Saturday, 21 August 2010

How dare we lose what they have won*

Here's one reason (of many) why you should go to the rallies being held aroudn the country this weekend:

1pm, Saturday 21st August
QE2 Square (bottom of Queen St, opposite Britomart)

1pm, Saturday 21st August
Civic Square

1pm, Saturday 21st August
Cathedral Square

11am, Sunday 22nd August
Assemble at Dental School, Great King Street
March to rally at the Octagon

* From Bring out the banners


Carol said...

Hoping it's a good turn-out. Wish I could go, but I have to go to work. The rally has all my support.

Brett Dale said...

Are you going to show both sides of the story and ask the employers to voice their opinion on the firing.

Or are you just going to play on people's emotions.

Julie said...

Wish I could go too, but between the tail end of the flu and all the slow waddling I'm doing I wouldn't be so much rallying as relying on someone to carry me.

Brett, you seem to have forgotten this is a highly opinionated voluntary feminist left-wing blog site. I suggest that if you want to reform blogs to require investigative journalism at a level above that required even by our newspapers you start with your good friends at Kiwiblog.

There has been plenty of the employers' side on the 90 day period ridiculousness right through the media. The most recent 90 day case to be highlighted, at Burger Fuel, has seen media coverage of an unrepentant employer who has done nothing to refute the conclusion that the worker was fired on her 89th day for daring to ask that her 10 minute meal break, in an 8 hour shift, be respected. It was in the Herald, go read it.

Brett Dale said...

I have not seen the employers side to this case. I dont take a left or right wing view, I judge every case by its merits.

Believe me, I know what its like to work for abd employers as a young person I worked for a certain fast food chain that broke many laws.

I would just like to hear both sides. Being a feminist or left wing or right wing, ahs nothing to do with this case

Julie said...

Brett you cannot seriously be pretending that The Hand Mirror, as wonderful as it is, is your sole source of news. I've seen plenty in the media giving employer opinions about why the 90 day law is a good idea from their pov, on other blogs, there's been radio interviews, heck a couple of years ago when Wayne Mapp put up a members' bill on the matter there was even an entire Select Committee process (although of course the actual law change in late 2008 was pushed through under urgency without such scrutiny). How about, before you ask the bloggers here to spoon-feed you everything you ever wanted you actually go and have a look around yourself?

BTW if you want to seem genuine about wanting to see "both sides of the story" I expect you to be all up in David Farrar's grill on an hourly basis, and that won't give you much time to come over here and accuse us of trying to "play on people's emotions" as you did in your first comment on this thread.

Maia can deal with you how she will in her own thread, but of course she's off at the rallies which you know because that's what this post is actually about.

Hugh said...

Brett, if you want to hear the employer's side, it's out there. It's not THM's job to spoonfeed you your news. And yes, I would feel you were being just as precious if you went to Kiwiblog or Whale Oil and complained about not getting the left-wing view.

I suspect you are actually sympathetic to the employer's views, so why not just say so?

Brett Dale said...

Hi, I don't go to political blogs anymore.

I don't go to kiwiblog or whaleoil and was never a regular reader, and I have stopped going to The Standard.

Basically I have made a decision to stop following anything political.

I do find that the New Zealand left handles itself like the American Right.

Fox News and the Standard are pretty much the same, they use emotion and attack politics and its quite sickening sometimes, that is why I can't be bothered with it all.

In terms of this site the hand mirror, I come here because its well written.

I wasn't trying to make a comment on the 90 day Bill, I wasn't making a comment on the youtube and the lady making a suggestion that she got fired maybe because of her weight.

Now thats a pretty big accusation to make, and I just wanted to know what her employers side of the story was, I have been out of the country for two months, so I havent followed this on the news.

I get my news from sites like The Huffington Post, Slate and, although I wont follow politics anymore.

I am in no way sympathetic to the employee's view, I just like to hear both sides and not make judgments based on emotion , that is what the teabaggers do in the states and the left wingers blog like the standard do here.

BTW My views are actually are mostly left wing, and I have only voted once for national in my life.

A Nonny Moose said...

So, in summary Brett, you refuse to follow politics and demand everyone explains the news/politics to you. Yet by saying you have no interest in politics, you seem to be taking a keen interest in this political debate.

No ah, doesn't work like that sorry chum. If you can't digest political blogging or news without a critical eye on the media it's fed through, that's not our problem. That's sheer laziness.

Derail is derail.

Brett Dale said...

This is not a political debate about the left and right, this is about a person who said she was fired and she suggested the reason she was fired was her weight, well I would like to hear from the employers to make up my own mind.

It anit sheer laziness, its just a distrust of the news media like Fox news and blogs like The Standard.

Hugh said...

Also, Brett, in reading THM you are reading an explicitly political blog.

Brett Dale said...

Its more than a political blog though, and it doesnt have the nastiness or name calling of the standard or fox news.

I dont really consider this blog to be a political blog, just a damn good read.

stargazer said...

brett, the employer had ample opportunity to present their view when they fired this person. they could have given her full reasons as to why she no longer had the job. they chose not to do that. the onus is entirely on them to provide their reasons, especially since this employee had a permanent job, which changed solely because of a change of ownership of the business.