Most people are lightweights compared to Robertson with the possible exception of Gerry Brownley.
Printable View
No I am not shooting the messenger.
Trevor Mallard continues to be the biggest bully Parliament has ever seen and practices it nearly daily in Parliament and shockingly, in his behaviour and actions against a former staffer that he has accused of sexual harassment and sacked him without proof. I don't know if this guy is guilty or not guilty but it seems rather an unfair treatment where the Speaker of Parliament can behave like this and have all his decisions/fights paid for by the taxpayer (like Winston) while the guy fighting to clear his name is facing bankruptcy trying to clear his name.
Sorry moka but we are miles apart on this one.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...hould-be-named
With respect I think its a bit more complex than that.
Yes the subsidy goes to the employee, but there is also a well recognised benefit to the employer which should also be acknowledged.
The sudden shock of the lockdown meant many businesses would have to lay off staff & it was recognised there is a huge disruption & cost to a business in finding, interviewing & re-employing new employees when business picks up.
While some businesses (e.g. dependent on foreign tourists or international students) have not seen a pick up, many businesses are humming again & having their employees meant a considerably quicker recovery than otherwise would have happened.
That's good economics for the country, good policy.
In a recent piece by Tony Alexander, he summarised the view of business owners that responded to him with stories from the GFC in 2008-2009. A large majority of them said their biggest mistake was to try far too much to hold onto staff for too long, leading to a much harder hit and more job losses than they would have if they had ruthlessly dealt with the situation at the start.
Your above post assumes most businesses will recover quickly and continue operation. I respectfully disagree and think we will sadly see a huge level of redundancies and bankruptcies.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong and you are right.
Just for the record, I’m not criticising the Government policy as they were faced with a no win situation. I’m disagreeing with the post saying employers using the wage subsidy are beneficiaries. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination
In the real world, Iceman, the layoffs and redundancies you have alerted & referred to have already started happening -
Employers (doing the right thing) by keeping staff on using the wage subsidy and doing the decent thing by topping up employees’ remuneration -
but post wage subsidy, having to lay staff off.
Start with The Warehouse (1,000+) and continue down the list to the latest AMI (100+).
Talk to business owners out there and most of them are having to cut staff numbers.
The wage subsidy was indeed simply staving off the inevitable.
Now, here's the crucial point per discussion about beneficiaries : if employers topping up employees’ remuneration = employers being beneficiaries, then we know where this country is heading with Comrade Cindy & her incompetents in charge.
Breeding beneficiaries - there’s no getting away with that basic principle of Labour’s economic strategy & policy.
It might really be different this time. The people losing their jobs have not been on the sofa for months or years. They are workers, and well used to and need an income greater than the dole, even the virus-dole. The former has partner income restrictions, the latter ends soon anyway.
They are going to be out there knocking on doors and applying for every job they can find.
Many of them will also be frustrated and angry.