Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

3 Comments

  1. Employers are ‘responsible’ for exploiting employees and destroying nature.
    When they fail to do that they are not ‘responsible’.
    Employees are responsible for ending exploitation and restoring nature.

  2. I think the company began life as “NZ Perpetual Forests ” didn’t it Bryan ? The original investors could not endure through to maturity of the first crop and went under and the plantations became Forrest Products.
    A friend of mine worked in the bush for them from age 15 in Tokaroa. They trained him well and he became a safety instructor . They took safety seriously though he has horrific stories to tell of stupid behaviour.
    But when the Rogernomic era came along, and a cunning plan was introduced to privatise safety in the workforce ; and instead of having the government through the labour department seeing that best practice was followed they made the operator responsible for making up their own training programme and practice, so that when an accident occurred it could be fixed by a crippling fine on the owner of the operation and thus became a revenue gathering system for government instead of a cost, the companies like FP saw the light and made all their Forestry gangs become contractors so that the guy that put his hand up became responsible instead of the company. Also he could own the plant , at new price all on HP so he had paid off bugger all before it was worn out and valueless . So an everlasting treadmill of debt was created and a desperate pressure produce or go under. Not good for a dangerous workplace.
    D J S

  3. But they have the MONEY, and NZ Inc is a little sucker nation, desperate for ‘investment’, no matter where it comes from.

Comments are closed.