new zealand

[Bill Cochrane]

G'dday John
I like good faith bargaining and don't have a problem with it per se however
I think that the particular implementation under the ERB is flawed because;
- the government has signalled that the interpretation of good faith would
not be imported from other jurisdictions. I don't know what this means in
practice but the employers view it as a victory and probably aim to narrow
its interpretation or neuter it in someway.
- What happens if when a group of workers split and join several different
unions and won't agree to negotiate together for a common collective? The
employer has to negotiate in good faith with different unions for different
collectives - which collective takes priority? can people leave one and join
the other? We've spent time mulling this over from various perspectives and
have come to the conclusion that a simple transparent process like an
election to pick which union would represent a group of workers on a job is
the best bet... the point being that I think that a lot of the practical
operational features of this bill when it becomes law may bite us big time
if they aren't tidied up pronto.
Still I think it is an advance over the previous traditions in NZ IR.
Negotiating under the ECA was a fucking nightmare and reckon outfits like
the service workers get maximum points just for surviving and I hope they
prosper under the ERB - but lets face it the ERB will last as long as the
labour govt and unless something radical happens its dead meet come the next
national government.
As to the Greens, what happens to them if NZ first becomes credible again,
Labour has an ally to the left (alliance) and an ally to the right (NZ
First) - for my money this is more attractive electorally than
alliance/green/labour.
Anyway if you ever in the sunny Waikato look us up  and we'll continue this
over a couple of beers.
cheers
bill Cochrane
> From: John.Pennington at parliament.govt.nz
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:41:37 +1200
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: new zealand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill
> As regards your criticisms, or qualifications of what I wrote regarding the
> Greens, I'm not sure  I ever stated that they are natural allies of labour,  I
> tend to agree that class is not a very significant issue, if an issue at all
> with many Greens, (even if on occasion they pay lip service to it). The point
> I
> was trying to make vis a vis the Greens was given the set of power relations
> in
> this country, at least in terms of parliamentary power the Greens are a
> necessary element in the mix, at least for the forseeable future. The Alliance
> (with the exception of Phillida Bunkle) must accept that it has not engaged
> seriously enough with these issues and has allowed the Greens to stake out
> this
> territory almost unopposed. I believe any credible leftwing party or
> organisation must treat the natural and social worlds as equal priorities.
> 
> I don't doubt the Greens could find their way to supping with a more pragmatic
> national party, especially if they are able to grow the small/medium business
> vote, a not entirely remote possibility. As far as the Greens working to
> replace
> the Alliance as Labour's 'natural' partner this should not come as a surprise,
> after all that was their intention when they left the Alliance.
> 
> Of course your right to say that the ERB does not represent a signigficant
> shift
> in Labour IR policy. What I meant to suggest is however tepid the the ERB is,
> it
> does represents a definite change in direction from the previous ECA regime.
> I'm
> puzzled when you say the good faith bargaining provision sucks perhaps you
> could
> elaborate.
> 
> What does suck is the weather down here at the moment.
> 
> Chees
> 
> John
> 
> 
>