international workers' memorial day

today is international workers' memorial day.  it's a day to remember those people who have died at work, particularly as a result of poor workplace safety practices.  it's a day to remember those that died at the pike river mine, the security guard charanpreet dhaliwal killed at his first day at work, the bus driver herman curry killed during an attempted burglary, derek lovell killed at the cool store explosion in tamahere, philomen gullard killed in the explosion in a water mains tunnel in onehunga, and so many more.  too many more.

it's also a day to remember those injured at work or general having to work in unsafe situations.   a quick look through the department of labour website shows that pacific workers have a particularly high injury rate:

“Manufacturing is a key area of focus for our work with Pacific Peoples as it accounts for one fifth of the Pacific workforce nationally,” says Vasantha Krishnan, General Manager of the Department’s Labour and Immigration Research Centre.

“These workers are disproportionately represented in injury statistics, accounting for over one-third of the manufacturing sector’s injury claims made to ACC in the 2009-2010 year,” Ms Krishnan says.


there are the appalling conditions faced by workers on foreign charter vessels, first reported by bloomberg and which led to our government putting out this report.

workers deserve to be safe at work.  they should be able to leave work at the end of the day, no worse off physically or emotionally than when they started it.  their policies, procedures and processes required to ensure their safety shouldn't be described as unnecessary bureaucracy or PC gone mad.  we still have a long way to go in keeping workers safe.  let's keep the names above, and others, in our thoughts so that we don't forget how important this is.


on another note, this is the photograph i loved best from the asset sales protest today & i wish i could have been there holding that sign as well:

it was great to see such a large turnout at the protest.  let's hope it makes a difference.

out of uniform

a school that forces kids to wear roman sandals is a school that hates children. seriously? these are the ugliest and most uncomfortable footwear ever designed. what torturer designed them i don't know or care, but i don't see why our kids should be lumped with. for goodness sake, i had to wear these monstrosities when i went to school. have there been no acceptable innovations in footwear design in 30 years that would be acceptable to persons in charge of deciding on school uniform?

i've never been a supporter of uniforms. hated them when i had to wear them, hate that my own kids have to wear them. i hate the loss of individuality, the conformity of it all. to me, it teaches kids that they have to lose anything which makes them different, individual and their own person. they lose their personal identity to the identity of the institution forcing the uniform on them.

i understand the arguments for them, especially for school age children, around the peer pressure to dress in fashionable and expensive clothes. uniforms are apparently the cheaper option. but given that kids need clothes for after school and socialising anyway, i don't know that there is that much saving. maybe uniforms are the better option for some people, but no, i still hate them.

our uniforms were so uncomfortable. disgusting drab brown tunics. and for PE, we had to wear rompers. rompers are truly worse than roman sandals, if that's at all possible. thank goodness sports uniforms have evolved to something more decent. i think the only way to ensure our kids have decent uniforms (if they must have uniforms at all) is to force all the adults in the institution to wear it as well. let's watch the principals and teachers being forced to push their feet into roman sandals, and i bet that rule would be gone in a day.

to add insult to injury, our teachers are being forced to spend their time policing these uniforms, when they really should be spending that energy on teaching our kids. ok, with the basic uniform, i can accept that they have to enforce it otherwise there would be no point. but to police the roman sandals, and to punish kids if they aren't wearing them? that is just a total waste of time. it's certainly not how i want my tax dollars being spent.

the new colosseum

i should have known better, but i tried to watch a bit of "the x-factor" a couple of weeks ago. i think i lasted about half an hour, though i can't say i was paying full attention even during that time. i know that these kinds of shows are really popular & there are lot of people who really enjoy them. if you are one of those, then i'd ask you to go and find something else to read just now.

i can't help it, i just felt so sickened and appalled at what i saw. to me, it seemed like one of the worst kinds of exploitation. here were people, some of whom are in pretty difficult situations as regards poverty. some of whom desperately want to find something missing in their lives, and think they can find it through fame and fortune. people with dreams, perhaps unrealistic dreams, but heartfelt and genuine dreams nonetheless.

all of these things were used by the producers of this show to put these people in a situation where they would be laughed at and humiliated. it's not spontaneous. the show is highly managed; all of the performers had gone through some kind of screening process before they were allowed to perform in front of the judges and audience. during that screening process, it would have been blatantly obvious which performers didn't have a chance, and would therefore receive that special brand of nastiness that is simon cowell. with the added icing of boos and jeers from the audience.

those performers could easily have been weeded out. there is absolutely no need to put them through a situation that was clearly traumatic - at least for the ones that i saw. it's bad enough to be told that you aren't going to make it through to the next round, but that's part of any normal competition & i don't have a problem with it. but to be told in a way that is insulting and mocking, and which encourages others to do the same? it's awful.

i don't care that these people consented to go on the show. i don't care that they would have signed some kind of contract allowing their performance and the judges & audiences reactions to be broadcast to millions of people around the world. i've said it in a different context, that of using surrogates from developing countries, but it holds true just as much in this instance: just because people consent to their own exploitation or humiliation doesn't mean that we should go ahead and exploit or humiliate them. people will do anything when they're desperate - and desperation takes many forms and may have many causes. it's not ok to use that desperation to make sh*tloads of money off their public humiliation.

i know that evolution is a thing, and i know it takes millions of years to work. but it really saddens me that humanity has not changed much at all over thousands of years. that we're still happy to make public entertaiment for many out of the pain of a few says nothing good about our species. nothing good at all.

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

Trigger warnings for rape, sexual abuse, violence, exploitation of power:

The other day Stef and I were having a chat about the Omar Hamed stuff that has come up here and elsewhere lately.  Neither of us know Omar at all, but sadly the theme was familiar; sexist injustice and exploitation, hidden within activist groups supposedly overwhelming in their right-on expressions of gender equality and general comradely behaviour of The Highest Order.

We both knew of examples the other was unaware of, even in groups we had both been active in around the same time. I don't know about Stef, but I kept at least one story back, one I just still cannot share with people who know the rapist even vaguely.  So often these stories feel like they are not our own to share because they happened to someone else, and we want to protect them, not the abuser.  It's difficult to know what to do; the worry that by telling what the areshole did you will open the victim up to shame and recrimination.

Which is where leadership comes in.  One of the responsibilities of leadership is dealing with the internal Hard Stuff too.

I've noticed it too many times now.  When concerns are raised about a prominent member, a "Good Guy", who is behaving in a predatory sexist manner towards others in the group, the shutters come down on the faces of the political leaders and the problem becomes not the unacceptable behaviour, but the fact that people are labelling that behaviour as unacceptable and challenging it.

The person with the problem, the person who acts unacceptably, might not be an out-front leader, they might be someone who delivers lots of leaflets, or has a great hoarding spot, or is one of the few in paid employment for the group.  Whatever role they fill there seems to be some protection afforded, some reason to not rock the boat in case they decide to jump out and take their contribution with them. 

But what about all the contributions withdrawn by others because of that person and the fact that their behaviour is tacitly accepted by the leadership?  What about the women who don't go to SlutWalk in case the man who raped them is there?  What about the men who just never come back to another planning meeting?  What about the discussions had over a few beers at the pub that a whole heap of the activists just never seem to participate in?

It terrifies me that when I start talking to people about this stuff more and more comes out.  Stories with statements like:

• "Oh yeah, someone told me to watch out for him because I'm an attractive young blonde and apparently he has a bit of history."
• "I always make sure I don't put any young women in a car alone with that guy, just in case."
• "He said if I gave him a blow-job he'd back my friend in the election, but I figured he was just joking and I laughed it off.  But he never did write anything nice about my mate."
• "The only reason he stopped following me around campus was because someone threatened to break his legs."
• "Well he's a bit of a groper, but some young gay men like that, so I guess it's ok."
• "Best to billet men with them."
• "So then I said 'it's probably best I walk home with you both,' and it was alright."
• "Everyone thinks he's so sweet and adorable but I shake whenever I see him and apparently I'm overreacting."
• "There was this time in the carpark where I had to lock my car doors and drive away."

At heart I believe that rejection of the actual problem, the bad behaviour, is sexist.  It is unjust.  It is making a judgement call that the accused is entitled to protection from the consequences of their actions.  It enables them to continue as they were, maybe get worse, and not have to think critically about what they are doing and why.  Saying nothing, doing nothing, changes nothing.

Yes someone accused has rights; in the criminal justice system these include a presumption of innocence.  I support that.  In a legal system we do need to come from a position, most of the time, of proving guilt.  Being found guilty in the courts has massive repurcussions for the individual in the dock; not least often a serious loss of liberty.  Our society needs to be really really certain before enforcing that.*

But in activist groups we don't need to have mock trials and legal representation at the table.  The first thing we need to do is believe and trust women.  The second thing we need to do is put in place structures to address these types of concerns when they are raised.  With mechanisms already in place when something comes up there is already a clear path to follow in that immediate period when as a leader you are flailing around going "oh shit, I really wish that I hadn't heard that."  It changes the instant response from Make It Go Away *puts heads in hands* into This Needs To Go To There First *starts doing something*.

We basically rely on gossip to keep people safe in our activist groups.  That's not good enough.   When someone's behaviour is unacceptable it needs to be raised with them.  The earlier it is done the more likely it is that change will happen and harm will be lessened.  No one should have to confront an abuser alone.  Anyone should be able to approach others for support, and receive it, particularly amongst a group's leaders.

My experience to date has been male political leaders (not exclusively, but mostly) putting concerns raised by women (not exclusively, but mostly) to one side.   A sexist mathematical calculation which continues to see women's concerns about a man < the man's contribution to the cause.

This is the personal mainfestation of a broader political equation: Women's issues < so-called "mainstream" issues.  Abortion law reform, low rates of prosecutions and conviction for rape, pay equity, women's political representation.  They're all so-called "side issues."  We're told to roll our dainty sleeves up, put on the kettle, and help the fellas fix the Big Problems first, then we'll all pitch in on that other stuff.  The Cause is more important than the issues of any members within The Cause, or something.

It's bullshit. 

The very fact that we've been having a public conversation about these matters shows a commitment to change.  The bravery of those raising these issues (as they multitask and work on heaps of other great stuff too) gives me heart.  This is change we can make, we must make, and we are starting to make.  Let's keep going.


*  Actually I'm pretty dubious about how our criminal justice system approaches sentencing, but that's a bit off topic.

explosion in onehunga

it's terrible to hear of the accident in a watermain tunnel in onehunga that has claimed lives and injured people. my sincere condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones.

this is yet another workplace accident, of which we have far too many in nz. the most well-known in recent times being the disaster at the pike river mine, and here is another to add to our shame. you would have thought that the former would have begun a serious conversation about workplace safety in this country, but instead we got waylaid by a PR team that put on a tightly-controlled spectacle, abetted by politicians, which diverted us from basic issues.

i'm sick and tired of the word "bureaucracy" being used in conjunction with health and safety laws. our workers deserve to have safe workplaces, and this means extra cost and extra work, so be it.

not quite saved

whitcoulls goes into receivership & looks like it might fold. whitcoulls is miraculously saved when a buyer steps in to take over the business. a nz icon is saved.

but at what cost? as usual, it's the employees who are being asked to pay, even though it is not their fault that the business has struggled:

"Whitcoulls workers are being asked to sign away any entitlement to redundancy compensation, notice of termination of employment and any claims or grievances from their previous employer. If the administrator made workers redundant today, it would have to make a lieu-of-notice payment and redundancy payment, up to a cap of $18,600 per person."

Reid said under this agreement, the new owner James Pascoe Group could hire a worker for one week and make them redundant the following week with no redundancy compensation.

"Even at a conservative estimate, the 900 Whitcoulls workers in the sales process could have lieu payments and redundancy entitlements of $5000 each.

"This means that Whitcoulls' workers are being forced to contribute almost half a million dollars of entitlements to the sale....it could well be double that."

see also this press release by the CTU:

Peter Conway, CTU Secretary, said today “the normal procedure is for workers to transfer across with their same terms and conditions including any redundancy entitlements. Instead these workers have had the squeeze put on them over a weekend to sign away their future entitlement to redundancy pay.”

“If they don’t sign the agreement, they will be deemed to have resigned, that’s hardly a choice. This isn’t fair treatment and places these workers in a very vulnerable position.” Said Peter Conway.

mr dave norman talks about certainty of employment with the new contracts, when there actually is none. i'm sure there's nothing in those new contracts that says they don't need redundancy payments because they can never be fired.

and the "staff purchase benefits"? this isn't a grocery store, so those benefits aren't going to put food on the table, nor will they help pay the rent. many of the employees will be on a low wage, and they need the money to live. cheap books won't help with that.

also worth reading is tapu misa, being brilliant as always, this time on the topic of the minimum wage being raised to $15.

bodies are NEVER embarassing

i don't bother watching much tv during weekdays, because there isn't too much i can be bothered to watch. i don't like the extreme violence in a lot of the crime dramas and i don't like the agressive nastiness in some of the reality tv shows. i still enjoy masterchef, sometimes i'll watch supernanny and i like good legal dramas & i'll watch movies.

but there is some stuff on tv these days which really appals me. i haven't watched these shows, all i've seen is advertisements or listings. it's enough to me make me feel queasy. the first one that i really hate is "the big fat family challenge". every ad i see about this programme is so awfully buying into the stereotype of linking fatness with laziness. and yes, i'm sure there are people who are fat and lazy, but then there are also people who are thin and lazy. there aren't any shows about them, or at least not any i've seen advertised.

but even worse than this is a new show that's to be screened called "embarassing teen bodies". i can't help it, i did literally feel sick when i read the title & description of this programme. really, we have to label bodies embarassing now, when they don't conform? and guess the gender of the bodies that are going to be featured in this first programme - go on, have a guess.

yup, here you go:

The doctors meet a young mother whose weight is out of control, a girl with too much body, and a girl who cannot stop pulling it out. [emphasis added]

yeah, i'm not even going to speculate on what "it" might be. just what we need, more messaging that anything out of the ordinary is to be put on show for our viewing pleasure. so that we can judge and shake our heads. and double points for targetting young people who are often already feeling vulnerable and insecure as they forge a path into adulthood.

there are plenty more programmes of this nature - the ones featuring morbidly obese people or people with other body issues. as i say, i don't watch them, so i'm ready to concede that the purpose of some of these programmes might be to help us to identify with and appreciate the courage of people dealing with challenging circumstances. they may also provide some education about various health or medical issues. if they're done with a respect for the individual and without nasty judgemental language, then i'd have no problem with these shows..

but i suspect many of these programmes seek to appeal to that part of human nature that allowed the old circus "freak shows" to exist. it's that part of us that wants to look at others who we think are unfortunate, just so we can feel better about our selves. that part of ego that needs to feel superior to others, because the thought of us being inferior ourselves is unbearable. can it be that we really have not evolved as much as we think we have?

not only that, but these shows feed into that general anxiety we have about our bodies & about not being good enough, which fuels the cosmetics and weight loss industries. the message that imperfection is inferiority becomes engraved in the collective consciousness. when attention continuously focussed on how we look, we are less likely to attend to more serious issues. when that message is constantly hitting us from the various mediums, it becomes so much harder to fight.

yes, i know i don't have to watch it, and that i can turn off the tv. i can't, however, turn off the culture reinforced by these programmes, where people are ridiculed and shamed because of their bodies. and i know that people have consented to share their stories and know what they are in for. but i've never been one to agree with the notion that because people have consented to their own exploitation and humiliation, that we should therefore feel free to exploit and humiliate them.

i'm not, however, advocating censorship. i'd much prefer if people would just please stop watching this nonsense, so that it doesn't get produced any more.

helen kelly on the hobbit dispute

if you haven't read it yet, i strongly recommend that you read helen kelly's account of the hobbit dispute, which is detailed and well-referenced. one advantage of the internet is that traditional media can be bypassed, there are no word limits & the facts can be placed on the table.

she includes a part of the transcript of the radio nz interview, which i remember listening to in outrage as it was happening. peter jackson and his "camp" have been responsible for a huge attack on workers rights and got another massive handout out from nz taxpayers on top of that. i'm not sure how these people sleep at night, but i guess an additional $30 million would help quite a bit.

the whole saga included not only an attack on unions, but also some very misogynistic attacks on women. ms kelly leaves out this aspect of the situation as the story she tells is not a personal one. not only her but robyn malcolm and jennifer ward-lealand. this nastiness was all over the internet, and involved some pretty nasty personal correspondence as well. it was not enough for some to simply to disagree with their position but to attack these women for being women.

i'll finish with an excerpt from ms kelly's conclusion, but please do take the time to read the whole thing:

Basically the story runs like this – and I am simplifying it. Work is a benefit, business is the benefactor and workers are merely the beneficiaries. Workers should be grateful for a job; a job is a privilege; employers should be lauded for the contribution they make to growing economic wealth. This narrative not only devalues the contribution of labour and fails to recognise the exchange of labour for wages that is taking place, but it also provides the justification for the removal of work rights, insufficient pay rates, government subsidies to business and the like. It paints anyone who joins or seeks to organise a union as disloyal, a wrecker or an ingrate, throwing charity back in the face of the giver.

It paints the union as an outsider, an interferer in a relationship based on charity. The employer is to be revered – deference is the name of the game. Employers have bought into this narrative and you hear it regularly in the commentary of their advocacy groups. It is also used here and internationally to justify unsatisfactory and unfair trade arrangement, environmental degradation etc. It is being resisted but is overpowering in many situations. It is similar to the so-called ‘trickle down’ approach – where, if everything is done to make business profitable, the benefits will flow down to the deserving poor. We saw that in the 1990s – but the benefits only trickled up.

The Hobbit dispute is simply an example Actors were portrayed as ungrateful, biting the hand that feeds them, contributing nothing compared to the great Warners that were donating 2000 jobs to the economy. The beneficiaries were ungrateful. No discussion on rights was possible. Absolute deference was to be shown to business and this employer regardless of any other possible approach (e.g. that they should be expected to negotiate with performers here, as they do all over the world). The union was demonised and a change to employment law, at the request of Warners, was New Zealand’s way of apologising for some of our citizens’ bad behaviour.

A second example is Pike River ¬ a mine that, after only 1 year in operation, exploded late last year killing 29 miners. Immediately the narrative began to protect the company. The company CEO was grief stricken – as you would be. The media wanted grief not accountability. The families were not going to share their grief with the nation in those immediate days after the blast. Shocked and desperate for a rescue that was never going to happen, they mainly stayed out of the limelight. So the media focussed on the CEO. Pike River was painted as the company that saved the Coast (the West Coast of NZ where it operated is a mining area and the mine, being new, had provided new employment). It had gone in there and provided jobs and the biggest hope was that it would reopen. NZ media asked nothing of the company in those first few weeks. Some cheeky Aussie journalists flew here and asked some hard questions of the company – and were demonised for being insensitive intruders. The mine owners were given prime place in a state run memorial service without family representation. Miners were depicted as war heroes that went to work every day facing danger but prepared to accept it as part of the necessity of mining. It was bizarre. The site was unionised, the delegate was killed. Unions were anxious, as were many others, about speaking out, expressing anger or asking questions in this climate. They were concerned about being painted as ungrateful for the benefits bestowed by this company on the economy.

women on screen

stratos has finally become available on freeview, and i'm loving it. not only the access to al-jazeera programmes, but the documentaries, and the films. tonight i was totally blown away by the interview with the palestian comedian maysoon zayid. i can't find a clip of it online, but as soon as it's available, i'll put it up.


sent to me by email today was a link to the site "every mother counts", a site devoted to improving maternal health care, so that quality care is accessible to all mothers. i'd really recommend reading the various barriers to adequate health care detailed on the site, including lack of health workers, lack of equipment, lack of transporation, lack of access to family planning, lack of emergency care, and lack of post-partum care.

also on the site is information about a film by christy turlington burns called "no woman, no cry", a documentary sharing the stories of women at risk:




finally, i received by email from the director of "the shape of water", details of her next project. kum-kum bhavani is now working on a documentary called "nothing like chocolate":

NOTHING LIKE CHOCOLATE portrays the intimate story of anarchist chocolate-maker, Mott Green. Mott operates an unusual chocolate factory that turns out delicious creations unknown to a world saturated with industrially produced cocoa, much of it produced by trafficked and enslaved child labour in West Africa. With a rich blend of ingredients missing in the large-scale production of corporate chocolate, Mott utilizes solar power, employee shareholding and small-scale antique equipment to make delicious, organic, and socially conscious chocolate. Each step in the production process, from cocoa pod to candy bar, involves ethical and sustainable methods aimed at empowering the community of farmers involved. An anarchist chocolatier, with his tiny chocolate company challenging the global model of large-scale chocolate production, and undermining the exploitation of child labour...

2011 marks the 10th anniversary of a voluntary protocol agreed to by chocolate manufacturers, including Hersheys and Mars, that all their chocolate would be made without exploited child labour in a very short period. Releasing NOTHING LIKE CHOCOLATE in 2011, perhaps at Sundance, will both show people are making delicious, slave-free chocolate, and put pressure on the large corporations to stick to their word.

kum-kum is seeking funding for this project, and if you are interested in further details, you can find them here.

support the campaign

some fantastic women have started up a facebook campaign against the radio station running a competition to "win a wife". please do go and support them.

there's also a twitter hashtag #winawife, where you can also wield some teaspoons.

pickled think has done a round-up of links on the topic, and there a couple of posts here as well.

it's good to see that many advertisers are distancing themselves from this promotion. but they need to do more. they need to distance themselves from the station.

*headdesk*

A local radio station is running a competition to 'win a wife'. The winner gets to fly to the Ukraine and choose a bride from an agency.

Yes, that's actually true. I'm appalled by it. Scuba Nurse has the details, and an analysis of the problems with the competition, and importantly, a list of the companies that advertise with this station. Head on over there for details.

Win a wife? WTF?

I've loaded a screen cap to preserve the web page where they advertise it: http://yfrog.com/h4x83oikj

More views on Shane Jones and porn and all that

Further to Deborah's fantastic post on Shane Jones watching porn which I highly recommend you read if you haven't already, here are a couple of other opposing views which you may be interested in.

Anita at Kiwipolitico states that she doesn't care about Jones' porn watching habit because it isn't the only thing produced in an exploitative manner that we consume and that the taboo around discussing sex is more harmful to women. While the post itself is short, the comment thread is a very interesting discussion of the porn industry.

And in a somewhat different take on the matter, Bob McCoskrie of Family First argues that pornography is not a private issue in the Otago Daily Times, including this:

The indignation being shown towards Mr Jones needs to be redirected towards the increased availability and exposure of pornography not just in hotel rooms but on free-to-air television, radio, billboards, in print, and when and where children can be exposed to it.

It's everywhere, and that must change. And the media should show the same level of indignation towards their promotion of the pornography industry as they have towards Mr Jones.

Although this is my favourite bit of what Bob has to say:

It's time that we acknowledged the harm that pornography does to families, men and marriages.

Good to know the laydeez aren't at risk then. /sarcasm

not yours to tell

how would it feel to have someone write all about your life, especially if you didn't want them to? and talk to your friends, family members, work colleagues and other people you have interacted with, some of whom will be loyal to you and refuse to get involved, others who won't. for the ones who talk, knowing you don't want them to, it must be an awful feeling of betrayal.

we live in an age and a society where price of being a celebrity means that every little bit of your life and your appearance get picked to pieces. there is very, very little that is allowed to be private. the more successful you are, the more there are people out there anxious to dig a little dirt. because it will sell, and some people love to see other successful people brought down.

as you may guess, i'm not a fan of celebrity culture. i don't buy gossip mags, i refuse to watch shows like entertainment tonight, i tend to avoid conversations that focus on which celebrity split up with who, or did what silly thing. it's not my business, it's generally not important (unless there's some actual level of criminality involved, in which case there may be a genuine public interest), and i basically don't want to know.

given all of that, i really am not a fan of unauthorised biographies. at least not for entertainment celebrities. it's not so bad if it's a historical figure or political leader, particularly one who has caused significant harm. in that case, there is some importance in learning about the person's motivations, the influences on their lives, their childhood experiences. and an unflattering portrait is not likely to cause harm to such a person, when they aren't well thought of anyway.

and i could accept unauthorised biographies of political leaders where they bring to light important information that is of a whistleblowing nature - making us aware of unacceptable connections or behaviour.

but even then, i think even the worst people have some right to privacy, some areas which they should not have to share with the rest of the world. and where the revelations are for entertainment purposes only, ie they have no public interest value, then i think they shouldn't be made public without the express consent of the person involved.

the problem of course is how to police such a thing. i don't think it would be useful to have any laws to regulate such a thing. and with the viral nature of electronic communications and the internet, it's almost impossible to keep things from becoming public. there's the whole free speech argument, and i'd agree that any kind of suppression in this area has the potential for significant harm.

of course i want none of that. for me, it's a matter of self-policing. i'm not going to spend my money on unauthorised biographies, i'm not going to be involved in activities that pry unfairly into another person's life. because i would hate for such a thing to happen to me. i would hate for my personal stories to be broadcast to all the world, and especially by someone who was unsympathetic to me.

so why would i want to participate in something that, even in the smallest way, does that very thing to someone else?

life skills for sale

i'm a reasonably religious person, and as i've mentioned here before, my religion is an important source of strength and guidance for me. i know this is true for many people, who belong to any number of faiths or belief systems. when times are particularly difficult, people tend to turn to prayer and spiritual guidance as a source of support. it's at these times that they are most vulnerable.

and there are plenty of people out there willing to exploit that state of mind. organisations like this though, seem a little sinister to me. i really don't know anything much about this particular organisation that i stumbled across recently, and i'm sure there are plenty others like it. they may actually provide much-needed support to some people. but my goodness, this one is expensive. very expensive, and it's money that may be coming from people who really can't afford it.

i came across this testimonial, which is admittedly only one person's experience, but it doesn't sound nice:

The first 'Induction' session took place on the Friday night. Here we were asked to sign a 'discipline' sheet. This requested a commitment on what drink and food we consumed during the course, the taking of unprescribed medicines was not allowed and certain behaviours and speech during the training was requested. When questioned about the relevance of these requests the course leaders asked those opposed to stand with a microphone to verbalise their concerns. If they were unable to 'persuade' the individual to sign they stated that they would have to leave the training without refund (as a refund was only available after attending the full programme). So the choice was taken away from people and if there were to be a chance of requesting a refund they HAD to sign the disciplines.

an interesting question for me, is what should you do when you come across a person who has been drawn into something like this? of course i accept that people are responsible for their own actions, and should be free to spend their own money in any way they wish. on the other hand, i don't think it's right that any organisation should be exploiting people who may be particularly vulnerable and in need of support.

i'm not sure what regulations we have around organisations like this. do they have to abide by any "truth-in-advertising" type requirements? which body would you complain to if you felt that you weren't getting your money's worth? or if you felt that someone you knew was being exploited? an organisation claiming to sell you life skills, well how would you measure the success of that?

it seems to me that there is a gap here. after all, most people who sell goods and services have to abide by fair trading laws like the sale of goods act, or are regulated by professional bodies like the medical council. this organisation is also selling a service, and it's consumers should be protected just like all other consumers are.

who's exploiting who?

ok, so this my first effort at cross-posting, and am a little nervous in putting this one up here, so please can we avoid any nastiness in comments? thanx.

so, another one of the things i was thinking about but hadn't written on was the rt hon winston peters' speech recently about immigration. i haven't read the speech, and have no intention of doing so. i'd much rather beat myself around the head with a blunt instrument frankly!

but. i was having a discussion about his basic approach to immigration issues over the weekend. obviously he is trying to push buttons to generate some media coverage and support. but the problem is that there are serious issues to be discussed about immigration.

the biggest one for me is the importation of workers who will be prepared to work for worse pay and conditions than local workers, simply to avoid the level of poverty they face in their country of origin. i have a strong objection to this type of thing, and i've written about it previously at the hand mirror, particularly in regards to workers in the aged care sector. the two evils of such an approach is that 1) it reduces the wages and conditions of workers in this country and 2) it just adds to the fact that we do little to resolve poverty in their country of origin (through trade or aid).

now, we need to be having some decent and serious public debate about this issue. but we rarely are able to, mostly because of the dog-whistling and underlying racism of the winston peters approach. the fundamental difference between his approach and the one that i would take is this: he sees immigrants as exploiting this country, but i see this country as exploiting immigrants.

of course, it's not just this country - many others do the same. illegal immigrants keep the horticultural industries of many countries viable. as soon as the picking season is over, there will often be a much publicised raid that captures some number of illegals and deports them. but nothing serious is ever done, because economic prosperity depends on cheap labour.

and it never happens that any politician of note stands up and says "our country is exploiting immigrants". because there's no votes in it, of course. it's a reality that no-one wants to hear. but funnily enough, people are quite happy to hear about and absorb the myth that immigrants are exploiting our country and somehow ripping us off. which is why mr peters has been able to thrive for so many years.

mr letterman in trouble again

now dave letterman is in the news again, and if you haven't followed the scandal, i'll summarise it very briefly. mr letterman has admitted to sleeping with some of the female staff that work on his show. he made this revelation because some guy blackmailed him about it. mr litterick has an excellent post about the value of that action, and i need say no more about it here. mr letterman went to the police, and they managed to catch the blackmailer. there was a grand jury convened to determine whether or not there was a case against the blackmailer, at which event mr letterman testified.

at this point, he realised he may as well put the whole story in the public arena, as he knew it would get out sooner or later. by doing so, he could at least have his version of events out there and pre-empt the negative publicity that he couldn't hope to avoid. of course, in doing so, he spoke mostly about the blackmail and about how awful the experience had been. it wasn't until well into his spiel that he actually came out with the fact that he had been having sex with staff members.

of course blackmail is a terrible thing, and i'm glad that he has managed to deal with that terrible situation. and he has apparently apologised to his wife and to current female staff members who are now having to face speculation as to whether or not they are having sex with him. but there is no acknowledgement of the power imbalance between him and the staff members he has slept with, and the fact there is a strong possibility of sexual harassment involved.

obviously he is not going to point out how totally inappropirate his behaviour has been, simply because it is likely to result in court action against him. but it really is troubling, in an industry already rife with sexual exploitation, that he should get away with such behaviour without any censure. and none has been forthcoming from his employers as yet.

how to pay less than the minimum wage II

just received this from the EPMU, for aucklanders:

Hi All,
Our members and their families and supporters will be holding a protest and picnic outside the Telecom AGM tomorrow.
It's going to be a big one as it also marks the official final change over to Visionstream and our members are still saying no to Visionstream's dependent contracts.
If you're in Auckland we'd really appreciate you attending and bringing friend and family if you can.
The protest will run from 9am to midday and be at the Ellerslie Event Centre, 80 Ascot Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland.
We look forward to seeing you there.
Kia Kaha!
Rob EganEPMU

i hope that people who are able to will support the protest, in order to protect the wages and conditions of nz workers. details of this dispute were provided here in a previous post.

expendable

you'll remember that i posted a little while back about a department of labour report on caring for the elderly. the authors of this report identified a looming shortage in the caregiver workforce as a result of our aging population, and their main recommendation was to import women from melanesia and "non-traditional" parts of asia.

and how do you think these women are going to be treated once they get here? as if they're expendable:

A Fijian caregiver has been refused a work permit and must leave New Zealand in one week despite a plea from her employer to allow her to stay because she is impossible to replace.

Sunita Khan, her husband Hamin and children Shahil, 17, and Pretisha, 15, must be out of New Zealand by September 21, but have vowed to fight Immigration New Zealand.

Her permit allowed both parents to work in New Zealand and to enrol their children at Wellington's Onslow College, which is also supporting their bid to stay in the country.

But late last month she had her application to extend the permit turned down because Immigration says there are plenty of Kiwis who could do her job....

"I give my heart to my job," Mrs Khan said. "It's not fair. I'm very sad."

this makes me so angry, i'm having trouble saying anything coherent. i could understand a denial of work visa if she had been made redundant and was unable to find work. but to kick here out, when she and her family are well-settled and when she is contributing to our economy and a valued worker, simply because of a downturn in the economy is unconscionable.

Pushing a barrow full of 'I told you so'

Ever had a look at CYFSwatchNZ? Don't bother. It's a site dedicated to naming and shaming CYFS workers, and its host is alleged to have made a death threat against Sue Bradford). CYFSwatchNZ describes their mission thus:

In a democracy, it is the duty of all true patriots to defend their democracy by speaking out about the things that are wrong, those that try to prevent that voice from speaking out, or those that attack that voice, can and should be considered enemies of the state.

Advice I'll take to heart as I build up my private militia. Not.

Anyway, CYFSwatchNZ is very concerned to reduce the incidence of child abuse, and is doing so by, amongst other things, supporting smacking, and applauding Michael Laws for writing angry letters to children. It's a site with more than a whiff of ranty mega-conservative Christianity about it.

But this effort takes the cake. CYFSwatchNZ exploits the recent, terrible tragedy in Christchurch - the discovery of the bodies of Tisha Lowry and Rebecca Somerville - by arguing the women's murders were prompted by CYFS' removal of the Somervilles' children from their family home. Had the children been left in their 'traditional' family, everything would have been dandy, apparently. This is so dumb and so insensitive to the families of the victims that I'm not going to comment further on it - except to note that the same CYFSwatchNZ author/s who have such strong views about the sanctity of family life have just offered a particularly weak and ludicrous justification for horrific acts of male violence ("CYFS drove me to it"). And I don't think they're even aware of it.

I find this implicit attitude towards family violence from CYFSwatchNZ deeply disturbing, and it makes me fearful for what kind of family arrangements they are willing to endorse. Frankly, I'm just not convinced that a wrathful Old Testament God is the best source of modern parenting advice.

how to pay less than the minimum wage

got this via email:

Ms Jewitt is training to be a hairdresser. It’s an entry course only but after three months she'll become a full-time student and she'll be eligible for the student allowance. But for now, she's penniless.

Recently she scored herself a retail job at Overland shoes in Hamilton. It earns her the minimum wage - $12.50 an hour. She travels in every Saturday from Te Pahu, 30 kilometres out of Hamilton.... After tax, Ms Jewitt ends up with $50 in her pocket.

All was going well until Ms Jewitt’s manager told her she had to start wearing new season Overland shoes. Not just wear them, the manager said she had to buy a new pair every three months. There’s nothing in her contract about it but the dress code in the Overland staff booklet says employees are expected to wear “current season footwear."

The discount policy in the overland booklet states when she buys her first pair of $300 shoes she'll receive 75% off which means the shoes cost her $75.00. After that first pair, the discount becomes smaller and smaller. It drops to 50% and then 25%.

The Manager told Ms Jewitt that she is on a three month probation period and by not wearing the shoes she was not committed to the job.

read the full story, it gets worse. this is an expected result of the "fire-at-will" law for the first 90 days of employment. it's an exploitation of young workers, placing unreasonable demands on those in a vulnerable situation. as the government is keeping no records or information around the effects of this law, there is no way to determine how many other workers are being fired for refusing to comply with unreasonable demands such as this.

basically, if the company wants their staff to be wearing their footwear, they should provide it free of charge. in the meantime, like ms jewitt, i'll be buying my shoes elsewhere.