Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For a curveball, what happens when a candidate withdraws, as in the Wellington DHB election?
Their 'keep value' is set to zero. So all the votes assigned to them pass down 100% to the next person in line. Effectively you just skip over them in any voting forms that have them as a number.
-
I don't see how the Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister seeking Crown Law advice on a matter directly relating to his portfolio is "taking sides".
I didn't like that. The government doesn't tend to jump in and offer legal opinions on other disputes between unions and private parties. No doubt he did so because it was a public issue that many ordinary NZers felt invested in so it seemed like good politics.
But in negotiations between private employers and employees (contractors) the most useful role the government can play is neutral mediator. That becomes a lot more difficult when they've already made statements which come down on one side.
-
Really? Because I have heard so many different ideas about this, like whether it is better or worse to number someone or not to number them. I trust you to know the law, so is that the definitive answer? If you hate someone, make sure to number all your candidates and number them last?
Graeme is correct.
Once your votes have run out, the quota (number of votes that is required for someone to be elected) drops by 1/(number vacancies +1) for each vote that doesn't have any more numbers. While you won't ever vote for them, your lack of numbering will lead to the quota dropping so it makes it easier for them to 'get over'.
So the best way to 100% ensure that your vote cannot be used for a person it to number everyone else, and number them last.
-
Kyle, one of the big issues here with actors is that you can't necessarily hire them on a fixed term on a film like this.
Yes, but you could employ them on a casual contract.
I just think the claim "We can't talk to the union because they're not employees" is a little out of context when that's the decision that the production company has made. They could have offered, or even insisted on employment contracts.
-
And (I say this as a fanboy), if the production company insists on sticking to the line that they can't talk to the union because they're all contractors, then losing the movie here could be an option.
Seriously, it's not that hard to employ a bunch of people on fixed term and casual contracts. Do we really want the largest player in a significant NZ industry avoiding unions entirely by making all his employees contractors?
-
But sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I can't hear you", won't make certain brutal, intractable realities go away.
Yeah. But I don't think the actors at least have done that. The MEAA might have, but they seem like the mad players in his story.
It just seems like the fringe parts of this story: "the world is going to blacklist this movie", vs "NZ will lose $3 billion a year industry" (see "industry heads here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4181258/Union-criticises-Nats-over-battling-for-Jackson) should get less play (including whatever Chris Finlayson thought he was doing sticking his nose in) and the representatives of the actors and the representatives of the movie getting together to have a conversation about conditions and pay should be moved up the scale.
-
What Labour is trying to do is price signal. If you can reduce the price of healthy food relative to unhealthy food, people should eat more of it.
If you give them a general tax rebate, they'll use it on whatever, in which case people will be asking why the rebate is the value of a year's worth of fruit and veges.
-
Except it would just be a general tax refund, which wouldn't lead to people purchasing more healthy food.
-
This does seem like a somewhat standard industrial dispute blown up all over the media because it's got an Australian Union involved, and it's Peter Jackson and the Hobbit. Seems like the parties should get together and have a wee chat and get it sorted.
I hate the "but it might go to Eastern Europe if they don't sign up" crap that is going around. Yes it might. But it's the actor's incomes and careers as much as anyone else's. If we were to put them all on minimum wage they'd be plenty more work for them here in NZ, but they have the right to push for certain conditions and wages.
"But it will go overseas!" is such an old response to industrial action. No shit sherlock, move on.
-
I've been noticing similar conversions amongst former ACToid acquaintances, and this predates the recent scandals. Laissez-faire has never been popular during depressions.
Sadly long term memory is however.