into Lord Acton’s famous downward spiral?

Final mixed feeling. As much as I would probably wish to ’suspend’ Tan myself, were I in the EPMU’s shoes, that does not mean that I should be able to. The EPMU appear to be a ‘Law unto themselves’. They ‘warmly endorse’ candidates who stand for Labour, but drum the poor sap who stands for ACT out of his job?

Suspending Tan was a stupid reaction, borne of the above-mentioned arrogance that comes with thinking they are the supreme moral arbiters of what constitutes ‘worker’s rights’. Is Tan being treated ‘fairly and with dignity’ by the EPMU?

You decide.
thanks

Hi Lee, Reasoned comment is always welcome here. You forgot to link to your own blog, should anybody feel like adding a comment on the original post: http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/ Might just do that myself.

Little’s reported comments, if he did say so in the context I think he did, have a great bearing in this.

I don’t think that what you say is that far from my own analysis.

The EPMU have to argue breach of contract of some sort on Tan’s part — otherwise they’re the ones who have breached the contract, possibly breaking the law as well.

I have said elsewhere that Little’s reported comments to Newstalk ZB give me pause for thought. This is because they do, on the face of it, provide support for Tan’s allegations of discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. But they sounded hypothetical, and there has to be a strong possibility that they have been taken out of context, that Little garbled his thoughts, or there was a leading hypothetical question, or some combination or permutation of these possibilities. Apart from anything else, Little is a lawyer by training and must know better.

Sure, if I were Tan’s lawyer I’d be making great play of Little’s comments in court. But we should wait to see what the counter-arguments are before *we* start determining the outcome, should it get to court. It’s the Authority member’s or judge’s decison to make, after hearing all the evidence and arguments.

I have held off making any comment about how the affair has been handled. This is partly because I have a great deal of respect for the EPMU, which is easily one of the most strategically minded and professional unions in NZ, and which plays a very positive role in many areas such as industry training and health & safety. But it is hard to avoid the impression that it has not handled this affair very well.

If the breach of contract is argued, Tan will claim that it was clear from Little’s comments that, if he did seek permission, his political views would ‘unlawfully’ be taken into account, depriving the process of ‘reasonableness’. Only way out now is for EPMU to let him campaign and work on.

If breach of contract is argued – Tan wins based on Little’s comments. If permission to stand is refused – Tan still wins on Little’s comments.

Tan has just pulled a classic Steve Crow. Win-Win and a shitload of free publicity to boot. ACC and EPMU should get together to start a support group for victims of free-publicity-whores.

Shawn was never a socialist, just an incompetent little opportunist. Spent more time complaining instead of providing proper support or advocacy to members.

Jim Bolger rocks.