Our Prime Minister

[chelseacol 2,488]

Don't let logic get in the way of your argument will you?

Hypocrisy is not the same thing as inconsistency. Goff's actions were not consistent with what he said at the time of worth and he has since said he accepted he shouldn't have said so and changed his view on that. So if you expect him to behave as he demanded Key did then you are asking that he behave hypocritically having stated he now believes that course of action was wrong.

Most MPs at some stage can be accused of being inconsistent including Goff and Key, even you and me, but that is not hypocrisy.

The generally accepted meaning of hypocrisy in most dictionaries is broadly defined as professing standards, beliefs, etc, that run contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, and in particular the pretence of virtue and piety. (It's also a swedish rock band but I don't think Goff's a member of that group). Alternatively you are accusing Goff of being a deliberate and blatant liar because you won't take what he says at face value or on trust. However you expect us all to do that for Key's utterances. Either you naively believe that Key is purer than the driven snow and Goff is the opposite, which displays an element of bias on your part as neither is true, or perhaps the critics of Goff's actions are themselves indulging in the very hypocrisy they accuse him of.

Consistency and hypocrisy are two very different words with totally different meanings. His actions are inconsistent with what he stated last time but he has pointed out why. That is not hypocritical unless you start to change the meaning of words.

Mmmm - so the definition of hypocrisy is "professing standards or beliefs which ...run contrary to one's actual behaviour"

Goff says he believes Key acted wrongly in covering up the Worth affair (a "belief"), and then Goff acts in a manner contrary to his stated belief.

Sounds like hypocrisy to me, even using your definition.

Remember at the time Goff kept the Hughes affair under wraps he had not publicly acknowledged that Key's handling of the Worth affair was in retrospect ok.

That admission only came about after he was forced to go public and then put to the sword by the media on his previous comments about Key.

Anyway to avoid arguments I can live with the fact he was just inconsistent if that makes you feel better.

Inconsistent or Hypocrite - either way he looks like a goose, as most involved (including his Party President and many MPs appear to agree on).

And BTW Phil - I specifically said in my last message that Key & Goff had both handled these matters the same way - so they are both equally at fault, or right, on that score. So no need to really raise bias eh?

[Philocon 1]

Mmmm - so the definition of hypocrisy is "professing standards or beliefs which ...run contrary to one's actual behaviour"

Goff says he believes Key acted wrongly in covering up the Worth affair (a "belief"), and then Goff acts in a manner contrary to his stated belief.

Sounds like hypocrisy to me, even using your definition.

Remember at the time Goff kept the Hughes affair under wraps he had not publicly acknowledged that Key's handling of the Worth affair was in retrospect ok.

That admission only came about after he was forced to go public and then put to the sword by the media on his previous comments about Key.

Anyway to avoid arguments I can live with the fact he was just inconsistent if that makes you feel better.

Inconsistent or Hypocrite - either way he looks like a goose, as most involved (including his Party President and many MPs appear to agree on).

And BTW Phil - I specifically said in my last message that Key & Goff had both handled these matters the same way - so they are both equally at fault, or right, on that score. So no need to really raise bias eh?

Firstly your initial statement only stands up if you ignore what he has said since then and Goff has said he was wrong on that count. Or you may believe he is lying. When he made the statement is immaterial the fact is he stated it and either you accept it or show he is lying.

Omitting to tell the party president was probably not wise but that issue is between him and Andrew Little and how they sort out their working relationship. It's not the first time a leader and president of any political party have had problems, issues or difficulties in their working relationship.

I think both Goff and key should have done what they both started out to do and let the police investigations run their courses and the facts of the matter come out if only to them personally. Then decide a course of action. Unfortunately the lynch mob mentality and political expediency eventually wins out over the right thing to do every time. So I disagree with you. Both Hughes and Worth had to go because of the latter two things and they were both denied the same courtesy of a proper completed investigation, the opportunity to clear their political name if that was possible.

Because political expediency has been a determinant in the past for such cases is not an argument for it continuing to be so.

MPs should have the same rights as the rest of us when it comes to justice but unfortunately in reality and situations like this they are not. We pillory leaders who try to ensure accused MPs get the same consideration as the rest of us.

[Properispomenon 1]

When he made the statement is immaterial the fact is he stated it and either you accept it or show he is lying.

That's nonsense, Phil.

You do not poll turkeys on Thanksgiving Eve 'Should Thanksgiving be banned?'

Similarly, you do not accept - at face value - statements from politicians contradicting their previously-held beliefs that all of a sudden need to be ditched to fit current circumstances.

Your Ministers of Sleeze, Hodgson and Mallard, would presently be having field days if John Key had tried any such ruse...

Look, we know you aren't going to change your position - and I don't expect anything I say to register with you, ha - but you are deluding yourself if you think this shemozzle, this cover-up, this 'flip-flopping' (nice Labour word, that) isn't hurting your party big time ... and in a year when the electorate has a reasonable right to expect that party to hold this Government to account.

[chelseacol 2,488]

I think both Goff and key should have done what they both started out to do and let the police investigations run their courses and the facts of the matter come out if only to them personally. Then decide a course of action. Unfortunately the lynch mob mentality and political expediency eventually wins out over the right thing to do every time. So I disagree with you. Both Hughes and Worth had to go because of the latter two things and they were both denied the same courtesy of a proper completed investigation, the opportunity to clear their political name if that was possible.

Because political expediency has been a determinant in the past for such cases is not an argument for it continuing to be so.

MPs should have the same rights as the rest of us when it comes to justice but unfortunately in reality and situations like this they are not. We pillory leaders who try to ensure accused MPs get the same consideration as the rest of us.

Not sure why you say you disagree with me on this particular point when I said in terms of the actual strategy both Key & Goff employed they were equally right or wrong (as they both took the same course of action). I understand the decision to stay out of it as you advocate, and I can see the attraction of that course of action. It is most likely doomed to failure politically, but that does not make it morally wrong.

The main point I continue to make is Goff chose this course after previously stating it was wrong, and that makes him look weak/indecisive/inconsistent/hypocritical - choose your own word.

(Plus the fact he had the benefit of knowing that Key was unable to successfully keep it under wraps a year earlier suggests to me Goff's decision making is suspect- but I digress)

[Philocon 1]

Not sure why you say you disagree with me on this particular point when I said in terms of the actual strategy both Key & Goff employed they were equally right or wrong (as they both took the same course of action). I understand the decision to stay out of it as you advocate, and I can see the attraction of that course of action. It is most likely doomed to failure politically, but that does not make it morally wrong.

The main point I continue to make is Goff chose this course after previously stating it was wrong, and that makes him look weak/indecisive/inconsistent/hypocritical - choose your own word.

(Plus the fact he had the benefit of knowing that Key was unable to successfully keep it under wraps a year earlier suggests to me Goff's decision making is suspect- but I digress)

If you are in agreement with me as you say then you are criticising Goff not for trying to do the right thing this time but for not being politically expedient especially after accepting he got it wrong previously. That is my whole point earlier.

One of the major criticisms of politicians is political expediency. Now we are seeing someone criticised for not being expedient. Rejecting expediency initially is not a sign of weakness. It's a no win situation no matter what course of action is taken. Also remember that the event happened in the recent aftermath of the last major Chch quake and he would probably have been criticised for timing then if he had announced anything anyway either for trying to divert attention, or sneak it through the back door while the quake aftermath was on everyone's mind etc. Whatever he did the critics were going to come up with some excuse to attack him.

[chelseacol 2,488]

If you are in agreement with me as you say then you are criticising Goff not for trying to do the right thing this time but for not being politically expedient especially after accepting he got it wrong previously. That is my whole point earlier.

One of the major criticisms of politicians is political expediency. Now we are seeing someone criticised for not being expedient. Rejecting expediency initially is not a sign of weakness. It's a no win situation no matter what course of action is taken. Also remember that the event happened in the recent aftermath of the last major Chch quake and he would probably have been criticised for timing then if he had announced anything anyway either for trying to divert attention, or sneak it through the back door while the quake aftermath was on everyone's mind etc. Whatever he did the critics were going to come up with some excuse to attack him.

No I am criticising him for going on the attack last year when clearly he didnt know what he was talking about. He just wanted to score points at that time.

Now when faced with the same thing he tries to keep it quiet as it is politically embarrassing - gets found out, and then has to admit he was wrong when criticising Key.

Note he only admitted he got it wrong AFTER he was found out - and at that stage he was between a rock and a hard place and was compelled to acknowledge his earlier mistake. If that isn't political expediency I don't know what is !

And please don't play the earthquake card as a justification for him keeping quiet. Firstly he made a great song and dance about being down here during the earthquake (newsflash Phil heaps of us were), and then he repeated the fact he was here at the beginning of his speech at the Memorial. He was at the very edge of trying to score brownie points with that and I know many here who took a very dim view of that.

So forgive me if I don't believe the earthquake was a factor in his approach !

No-one needs to come up with an excuse to attack him (as you put it)- he gave everyone the ammo himself.

[Centrofold 147]

John Key is probably more concerned about what the 'thinking public' are concerned about 1. The economic situation on the country. 2. Is the National Government (if re-elected) going to sell off more of the country to the highest overseas bidder. 3. The cost of living. 4. The opportunities for young people growing up. 5. For Aucklanders "How much are they going to sting us for using the roads when we have already paid $'s to pay for the roads" not to mention the cost of petrol, etc.

These are important matters. People I have spoken to seem not to have taken too much interest in the Darren Hughes debate or what action Phil Goff should have taken. Many believe that politicians are hypocrits no matter what party they belong to.

We all know that gay people exsist. There is no law against them. The Darren Hughes v's 18 year old student is probably at the bottom of the list of what really matters to most voters. Whether it should be or not.

[Philocon 1]

John Key is probably more concerned about what the 'thinking public' are concerned about 1. The economic situation on the country. 2. Is the National Government (if re-elected) going to sell off more of the country to the highest overseas bidder. 3. The cost of living. 4. The opportunities for young people growing up. 5. For Aucklanders "How much are they going to sting us for using the roads when we have already paid $'s to pay for the roads" not to mention the cost of petrol, etc.

These are important matters. People I have spoken to seem not to have taken too much interest in the Darren Hughes debate or what action Phil Goff should have taken. Many believe that politicians are hypocrits no matter what party they belong to.

We all know that gay people exsist. There is no law against them. The Darren Hughes v's 18 year old student is probably at the bottom of the list of what really matters to most voters. Whether it should be or not.

Good points and the reference to it being a golden sent opportunity to distract people from issues that really affect them was one I alluded to earlier.

Only a limited number of facts have actually been leaked, released or filtered out but that is good for the speculators, as too much info would limit their parameters for further speculation.

The police inquiry could possibly resolve it one way or another or if it is inconclusive then the speculators can continue to avoid debating real issues and keep playing their little guessing games, while the rest of us can talk about things that really matter.

[Centrofold 147]

Apparently the New Work Law comes into affect tomorrow. That means that an employer, who already has the odds well in his favour when it comes to employing someone can dismiss a new employee after 3 months for whatever reason he likes. It is unlikely, in the current employment climate that an employee would want to quit a job after 3 months unless the employer is a real rotter.

Plus, there is talk about the employer demanding a doctors certificate from an employee for having one day off work.

I think this could back fire on the employer. If someone is made to go to the Doctor for having one day off work, the employee just might decide to have a couple more days off work to justify the expense of going to the Doctor. Isn't sick leave/special leave only five days a year for most employee's?

Geeez..... How about bring back slavery.

[Properispomenon 1]

Be fair, Jane...

Doesn't the employer have to pay the cost of that doctor's certificate? Costs for the average employer would mean that he'd have to use a bit of discretion...

We wouldn't dream of being so draconian here ... but then it is not uncommon for us to call a cab to force our sick employee to acknowledge he is sick and that he is to bloody go home lest he makes us sick, ha...

Dunno about your employer, Jane, but here we pay four weeks annual leave over and above stats, pay a very decent 'outside normal hours' bonus rate when someone works past 10pm and quite regularly stump up for overseas 'look see' or conference trips to staff members who would have to be plain dumb (and our staff ain't dumb!) not to parlay into decent largely-paid-for holidays.

Where this law will come in handy is, as happened with me years ago, we had a star New Zealand-rep netballer (she won a world title) who had a nasty habit of being sick on both Fridays and Mondays ... thereby getting herself a five day weekend. My boss at the time shamed her into resigning by getting one of those long calendars which has S M T W T F S at the top and every day of the year listed underneath. Every day she was 'sick' was noted and it was floor to ceiling black on Fridays and Mondays, ha...

I really do doubt that too many employers will 'milk' the new law (but I appreciate that likely there will be some) as, by and large, the average New Zealand worker is a good worker.

[macduff 0]

Apparently the New Work Law comes into affect tomorrow. That means that an employer, who already has the odds well in his favour when it comes to employing someone can dismiss a new employee after 3 months for whatever reason he likes. It is unlikely, in the current employment climate that an employee would want to quit a job after 3 months unless the employer is a real rotter.

Plus, there is talk about the employer demanding a doctors certificate from an employee for having one day off work.

I think this could back fire on the employer. If someone is made to go to the Doctor for having one day off work, the employee just might decide to have a couple more days off work to justify the expense of going to the Doctor. Isn't sick leave/special leave only five days a year for most employee's?

Geeez..... How about bring back slavery.

But wait there will be more, When all the smoke screens disappear the truth will be revealed. All the fools who voted for this lot will be paying the price for their foolishness .

[Properispomenon 1]

But wait there will be more, When all the smoke screens disappear the truth will be revealed. All the fools who voted for this lot will be paying the price for their foolishness .

Erm, break that down, macduff:

When all the smoke screens disappear the truth will be revealed

Forgive me, but did not John Key say before the last election that this would be part of National's agenda. The truth was 'revealed' from Day One.

Remember, too, that John Key said 'No assets sales in my first term'. He's honoured that pledge, too...

All the fools who voted for this lot will be paying the price for their foolishness

Forgive me again but wasn't John Key actually elected. Maybe, just maybe, some of 'the fools' wanted this legislation?

(I don't include me in that, macduff. It seems draconian to me and, as you and Philicon would point out, it seems to tilt the scale too far towards the employer...)

I would also say that, if you don't like this legislation or this Government, then vote the buggers out...

But, as you would aware, the Labour Party as it presently stands is simply unelectable ... unless National do something really daft in the next 7 and a bit months...

[chelseacol 2,488]

Apparently the New Work Law comes into affect tomorrow. That means that an employer, who already has the odds well in his favour when it comes to employing someone can dismiss a new employee after 3 months for whatever reason he likes. It is unlikely, in the current employment climate that an employee would want to quit a job after 3 months unless the employer is a real rotter.

Plus, there is talk about the employer demanding a doctors certificate from an employee for having one day off work.

I think this could back fire on the employer. If someone is made to go to the Doctor for having one day off work, the employee just might decide to have a couple more days off work to justify the expense of going to the Doctor. Isn't sick leave/special leave only five days a year for most employee's?

Geeez..... How about bring back slavery.

Jane

there are ratbag employers and there are ratbag employees. They will always be ratbags no matter what the law says.

BUT for the vast majority of us employers we will have no interest in hiring people and then firing them 90 days later. What is the point - it is a pain in the backside to work through an employment process anyway, why would someone do it with a view to then firing someone 90 days later?

Now if you do make a mistake and employ someone unsuitable, or who turns out to be less than ideal - the 90 day period means you are not stuck with a long term problem - in the long term termination will be best for both parties.

Most employers are not ogres as you seem to think.

Col

[Centrofold 147]

I have worked for some very good employers but I also had an experience of working for an absolute ratbag. An employer who was totally unreasonable. Yes they probably are in the minority but they do exsist.

On the other side of the story, I have also seen ratbag employee's. Funnily enough the worse case was a man who had been employed by a company for 30 years. I guess he thought the company owed him something.

Anyway, it is good to hear that most employers are not interested in re-employing people after 90 days unless the employee is totally unsuitable to the position they have applied for.

Having said that I stick to my claim it is far easier for the employer to employ currently with the amount of applicants applying for positions than what is for an employee to find another job.

As for having a day off, if someone is coughing and sneezing over ever other person they are working with, surely the employer does not need a doctors certificate stating the employee is unwell? Or would the employer prefer to hire a robot, I believe even they break down and are probably more costly for the employer in the long run.

[Centrofold 147]

If I don't work I don't earn a cent. No annual leave, no sick days paid for by someone else. No great hourly rate either. There is something to be said for working for yourself.

[Properispomenon 1]

As for having a day off, if someone is coughing and sneezing over ever other person they are working with, surely the employer does not need a doctors certificate stating the employee is unwell?

I'm popping in later today, Jane...

I might loudly say 'You know, in this new environment when a kindly old boss can sack anyone without notice, I really think that I shouldn't have to be bothering myself with filling my own coffee mug...'

Such a tactic wouldn't have worked yesterday and I very much doubt it will work today, ha, but, hey, you've gotta try...

[Philocon 1]

If I don't work I don't earn a cent. No annual leave, no sick days paid for by someone else. No great hourly rate either. There is something to be said for working for yourself.

except that it is not possible in the way modern society is structured for everyone to be able to do that.

as for the law only applying to a minority of bad employers, that may well be the case and I think and hope it is. However the criminal law is also designed to deal with a small minority of the population and we don't apply the same logic there.

Most restrictive law is designed to restrain the unreasonable, unfair dangerous etc behaviour of a minority and protect the majority from them.

Only a minority of jockeys, drivers and greyhound trainers appear before judicial hearings, so we could use the same logic to get rid of stipes and the JCA.

[chelseacol 2,488]

except that it is not possible in the way modern society is structured for everyone to be able to do that.

as for the law only applying to a minority of bad employers, that may well be the case and I think and hope it is. However the criminal law is also designed to deal with a small minority of the population and we don't apply the same logic there.

Most restrictive law is designed to restrain the unreasonable, unfair dangerous etc behaviour of a minority and protect the majority from them.

Only a minority of jockeys, drivers and greyhound trainers appear before judicial hearings, so we could use the same logic to get rid of stipes and the JCA.

Employment law is largely about balance though - and that balance varies over time between favouring the employer and the employee.

For many years the Employment Tribunal was quite happy to fine employers who had not followed procedure to the letter in dismissing an employee, even though (for example) the employee had been caught literally with their hand in the till.

It was reasonably standard practice for employers to be advised to make a lump sum payment to dismissed employees threatening a PG claim even though their claims had no merit.

Of course 300 years ago employers treated staff like slaves and they worked in dangerous environments etc etc.

So things change.

To be upset about trial periods (when they exist in most similar jurisdictions I believe), or the ability of an employer to require a medical certificate for sick days (at the employers cost), seems crazy to me.

An employer who is prepared to abuse these things is one you don't want to work for surely??

[Properispomenon 1]

And, cc, it wasn't that long ago - certainly in the industry I work in - that you had to be a member of a Union...

The crowd we had 'representing' us were the most layabout, stuck-in-the-19th-Century bunch you could imagine ... and whose standard tactic in any pay 'negotiation' was to (attempt to) call us all out on strike (they, of course, carried on being paid!) when an employer demurred with their demands...

With typical left-wing doltishness they just assumed that an emplyer could afford to pay double-digit payrises even though productivity and profits hadn't risen in the last year...

I couldn't wait until an enlightened Government gave us the right to negotiate individually with our employers...

The Union idiocies regarding the Teachers and their refusal to abide by a quite-reasonable request that they be held accountable simply provides another illustration that 'Unions' simply cater to the lowest denominator...

Their frequent abrogation of responsibility - think 'The Hobbitt' and New Zealand deferring to Australian dictates - shows, too, that far too much of their time is sent on politicing!

[Centrofold 147]

The Union idiocies regarding the Teachers and their refusal to abide by a quite-reasonable request that they be held accountable simply provides another illustration that 'Unions' simply cater to the lowest denominator...

QUOTE]

I feel the need to comment on this Murray. Teachers have unreasonable expectations put on them now. They are expected to teach, administrate and resolve social issues. Not to mention some of the dead beat parents they have to contend with.

They are held accountable.

Like every employer teachers face varying issues. The increased demands and living expenses should reflect in their pay packets just like employers can up their prices because petrol has gone up in price. (That is those who have, as opposed to those who are biting the bullet).

PS: Col, I know not everyone can work for themselves. I was just highlighting that I personally do not have an affiliation to unions, I never have. However, in many cases the unions have kept employers honest. (I am not talking about radical unions here). Many would not be reasonable if it was not for the labour laws that have been put in place to keep them honest. At the end of the day good employers deserve good employee's. Those that are not, have no grounds for complaint and should not expect the scales to be tipped in their favour.

The latest talk is that employers are now in the position to sell off the fourth week of annual leave. I imagine this is if the employee wishes to do so. For those of us who can remember what it was like to have two weeks annual leave may think that is a good idea. However, I would not buy it if I was up for four weeks paid holiday. There is more to life than work.

[chelseacol 2,488]

[quote="CentrofoldLike every employer teachers face varying issues. The increased demands and living expenses should reflect in their pay packets just like employers can up their prices because petrol has gone up in price. (That is those who have, as opposed to those who are biting the bullet).

PS]

Hi Jane

without intending to be rude your comment on the employer just being able to increase prices whenever they want sounds like some of the rubbish unions spout.

The reality is for many employers that increasing their prices is difficult, and must be done very carefully to ensure they still have customers.

Unions always seem to work on the basis that employers are rich just because they are employers and therefore the unions do not need to consider the economic viability of a business when they are asking for wage increases etc.

This type of thinking is nuts and ultimately leads to many employers tossing in the towel.

I suspect that the declining % of workers choosing to be members of unions suggest that many employees feel the same way (or that they don't see union fees as value for money)

[Properispomenon 1]

Teachers have unreasonable expectations put on them now. They are expected to teach, administrate and resolve social issues. Not to mention some of the dead beat parents they have to contend with.

They are held accountable.

Like every employer teachers face varying issues. The increased demands and living expenses should reflect in their pay packets just like employers can up their prices because petrol has gone up in price. (That is those who have, as opposed to those who are biting the bullet).

Well, Jane, let's lookety there...

At present, what happens?

EVery so often, the Teachers Union gets bolshie and demands a pay rise of something like 20%. For all teachers. For both the brightest, like, and for those that are plain dull...

This never works.

The Government (whether Labour or National) will offer something like 5%.

Discussions fail.

The Union calls the teachers out on strike.

Eventually the parties agree on a compromise of, what, 8 or 9%...

What the National Government is saying is that teachers should have their core competencies measured and that pay rises should be linked to whether or not those competencies are met.

If I were an halfway decent teacher I'd want such a system - because it rewards effort and skill.

Your average dull teacher - and some of them were dull even when teaching me - doesn't want effort and skill rewarded. He or she wants to just rake in the pay rise 'won' by his Union even if, plainly, he or she has done nothing remotely worthy of any such rise...

Effectively, the better teachers are subsidising the poorer ones...

Far better for the poorer ones to receive no pay rise - they would quickly think 'Hmmm, maybe there's another career out there for me?' - and the brighter ones, much better paid, would see that they truly are valued...

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't hold a teacher in a poorer area (Taita? Porirua? Otara?) to the same standards as a teacher who'd been headhunted to work at, say, Scot's College, Christ's or Auckland Grammar ... but I fail to see how blindly giving everyone the same pay rise is ever going to improve our quality of education.

[Centrofold 147]

Hi Jane

without intending to be rude your comment on the employer just being able to increase prices whenever they want sounds like some of the rubbish unions spout.

The reality is for many employers that increasing their prices is difficult, and must be done very carefully to ensure they still have customers.

Unions always seem to work on the basis that employers are rich just because they are employers and therefore the unions do not need to consider the economic viability of a business when they are asking for wage increases etc.

This type of thinking is nuts and ultimately leads to many employers tossing in the towel.

I suspect that the declining % of workers choosing to be members of unions suggest that many employees feel the same way (or that they don't see union fees as value for money)

No problem Col. I don't consider what you have said as being rude but I will explain myself further........

I am going on my experience Col. I worked for a company where oil is a base for the products they manufacture. The price of oil went up, so did their prices. Consequently the companies that rely on the products upped their prices too. The oil price hikes are hurting most of the manufacturing industry. Hence so many companies manufacturing off shore or selling to overseas interests. The overseas owners restructure and often there are redundancies and there is not much he unions can do about that. At the end of the day the employer does have the upper hand. I am not saying they shouldn't, I am saying that in running the business in a profitable manner, the emplyees deserve some reasonable consideration. I was not saying that belonging to a stroppy union is a way to achieve that.

As far as union members go, it is my experience that the employment contract covers many issues that unions have in previous years. Therefore there is less need now for people to belong to unions. However, without the unions we may not have reached the point that we are up to now. Call it Labour evolution.

[Centrofold 147]

Well, Jane, let's lookety there...

At present, what happens?

EVery so often, the Teachers Union gets bolshie and demands a pay rise of something like 20%. For all teachers. For both the brightest, like, and for those that are plain dull...

This never works.

The Government (whether Labour or National) will offer something like 5%.

Discussions fail.

The Union calls the teachers out on strike.

Eventually the parties agree on a compromise of, what, 8 or 9%...

What the National Government is saying is that teachers should have their core competencies measured and that pay rises should be linked to whether or not those competencies are met.

If I were an halfway decent teacher I'd want such a system - because it rewards effort and skill.

Your average dull teacher - and some of them were dull even when teaching me - doesn't want effort and skill rewarded. He or she wants to just rake in the pay rise 'won' by his Union even if, plainly, he or she has done nothing remotely worthy of any such rise...

Effectively, the better teachers are subsidising the poorer ones...

Far better for the poorer ones to receive no pay rise - they would quickly think 'Hmmm, maybe there's another career out there for me?' - and the brighter ones, much better paid, would see that they truly are valued...

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't hold a teacher in a poorer area (Taita? Porirua? Otara?) to the same standards as a teacher who'd been headhunted to work at, say, Scot's College, Christ's or Auckland Grammar ... but I fail to see how blindly giving everyone the same pay rise is ever going to improve our quality of education.

I imagine teachers vary like Employers and Employees. There are some that are better than others.

Teachers are on various pay scales in my understanding of it. Depending upon qualifications. For example a person who has a degree in another industry outside of teaching: let's say a person who has a Veterinary Science degree with honours who who decides later in life to "give back to society" and teach will often obtain a higher salary than someone straight from school who has never been outside of the classroom situation. Also reach a higher level within a school: Head of Department etc. I believe cost of living increases are just that. It does not matter whether someone is a head of science or a physical education teacher. How do you guage that one teacher is worth more than another, outside of personal qualifications?

Personally if I was the Government I would make it a rule that all teachers have to achieve in another industry before the teach. Giving them a background on how the 'real world' operates.

There is a saying, those that can do "do", those who can't "teach".

PS......I was not aware that teachers got head hunted for the posher schools in the country.

[Properispomenon 1]

PS......I was not aware that teachers got head hunted for the posher schools in the country. ]

Well, I have to confess that I don't know that they are ... but it makes sense to think that they might be.

Parents have different expectations of a child they are funding through the three institutions I exampled...

If you used that 'all teachers have to achieve in another industry before they teach. Giving them a background on how the 'real world' operates' rule in Politics, there'd be precious few Labour folk get into Parliament, heh heh...

I might be wrong (and Philocon will quickly pull me up if I am, heh heh) but did Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, even Phil Goff ever do anything besides the University-to-Parliament route?