Down on the wharves and back in the homes

Currently I'm spending some of my time helping to raise funds for the Save Our Port campaign.  For me this is important work not just because of what it means for the union movement, or the workers involved, or progressive organisations who believe work is not serfdom.  For me it's more personal than that.

Quite recently I discovered that my grandfather, my mother's father, was one of those locked out of the wharves in 1951.  He died sometime before I was born, but my Nana, his wife, was my last living grandparent and closest to me, passing away when she was 80 and I was 16.  She lived in Mt Roskill most of her life, within the area I now represent in local government.

I never heard about the Lockout from my Nana.  I have only heard the stories my mother and her sisters have shared in the last few years.  But I do know that nothing remains, physically, of that period in my family's life; there is no Stood Loyal Right Through certificate for IC Deluca, signed by Toby Hill, that has been treasured and handed down.

And that's because of what the Lockout meant for my grandmother and for those at home while the workers were picketing.  It was illegal to help the families, illegal to give them food, or money, or indeed for the media to do any balanced reporting of the dispute.  From what I understand Nana struggled enormously with keeping herself and her three children in clothes in particular - no one was going to surreptitiously donate women's underwear to a wharfie family in 1951.  While efforts were undertaken to support the families of the workers locked out in my family's case it was still largely up to the housewife of the household to manage as best she could.  When an opportunity arose to dispose of reminders of this very very difficult period in her life, Nana took it, and so nothing remains.

Thus I'm helping to raise funds - for the campaign, and for the families.  There are queues of union members outside the Maritime Union office door in the morning to apply for hardship, literally to feed their kids, and I can tell you honestly that they look to me like they hate having to do that, hate having to rely on other people to get the necessities of life.  Now they are no longer on strike, having voted to go back to work last Thursday, but they are still not getting paid, thanks to an intransigent employer who they are taking back to court today.

The partners, mostly women that I've seen, are doing sterling work supporting the cause - they have a welfare committee that rings all the partners to check on them, see what support they need and let's them know what the options are, as well as coordinating supermarket vouchers, food parcels and financial grants.  I'm really glad to see this happening, and even more pleased to see it actively supported by the union itself.

Here's a small way you can help me to help them:

Special Screening of The Muppets - 3rd April, 6.10pm, Sylvia Park
Don't let those muppets at the Ports of Auckland get you down, come laugh at the real Muppets instead!  This could be your last chance to see The Muppets in a movie theatre, as we understand it is likely to stop showing on general release in the next few days.  $20 for adults, $10 for children.  Or a $20 solidarity ticket - to shout a wharfie or one of their whanau.  Email julie.fairey@gmail.com to secure your tickets - limited number!  Please put MOVIE in the subject line.

There are other ways to donate too, please check out this link for more information.

Guest Post: The R-Word

Thanks to hazel for allowing to crosspost this from The Money Pit where she blogs about home renovation and her life.


Field and I are in a relationship.

We don’t have sex.

It’s a relationship where we split the bills and squabble over what kind of cheese to buy; where I get away with picking the bacon I want, and she has all the salt-and-vinegar chips her little heart desires; where we have long sprawling conversations at eleven o’clock at night about Books We’ve Read and Why Television Is Hard; where we email each other from our respective workplaces about what we want to eat for dinner, what we’ve read on the internet news that day, why four hours sleep is not enough, whether it’s a good idea to buy more wine (yes). But at the end of the day, we go to our separate beds in our separate rooms and close the doors.

And it’s invisible.

*

A few nights ago we had a conversation about how we want to refer to each other: we flatted with each other (and with Nish) for six years, but this is something new. We’re hiring plumbers now. In the end we decided that “co-owner” fit the best, but that’s not quite right either: too much business in the front, not enough party at the back. “Partners” has connotations that I in no way disapprove of, but which just aren’t accurate; it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if people thought that Field and I were a couple, but we’re not. I toyed with “lady-wife”, mostly as a joke, but while that kind of shit is fun with friends it’s difficult to say with a straight face to your lawyer, your electrician, your bank-manager, your mum.

So co-owners it is for now, and we’ll change it if it stops being the closest match for what we are.

*

But we’re invisible, this thing. When I talk about buying a house with Field, I’m talking about my long-term life plan. I’m talking about planning a garden, about where we’re planting the fuschia (me) and the hebes (me) and the carpet roses (Field) and the agapanthus (over my dead body). I’m talking about the six-month conversation we’ll have about whether we’re going to wallpaper or paint the lounge, and what shade it should be, and what the curtains should be made of. I’m talking about how we run the kitchen, how we cook together, how we make plans to go to the supermarket and what our budget there will be. I’m in charge – always and forever – of making electronics Go; she’s in charge of the alphabet because my god how I hate reshelving books.

I’m talking about the two or three years of planning that went into this. I’m talking about how I researched suburbs and public transport routes; about how grateful I am that Field got her full licence and a car, and how much easier that made the house-hunting process. I’m talking about the gin-and-tonics she made us tonight for dinner, before she went to lie down on her bed in the summer evening sun and I came online to watch comedy routines on youtube and write this post. I’m talking about the expression of my hopes and dreams, my plans and schemes, how I’ve wanted to do up a house for forever (as long as Nish has known me, and that’s a bloody long time).

I’m talking about how we started having conversations about how we wanted this to work 18 months ago, how we set up a joint savings account over a year ago, how we now have 2 joint accounts plus the mortgage, insurance in both our names and shared household goods. I know where she was born, her date of birth, what her passport photograph looked like when she was thirteen. I chat to her mum sometimes on the phone a bit. She knows these things about me.
And so I have conversations with people about buying a house with Field, and what they hear is of two good friends buying a house together, and what they say is:

That’s sensible.

and

Have you thought about what would happen if you didn’t want to live together anymore?

*

And.

No. No, it isn’t sensible, you utter moron, do you know how much it would devastate me if it all turned to pot, how difficult it would be to disentangle our lives? Our finances are complicated and not wholly governed by standard law, but that’s the least of it when we have mostly shared friends and I can’t remember exactly how to cook dinner on my own anymore, when the kitchen seems strange when she’s not there to navigate around and pass me spoons and pepper.

and

Yes, what, you think we set up a joint savings account and talked to banks and lawyers and looked at houses and put in an offer and went unconditional and settled and moved without ever thinking about what we were doing? Without ever talking to each other about it?

*

This wasn’t an accident, this house in this street. It wasn’t the easy or the simple choice; it wasn’t obvious. It wasn’t a calculated financial decision. My life isn’t good financial planning – single girls without options, women on the shelf looking to get on the property ladder. I may be a spinster with a cat, but by god I have done it with intent.

standing up to the banks

it's been a little while since i posted here - partly because of blogger going pear-shaped last week but mostly because we have been having so many wonderful posts from our new grouping of brilliant women. i've been sitting back and enjoying everyone's contributions.

today i went to a professional development course. like all professionals, accountants are required to keep up-to-date by attending a certain number of hours of training during the year. many of the issues covered at these courses are mind-numbingly dull, though presenters will usually do their best to liven up proceedings. but really, how exciting can you make changes to private use adjustment calculations for GST? not very.

the course today was a rural update, and started off pretty dull. mostly because i find it hard to get enthused about changes in commodity prices and predictions about fonterra's payouts over the coming 2-3 years, what sheep & beef prices are doing, and the like.

well, they have a little bit of interest in that my mind immediately equates this rise in prices to people going hungry and struggling to make ends meet. and discussions about the growing demand for our dairy exports from the middle classes in china and india make me wonder if the middle classes in those countries are going to price out the poor in our country, so that people here will have to be middle class to afford butter, cheese and maybe even fresh milk. it certainly looks like this will be the case based on current projections, and there is absolutely no strategy or thought being put into ensuring that everyone in our country will enjoy the fruits of our natural resources. as well as the fact that the lower classes in india & china deserve to enjoy quality dairy produce just as much as anyone else.

but no, we didn't really discuss those issues. we were given these economic updates and forecasts so that we could think about tax planning for our farming clients and how they were going to deal with all the extra income. for many of them, it's a very nice problem to have and some will happily rail against the amount of tax they have to pay and the lazy bludgers they are forced to support through the extortion that is the tax system. i can't think of anything i could say that would encourage to view things differently.

but there are another group, and quite a concerning number who are presently up to their necks in bank loans. for them, it's not such a nice story. now, it would be easy to say that these particular farmers are fully responsible for taking on too much debt, but that would hide the role played by banks.

our presenter today gave us some really interesting insights into the working of the major banks in relation to the rural sector. between 3-5 years ago banks were aggressively pushing debt onto people, and particularly in the rural sector. there was a high degree of competition between two banks in particular competing against each other, which lead to these banks probably approving debt that they otherwise wouldn't have done.

but more than that, it lead to some pretty unethical banking practices, and there is no evidence that these kinds of things have stopped. i've had experience of our clients being pushed to buy fully geared rental properties, who are now really struggling. they can't afford to pay the loans, and the value of the properties have dropped so that selling is not going to help them out of their situation. unlike in america, they can't drop the keys off at the bank & walk away debt-free.

it has been equally bad in the rural sector. we were given an example of a farmer who was constantly nagged to buy a neighbouring property. the person from the bank had done all the numbers, and showed that the purchase was completely viable if a portion of the existing farm was sold. the farmer was assured that there would be no hiccups, and the farmer's solicitor was also assured that nothing could possibly go wrong.

except that once the sale & purchase agreement was signed and the $900,000 deposit was paid, the bank decided they weren't going to lend money for the full purchase. in the meantime, the existing farm hadn't done so well and the bank forced a sale on that property, at a loss of $1.5 million. the farmer also lost the $900,000 deposit. the bank person, well they got to keep the commission on selling the debt to the farmer, and suffered no harm. neither did the bank.

our presenter raised the very concerning issue of bank staff, who are going to personally benefit by way of a commission if a deal goes ahead, also acting as budget advisor and in this case pretty much acting as a real estate agent as well. the conflict of interest is huge. the standing that some of these staff have by virtue of their position in the bank is a major factor in creating a sense of trust in their clients, so that clients don't seek independent advice.

there were other examples of the commissioned staff making promises that were subsequently not kept - such as a promise that no changes to the overdraft would be made if further indebtedness was taken on, only for the client to find that their overdraft limit had been reduced from $100,000 to $50,000 as a result of the loan.

on a wider level, a certain one of our foreign-owned banks who has been involved in pushing debt in the rural sector has now decided that asia is a much more profitable prospect, and is tightening up the money supply. given the increase in commodity prices, farmers will be pushed to repay principle at a level that will be very difficult for them to manage, and they are unlikely to obtain further loans for large the large tax payouts that are looming.

the best part of this presentation though, was hearing this presenter advocate for struggling clients. he encouraged us to stand up against the banks by ensuring any budgeting was done by us, and by making sure we were in the room any time banking staff were meeting with our clients. more than that, he said we should do it without charge. i think that's the first time i've heard a presenter say that, and it was really genuinely meant. he didn't mean that we should do screeds of work for free, but that we should consider giving some of our time to ensure that clients were protected and helped to get out of debt through careful plannning. accountants with a social conscience - yay!

i'd dearly love to give this man's name, but i didn't get his permission. the room was packed though, and i really hope that a lot of the people present do take this on board.

why a man is not a financial plan

from monday's waikato times, this interview with the author of "why a man is not a financial plan", joan baker:

For those women banking on a marriage to see them through, financial adviser Joan Baker, author of Why a man is not a financial plan, and Smart Women delivers her killer question.

"Whatever your age or stage you should ask yourself: what would be mine or what would be my circumstance if he died, or left or whatever?"

However unsettling, she says, this mental exercise is critically important. The calculations, stripped of alimony fantasies and factoring in pay expectations and childcare costs, if relevant, can be revealing. By some estimates, a woman's standard of living drops an average of 73 per cent in the first year after divorce. The future doesn't get any brighter.

Of the elderly living in poverty, three out of four are said to be women and 80 per cent of them were not poor when they were partnered. Overall, nearly seven out of 10 women are projected to live in poverty some time in their lives.

Given the depressingly high divorce rate that forecasts a 50 per cent chance of marital success, there is reason to worry and even better reason to plan.

all of this basically ties into the point i was making in my last paragraph here. it's all very well to raise the issue, but the more important question is how to make that money and keep yourself financially secure. ms baker deals with unequal pay and discrimination in the workplace, issues which we have dealt with at length here. she also talks about self-employment and the difficulties with that. i also thought this bit was interesting:

"Obviously it isn't universally true but the bias is in that direction," says Baker. Those who would argue otherwise just need to look at the spending differences between men and women, she argues. "If you look generally at how women spend their wages or salary, a huge amount of that money goes into presenting well and looking good, whereas men's money will generally speaking be more likely go into what turns out to be good assets as opposed to handbags and shoes."

well yes, a little bit of a generalisation there, but the underlying point that women are under a lot of pressure to spend their money on their appearance is a valid one. it's a pressure that's constant and pretty hard to resist.

the piece (and possibly the book?) is aimed at professional women. but there are so many who are dealing with poverty and struggling at day-to-day living. they are just as much in need of financial planning and societal solutions around better pay and conditions. a pity that this wasn't covered as well.