22.7 C
Auckland
Friday, November 21, 2025

Contribute

Home Blog Page 2402

In the playground of the rich, wealth flaunting is a sport

There is an elite new rich club on the party scene in New Zealand. They are calling themselves the Fulltimer Society and, as much as I can gather, this club of young people is a hybrid of The YaYa Club, another more well-known rich society with a higher profile and membership. The Fulltimer Society was founded by 17 young men who may not all be from wealthy backgrounds but an affluent “life-style” is certainly what they are selling. As the NZ Herald reported the founders of the Fulltime Society have “created a business from partying”. Their membership includes Max Key, who happens to be the son of our millionaire PM John Key. In a piece entitled  “Auckland’s extravagant, young, elite society you need to know about,” journalist Beatrice Hazlehurst spoke to the founder of the  Fulltimer Society, Vicktor Green. She writes,

They united/were recruited if they had A) ever modelled or B) were widely connected in the nouveau-riche Auckland social scene – the latter applying to the likes of the Prime Minister’s son, Fulltimer Max Key.

Members of the Fulltimer Society get drunk in bars at Auckland’s Viaduct and pretend to be entrepreneurs (hey man, they organise events and shit) and urge young white girls holding champagne glasses to kiss each other for the camera, as if being born lesbian or bisexual is some kind of fashionable fad that gains you popularity instead of the typically more common social exclusion, discrimination and sometimes bodily harm. People who criticise their pursuits are labelled as having “tall poppy syndrome,” a term used to describe the cutting down and criticising of people of merit who, because of their talents or achievements, are elevated above the rest of us. Beatrice writes,

[Green] blames the “haters” on kind of exacerbated tall poppy syndrome – suggesting the critics are made up of those that would never be accepted into the Fulltimers ranks themselves, so they resort to taking the club down a peg – an “if you can’t join ’em beat ’em” mentality.

“Tall poppy syndrome”? Not. So. Much.

11425488_1607951316151092_3850763463363492666_n_620x310
Girls at an event hosted by the Fulltimer Society. Photo / Facebook

It is more an unbridled and growing discontent and frustration at this kind of wealth flaunting (whether perceived or real) in a country where 260,000 children are living in poverty and where upward mobility is nearly impossible to access for the growing working class – especially, for Maori and Pacific Islanders who are acutely affected by poverty. The knowledge there is plenty of wealth to go around stings: we can see it, but unfortunately this wealth is more and more concentrated in the hands of a few who will hoard and guard this money and the assets which come with it, until the day they fucking die. Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International, wrote earlier this year, “the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked.”

It’s just, this all feels utterly fucking unfair? Like something is really rotten at the core of this once so-called great egalitarian country that has become a vastly divided society of “haves and have nots.” It’s become a place where Max Key can D.J (just like Paris Hilton) at glittering parties for members of a club that promotes itself as some kind of elite rich-kid society (as if what clubs like these “do” has anything to do with culture), and play shitty remixes of pop-songs, then post a viral video of his luxurious holiday in Hawaii with his blue eyed, blonde haired model girlfriend hanging off his arm. While many families could not afford the rising electricity prices to run a heater during the dead-cold chills of winter and where a young child died last year due to respiratory failure that the coroner attributed, in part, to the cold, damp mould-ridden state house she was living in. This kind of disparity in regards to the quality of life people can and cannot access is palpable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lMzPWgPn3M

As the political underclass struggles daily to gain economic stability, we are told we just need to “work harder;” this statement is usually accompanied with a good dose of poverty shaming. Herein lies the myth we have been sold as truth: that somehow rich people, such as John Key, worked really hard for his millions and possess special skills and an intelligence, implying we do not. This myth is better known as the Self-Attribution Fallacy, wherein rich people credit their successes with outcomes for which they weren’t responsible. In other words: when rich people pat themselves on the back for all their successes in life they are kind of full of fucking shit. George Monbiot writes in the Guardian,

Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

Getting rich and remaining wealthy often has little to do with skill and much more to do with luck and having what it takes to break the backs of many as they stomp their way up to the top. Or like Max Key, rich young people inherit a bunch of money, and somehow think this makes them special, as if they possess superpowers we do not. When I talked to a friend who is a law student at Auckland University, he pointed out in regards to accruing wealth by luck and at the expense of others:

Prime Minister John Key, who was a Wall Street banker, did not produce any useful good or service. He just bought and sold currencies at the right time to make a huge profit. Currency speculation is a very useless industry which leads to huge riches for some but economic chaos and uncertainty for others. For example international currency speculation helped lead to the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

John Key was appointed the head of the Asian foreign exchange in Singapore in 1995 and during the staggering losses of the 1998 Russian financial crisis he oversaw the sacking of hundreds of employees. Key was nicknamed by co-workers as “the smiling assassin” in response to his “cheery” disposition while telling people they no longer had job.

Out of crisis and chaos there will always be an elite few who rise from the ashes of destruction by grinding their heels into the necks of others, eventually benefiting from the economic disasters around them.

One of Max Key’s stated goals in life is to turn his father’s millions into billions and, if Max has inherited his father’s ruthlessness and utter disregard for the welfare of others–evident in John Key’s overseeing of callous state welfare reforms by National MP Paula Bennett, and his cuts to public spending–no doubt Max who is studying finance, accounting and property at Auckland University, will accomplish this goal. The Key dynasty will be born.

I understand these young people who start-up these elite clubs are just responding to our times; they aren’t just some aberration.

Collectively, we have been taught money means status, and status (often defined by a ruthless exploitation of others and the acquiring of ludicrous amounts of money) means power; it so often seems that to these people, the pursuit of power and the need to “have it all” at the expense of millions of others, is far more important than building a sense of community or looking out for one another. We prize psychopathy over empathy and compassion within our dominate systems.

This is the perverse logic of neoliberalism and a constraining economic model that serves only the elite rich at the expense of our planet and the majority of people living on it.

There will always be very real, sometimes deadly, casualties in the pursuit of “personal freedom” and “choice.” Neoliberalism was the promise that once free from state “interference” our lives would become better and we would have more autonomy, and this would be a good thing. For example: once state welfare is abolished people would be forced to find work, and thus, if they can’t find jobs they will then be pushed to create new work opportunities and jobs for themselves out of necessity. The unemployed will not become unwitting victims of the “welfare-trap” because, simply, that safety net would no longer exist.

What has resulted though, is not more choice for the majority of us, nor more “freedoms,” but the illusion of choice, or what I prefer to call “constricted choice,” and therefore less [economic] freedom. When short sighted governments slash state welfare they often push people further into crippling poverty; you may avoid creating “victims” of the “welfare trap,” but instead “victims” of neoliberalism are created.

So when I read about Max Key, who benefits from neoliberal policies, going on luxurious holidays and having endless leisure time to pursue his passions such as DJing and going on holidays most of us can only dream of, I am reminded of my own “restricted choice”…  .

As a low paid service worker I can either pick one shitty, meaningless and low-paid bar job or I can pick another shitty, meaningless and low-paid bar job that may have some extra benefits such as sick pay, eventually.

A more extreme example of what “constricted choice” looks like I learned about when I told a writer friend in America who is currently working at a supermarket as a low wage earner about my ideas around the realities of “constricted choice.” He told me:

“I’m joining the military soon because I feel like I am not doing anything with my life and there is a lot of tension at home. Essentially, for me, It’s either the military or homelessness. However I am looking at the bright side: I can get paid and travel, but I could get placed somewhere shitty and if we invade some place I could end up getting shot at.”

For many people, limited options force them to consider and often take work or career paths which are not only limiting and depressing, but also dangerous, if not deadly.

Being rich doesn’t just buy you pretty things, it also buys you an abundance of choice; it buys you leisure time to pursue whatever it is that brings you joy and fulfilment, and a sense of well-being. Even if this “fulfilment” is found in organizing booze drenched parties at fancy bars geared at the upper classes, it also buys you time to spend with the people you love and care for. It buys you the time and space to develop and pursue your passions whether that be music, drawing, writing, dance, whatever; these are all things which develop and add to culture.

The cost of being poor is not just the denial of basic necessities like a heater in winter to stay warm or a dry and warm house to live in, it is also the loss of sleep because you are working some shit low paid job which means working harder and longer hours to stay afloat, thus you have less or no time to relax and rest. If you stop to catch your breath or take a day off from whatever menial job you are working, to gather yourself and catch up on sleep, it means forgoing rent (risking becoming homeless) or buying less, or no food the following week. If you are economically poor, you are typically also likely to be “time poor.”

This is the bottom line for so many people who are struggling to stay afloat in a rich world:

in a country where there is an abundance of money and resources to go around, an elite selfish and callous few are refusing to share. For a few to prosper many must suffer.

This was first posted on Chloe King’s own site Posse. You can follow her on twitter!

On the “Radical Self-Love” Movement: Beware of “positive attitude” advocates

There is an endless supply of people who are ready and willing to inform us about what we are doing wrong, and how we can alter our behaviour so we can “get ahead” and inject magic and happiness into our lives. Between modern day “guru” Gala Darling who believes “positive thoughts generate positive realities,” and you can “manifest” your own destiny, to capitalist public thinkers such as Oprah Winfrey telling us positive thinking can help us obtain “the sweet life,” it is easy to get misled into a muddle of mistruths.

A recent blog by Gala is entitled “Happiness is simple: why too many choices make us miserable and 5 ways to improve your life!” Yeah? Nah. Too many choices are not the issue for a huge majority of the political underclass; a lack of choice is exactly the problem. Whether it be lack of choice when it comes to quality of education, or lack of access to higher education because you were not born into wealth and privilege, or lack of choice when it comes to nutritious food or warm dry housing because wages are often too low in this country, too often, too much choice is not an issue for the growing majority of the 99 percent; restricted choice is.

Gala and magazines such as Oprah Winfrey’s O Magazine, tell us:

If you just change your attitude and think more “positively” over time, your life will get easier. Over time, you will land a job that affords you a contract guaranteeing you some security and a pay-check which does not leave you in poverty. You simply have to manifest what you want. Drink a couple of litres of soda pop, add diamantes to your manicure, wear a fake moustache all day long (as Gala really has suggested as a remedy for the blues), put on a nice pink dress and smile a bit more then BOOM! That suicidal depression over the stresses of life such as being unable to buy food because you are on minimum wage, working depressing precarious jobs, and/or the debilitating anxiety over whether your welfare will be cut this week will suddenly melt away.

Middle or upper class young white women seem to be the demographic of the radical self-love movement. It is all well and good to tell them to “smash that class-ceiling” and just work hard to achieve your dreams and the “bling” and designer shoes will follow, but as Laurie Penny points out in her book Unspeakable Things, there are a lot of women drowning in the basement, in particular women of colour, trans, and queer women who disproportionality suffer from poverty, depression, feelings of alienation, and are discriminated against in the work-place:

1435441498934

It is hard to “think positive” when treated so negatively based on the colour of skin and/or sexuality, when facing hate crimes, targeted violence, and when there are so many structural hurdles put in your way to “success” and “triumph.” Radical self-love gurus do not tend to promote or even really engage in discussions on privilege or the disadvantages people are born into; that shit would undermine the cause of “changing yourself, not the system.”

In a powerful piece for The Guardian, “Oprah Winfrey: one of the world’s best neoliberal capitalist thinkers,” Nicole Ashoff writes,

Oprah is one of a new group of elite storytellers who present practical solutions to society’s problems that can be found within the logic of existing profit-driven structures of production and consumption. They promote market-based solutions to the problems of corporate power, technology, gender divides, environmental degradation, alienation and inequality.

[…] A stream of self-help gurus have spent time on Oprah’s stage over the past decade and a half, all with the same message. You have choices in life. External conditions don’t determine your life. You do. It’s all inside you, in your head, in your wishes and desires. Thoughts are destiny, so thinking positive thoughts will enable positive things to happen.

I used to watch Oprah when I was unemployed, with no money, and feeling utterly crap about my situation. I even started cycling religiously a few years back because Oprah told me exercise would help to reduce my feelings of worthlessness; my arse got smaller but my anxiety and panic attacks over my future, and how I was ever going to pay back my student loan, did not. I even read O Magazine for a while until I realised I was not an idiot and my situation was not my fault. I saw that there are external factors which can offer some pretty challenging barriers to success which no number of pictures of green meadows and calm beaches and deep breathing and kitchy “nick naks” can elevate.

What Nicole suggests in her piece is that Oprah just reinforces the focus on the “individual,” which hides the role of political, economic, and socio-economic structures in our lives,

O Magazine implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, identifies a range of problems in neoliberal capitalism and suggests ways for readers to adapt themselves to mitigate or overcome these problems.” She advises us to turn our gaze inward and reconfigure ourselves to become more adaptable to the vagaries and stresses of the neoliberal moment.

Changing your attitude is not going to change or help to dismantle structural injustice and a failed and unstainable economic model which serves only the elite rich of this world, and exploits the rest of us, particularly the working class and those living in poverty. As far as I am concerned positive thinking will fucking ruin your life.

“Just think positive” is a precursor to “it gets better,” and the hard reality is it is only going to get much, much worse for our most vulnerable. With social bonds being introduced into our public welfare state, financial incentives will now be provided to bully people who have mental health diagnoses, or disabilities, or who are likely unable to work in Aotearoa anyway. Life for those who need support from the state is only going to get more grinding and unmanageable.

My friend, who suffers from a generic connective tissue disorder, pointed out to me when I told him I was writing this blog,

“When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter how positive I think, my joints are still going to dislocate and I’m still going to be in constant pain. Work will still be hard to find, my options will always be limited and I’ll never have the full capacity and range of freedom in this area as someone healthy.”

Multiple WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand) case-managers have told me to think “positively” over and over again, often in response to my having told them “The reason why I am struggling to find any work is because we have a flooded job market with countless over-qualified graduates.” Often the message to “just think positive” is not only divorced from reality, it is an unhelpful and patronising statement to say to someone who is struggling to secure work and to stay above the poverty line, especially if they have a disability or other barriers that may regularly prevent them from obtaining a job or better quality of life.

Ultimately, the “positive thinking” spiel is a form of coded victim blaming. This may sound like hyperbole but telling someone who is trying their best to get ahead in a world that is so unfair, unjust, and unequal, to simply change their attitude puts the blame squarely on that person.

“Positive thinking” and “affirmations” are now being used as a form of psychological coercion against beneficiaries. A first research paper by Hubbab titled, Unemployment being rebranded as psychological disorder expands on what exactly this coercion looks like.

The authors documented the physiological toll on beneficiaries in London who are subject to these practices, “from unsolicited emails extolling positive thinking to attitude changing exercises, with people looking for work frequently perceiving such interventions as relentless, humiliating, and meaningless.

Attitude changing exercises” and similar strategies that people like Oprah and radical self-love promoters such as Gala Darling use to “lift people up” are now being employed by state workers to harass and demean people who are struggling to find work.

Perhaps this is why I find it so hard to stomach people who tell me to think more “aspirationally” as some kind of solution to a stagnant job market, where any work I can get is underpaid and stressfully precarious. These “positive” attitude advocates remind me of WINZ case-workers who would phone, without warning, to grill me about what jobs I had applied for, and how many. One in particular spent a good twenty minutes telling me how I needed to “change my attitude” and that I should take any job, even cleaning toilets at minimum wage. I got off the phone crying, not because I think I am above cleaning toilets, but because I felt harassed and humiliated. It was a defeating experience.

I understand that people like Gala are trying to help; in fact I know Gala personally. She gave me a job many years ago at Lush Cosmetics. She was, and I am sure still is, a very caring and generally lovely and a kind hearted person. As Gala has said on her own blog site, radical self-love helped her overcome an eating disorder and depression, and she continues to help other women. Some of the help and advice Gala has on offer comes free of charge but she also charges a mint for her “Radical self-love Boot Camps” which cost a staggering $197. Unless you are a high income earner this amount of money is unaffordable.

Gala’s position that she just wants to help women transform their lives does not negate the fact what she and so many others are selling is a flawed ideology which preys on feelings of insecurity and isolation for a lot of women, and especially women who sit a little or a lot lower on the privilege ladder and do not benefit from being in a higher social class. Offering solutions to these feelings of disconnection and discontent, such as looking “inwards,” and changing how you behave, is absurdly reductionist, over-simplistic, and problematic. Gala believes “The more you think your life sucks, the more it sucks.” But as I have already pointed out, welfare reforms and callous policies penned by predominantly older white male politicians among other external factors that we virtually have no control over, all have a lot more to do with our lives sucking than our simply believing it sucks.

The disenfranchised, poor, and working class need to collectively band together to restructure the systems, and to expose the neoliberal policies and thinking which has helped create feelings of disconnection and discontent in the first place. Adherence and adaptation will further exasperate the situation, endorsing solutions built on neoliberalism to solve the very problems it has helped to create—which is exactly the thinking that people like Oprah and Gala promote—is truly next level insanity. It doesn’t even make sense!

My spiritual guru advice to you is:

Think revolutionarily. No amount of positive thinking can fill the bellies of the 280,000 children living in poverty in this country. I fully support declaring mutiny against governments who pass welfare reforms that push people further into crippling poverty, instead of waging mutiny against ourselves. Radical self-love and positive attitude advocates such as Oprah and Gala are more about adapting to a world “gone mad” and systems that do not serve you, than really improving your life.

It really is your choice: adapt, or disrupt?

Fight for a different paradigm! It might be a tad more productive than trying a green tea diet to purify your body, or rearranging your stationary draw so your pens are in harmony with your paper clips. Fighting for a new paradigm may bring you enemies and some deeply negative reactions but would you not rather seek out that brutal truth than live endlessly on in someone else’s brutal fairy tale? It is a fairy tale which tells you:

If you change your attitude and enough of yourself maybe someone might love you. If you work hard enough and want it badly enough maybe you will land some dream job which pays you enough to afford both rent and food and a bit of financial security. If you just play by the “rules” and adapt to a brutal capitalist system while changing what colour lipstick you wear and your “negative” thought patterns, your life will become easier and better.

If radical self-love and all that glitter and sequins and pink bows and “positive thinking” has worked for you and you have managed to manifest your dream life, then cool, I am stoked for you. But for many of us it is not the answer we are looking for: it part of the problem, not the solution.

This is a cross-post from Chloe King’s own blog Posse.  

When people get more upset about Greenpeace activists scaling parliament than the millions of people who will be killed in climate-related disasters, we have a problem

Last Thursday four activists carrying solar panels, scaled Parliament in Wellington in a direct action to deliver a powerful and necessary message about climate change to our PM John Key:

Greenpeace-Parliament-2-SW-1200

“Cut Pollution, create jobs? Yeah, Nah.”

There has been a lot of condemnation and ‘tut, tut, tutting’ and finger-wagging directed at the allegedly illegal actions of these Greenpeace activists. Yeah, I get it: people don’t like Greenpeace or activists in general, especially ones who engage in supposedly illegal actions. Some believe the environmental juggernaut is about nothing more than getting as many donations as they can through their street campaigners (who probably annoy and fuck off more people than they recruit to the cause) and that direct actions like this are for show and controversy for controversy’s sake. Not to draw attention to the defining crisis of our lifetime: climate change.

A Palmerston North Council member posted the Facebook update below in relation to the action.  I’m reposting it because I believe it speaks to a wider culture of people who hold simular beliefs around activism.

green peace nah

Let’s break this down. First of all, John Key has denied climate change has anything to do with the spate of flooding we have seen recently in Aotearoa which caused mass evacuations. Cycleways may be on John Key’s ‘shit-to-do list’ but climate change certainly isn’t. John Key supports the dangerous practice of fracking and is all for ‘cash for gas’ and has told New Zealanders it is perfectly safe despite growing evidence to the contrary. In an issue of The New Internationalist, from 2013, when fracking was a relatively new process, Danny Chivers wrote in ‘Fracking: the gathering storm’:

“Some call [fracking] an energy revolution, others a toxic threat. It’s been hailed as the dawn of a new era and condemned as the final deadly fossil fuel rush that will carry us over the climate cliff.”

In 2012, US fracking generated 1,060 billion litres of wastewater contaminated with heavy metals, chemicals and hydrocarbons which was then pumped directly back down into the earth as ‘solution’. Christopher Smith, a microbiologist, recently told me when we spoke about wastewater from fracking: “Many studies have since found traces of these contaminants [heavy metals] in drinking water close to the drill sites and much controversy still surrounds this topic.”

Still, John Key insists fracking is safe. John and his revenue-hungry government have a vested interest in keeping oil companies such as Statoil happy and profitable, not saving our planet from human-induced climate-related destruction and death.

But by all means please, continue to condemn these activists while world leaders continue to make weak climate change deals and get into bed with dirty fossil fuel companies at the cost of millions of lives, and the destruction of whole entire countries such as Kiribati. A pacific Island nation which the IPPC predicts will be swallowed completely by rising sea-levels in our life-time, and whose water source is being destroyed by ocean creep.

Greenpeace activists were not ‘attacking’ the Prime Minster as Neil Miller claimed, but holding power to account – something journalists in this country routinely fail to do.  So often activists who commit ‘illegal’ direct actions or what people dean ‘immoral’ or ‘offensive’ acts are criticised harshly and condemned by a mainstream media and the wider population and I, for one, am fucking tired of it.  When the law is unjust the law should be broken. Susan Sontag said in a keynote address, On Courage and Resistance:

‘We are all conscripts in one sense or another. For all of us, it is hard to break ranks; to incur the disapproval, the censure, the violence of an offended majority with a different idea of loyalty.’

Endlessly protesters who have legitimate grievances are told they are, or are portrayed as, ‘dirty hippies’, ‘whinging idiots’ and ‘violent thugs’. In ‘No Justice, No Peace: why the Baltimore riots where justified,’ activist and writer Juan Thompson poignantly points out:

‘Broken lives should always be prioritized over broken windows.’

From Baltimore to Ferguson, black and brown protesters and white allies have been condemned by white Fox News anchors and the wider American population, who took issue with a few broken windows and overturned cop cars. When uprisings erupted over the ongoing police violence and the killing of unarmed black and brown folk and the race and class warfare minorities endure on the daily, in America, we need to ask: what is worse – destroyed property or destroyed lives? What matters more – the lives lost because of police and can never ever be replaced, or possessions that can be purchsed again?

When people are more offended and outraged by activists destroying property or ‘scaling it’ than the very thing they are protesting – the destruction of communities, of people’s lives, of the entire planet – you know, we not only have a problem with our collective perspective.  We have a problem with our own humanity.

This Council member may have felt the direct action in question was “poor timing”, but when would have been a good time for this direct action to take place? When the shrinking window of time we have left to take deep actions on a global scale to (at least) slow down climate change has closed completely? As the picket slogan goes: “sorry to inconvenience you, we are trying to change the world.”

Perhaps the reason why some people in Aotearoa see actions like those taken by the four Greenpeace activist as ‘radical’ and utterly unhelpful because our media has mostly kept us ignorant of the devastating human and environmental effects of climate chaos. In poll carried out by both the NZ Herald and Radiolive asking if people were in favour of the actions of the Greenpeace activists, mostly, people where in support. But a recent study shows New Zealander’s have one of the highest levels of climate change scepticism. The crisis of climate change is to most New Zealanders an abstract issue that probably won’t affect them in their lifetimes. These people are deadly wrong.

I talked about Kiribati before, an island nation which locals darkly joke is about to become ‘the next Atlantis.’  Ioane Teitiota and his family moved to Aotearoa in 2007 from Kiribati and he applied to be the world’s first legal climate change refugee in New Zealand courts. As sea-levels rise his homeland is becoming increasingly uninhabitable; waves crash over storm barriers and are destroying ground-water supplies.

Despite mounting evidence Ioane and his family have been displaced by climate change and will suffer very real and adverse consequences if they return home, the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled that Ioane was not a climate change refugee. While the international media extensively covered the plight of Ioane, we barely heard a whisper in our New Zealand media. Morgan Godfery (one of few New Zealand journalists to cover this issue), said to me:

“The New Zealand media can be small-minded about things. The foreign media interest in the Teitiota’s has been huge but here in New Zealand very few people seem to know we have the opportunity to lead the world on a climate change issue.”

Instead of condemning the Greenpeace protesters who scaled parliament to draw attention to John Key’s broken promises of creating jobs, and his lack of action and horrific indifference over climate change, I’d rather condemn this callous court ruling. I’d rather be appalled at our media’s complete black-out of Teitiota and his story. But you can’t condemn what you can’t see. It is much easier to call into question the actions of a couple of protesters who posed a ‘security risk’ at Parliament than a judicial system that is yet to catch-up with climate change, at the expense of millions of people who need safe shelter from the storm.

 

A version of this blog will appear on Chloe King’s own site, Posse. 

The rising costs of low-waged work

lowwage_0

I was out on a picket a few months ago to protest low-wage work at Alderman Drive ‘PAK’nSAVE in Auckland. The wages at this particular supermarket were pathetic. Owner Rayner Bonnington had offered his staff a measly 32 cents pay rise even though minimum wage, which sat at $14.25 an hour, had to be raised by a generous (note the sarcasm) 50 cents in Aotearoa this year.

Rayner was paying his staff below minimum wage to stack his shelves and sell food they likely cannot even afford themselves because of the subhuman wages he pays them. I got talking to a Union delegate who was at the picket also, and we discussed the much publicised use of zero-hour contracts by fast-food giants such as Starbucks and Wendy’s in Aotearoa. These contracts are used all over the world, particularly in the United Kingdom, to disempower and impoverish workers and strip away their rights to guaranteed hours so profitable companies can save money. The delegate told me:

“If you are on zero hours it’s pretty obvious that you would be better off on the dole.If your hours fluctuate above and below the threshold at which you might be entitled to additional assistance, the dole would provide more certainty and stability,

especially when one hour paid work a week is considered employment in this country.”

I have been on welfare, lots. I am part of what some of my case managers call the ‘revolving door’ at WINZ (Work and Income) – as in, I keep coming back with my hand out like Oliver Twist asking, “please Sir, can I have some more?”

I’ve also spent the better part of the last decade working low-paid and insecure hospitality work, and I’ve always been subject to casual contracts, which effectively operate just like zero hours. I have worked up to three jobs so I can scrounge enough hours together to pay back my student loan and pay bills and rent. I rarely ever know how much my pay cheque is going to be or how many hours I will get from the jobs I am working. Some weeks I earn 300 bucks, sometimes a bit more – but often a lot less.

When I have been sacked for whatever reason from whatever crap job I am working, or if I’m simply struggling to scrape together enough hours to break 20 hours a week (under-employment is a massive problem in this country) I find myself at WINZ again.

Trust me when I say: I really don’t want to be there.

Being denied the use of the toilets (‘cause hey, I might do crack in there), then being told by some plucky and patronising case manager who checked their compassion and self-awareness at the door that I just need to “think ‘positive’ about my situation” (as if a change in attitude is going to change a stagnate job market) as I hold back tears, ‘cause honestly this shit is just embarrassing, isn’t exactly my idea of a good time.

The humiliating experiences of being on welfare aside, at the very least, as this Union Delegate pointed out to me, I always knew exactly how much I was going to get a week: around 250 bucks.

Unlike so many of the hospitality jobs I have worked where I have been ‘let go’ without any warning, I would at least get a courtesy letter from WINZ telling me in a week my welfare would be halved because I had “failed to meet my job seeker requirements”. Whatever the fuck that means because let’s be honest: no-one honours the requirement to look for a job eight hours a day, five days a week.

But the guarantee that the State will look after you when you are down-and-out is disintegrating as safety-nets in Aotearoa are being systematically gutted. Since the late 1980s right-wing and nominally left wing governments and politicians (notably Labour’s Roger Douglas and National’s Ruth Richardson) have implemented economic and social policies that have eroded welfare and cut public spending and made it harder and harder for the political underclass to step up on the social and economic ladder.

National MP Paula Bennett, who traded in her humanity for parliamentary status and a secure pay cheque (which pays well above a liveable wage), is committed to breaking the cycle of welfare dependency in Aotearoa and has undertaken brutal welfare reforms. In 2013, Paula targeted the youth benefit, those on the sickness and invalid benefits and sole parents on the DPB (Dependant Parent benefit) – some of Aotearoa’s most vulnerable and often the most in need of state support and care.

National’s recent 2015 budget will push parents on the DPB into work when their tamariki turn three, instead of the previous five. Rather than spending an extra two years focused on raising their beautiful tamariki – Aotearoa’s next generation – sole parents on the DPB will be forced into work, and will be expected to take whatever job is offered no matter how meaningless and underpaid – or suffer cuts to their welfare payments.

The people who will be affected the most by National’s latest welfare reforms are the children of parents who will go to school with empty bellies when sanctions are placed on their parent’s DPB, if sole parents fail to meet ‘job seeker requirements’. You have to wonder if Paula and other National politicians took this into consideration when they wrote this reform. Poor and callous governance from our political leaders has a lot more to answer for than ‘poor parenting’ does.

All over the world tory governments are waging an endless war against the political underclass. In England, the ongoing sanctions against people who receive welfare and are deemed ‘fit for work’ have resulted in many welfare deaths. One of the most publicised such deaths was David Clapson, as the Independent reported:

“[…]a diabetes sufferer who was found dead from acute lack of insulin after his benefits had been stopped. There was no food in his flat – or in his stomach, an autopsy found – and he had just £3.44 in his bank account. Why? Because the ex-soldier, who was reportedly found with a pile of printed CVs near his body, had been deemed not to be taking the search for work seriously enough.”

David died starving and alone.

In the United Kingdom, the Black Triangle Campaign has compiled a haunting ‘welfare body count’. So far it is estimated 60 people who suffered from disability or mental health issues have died needlessly like David or taken their own lives because of the threat of sanctions or implemented cuts to their benefit. (You can find painful and devastating examples of the human cost of welfare sanctions in England here).

Aotearoa has its own growing body count in relation to cuts to public spending and the systematic failure of our government to take care of its most vulnerable. In 2010, Bruce Arnold took his own life after ongoing unemployment and battles with government services. Simon Priest, who was related to Bruce, addresses the Prime Minster in a piece for the NZ Herald, saying:

“Prime Minister, on the night of August 18, 2010, my uncle Bruce Arnold took his own life. He was 60 years old. He leaves behind a wife and son. After a long struggle with your various mental health and ACC agencies and unemployment, depression finally got the better of him.”

With social bonds providing financial incentives to bully people who have a mental health diagnosis into work in Aotearoa, life for those who need support from the state is only going to get worse.

I talked to Corie Haddock, Lifewise Community Development Manager, about the impacts of welfare reforms. He told me:

“The reality is we have a government that doesn’t care about the people of this country.

Welfare should be about two things: catching and supporting those in need, and providing opportunity for those people to change and grow. The WINZ system doesn’t do either of those things.”

When I asked Corrie if he believed the ongoing welfare reforms were punitive to our most vulnerable he responded, “Absolutely, they are completely punitive towards those most in need and the cost is another generation of disempowered people.”

Our government are punishing people who fail to secure jobs that simply aren’t there. Overwhelmingly, the jobs that are available in this country are demeaning, poorly-paid and offer almost no security.

The depressing reality is that welfare, despite the punitive reforms and constant threats of sanctions, can still offer more financial stability (no matter how meagre the state ‘hand-out’ is) than much low-paid work in sectors such as the service industry.

Casual employees often do not get benefits such as sick and holiday pay and are subject to having their hours changed and reduced at short notice. You can’t budget when you never know exactly how many hours you are going to get from one week to the next.

Political parties in this country often talk about ‘job creation’, but rarely do politicians speak of meaningful job creation.

We need jobs that serve people and their wellbeing, not just the economy. We need employers that guarantee hours and act with their workers best interests at heart. What needs to be a priority of political parties in this country is the creation of jobs that contribute to society and our communities, not the profit margins of massively lucrative companies.

In face of mass unemployment in the 1930s New Zealanders got together forming powerful movements to fight for the interests of the poor and working class, culminating in the victory of the first Labour government and creation of the welfare state. If we as citizens of Aotearoa cannot find the courage and conviction to come together in great and undefeatable numbers to demand an equal society. Where wealth is evenly dispersed and employers pay a liveable wage, we will have condemned the coming generations to life-times of debt, depression and disconnection. People in Aotearoa deserve more than just to survive, they deserve to thrive.

This blog is a cross-post from Chloe King’s own website, Posse

Public service and public toilets

Unknown

Having been a social and political commentator for a while, I remember the day some years ago when someone told me to go get a job in the public sector “and put your money where your mouth is.” The advice came from someone who’d been in the public service for nearly 15 years and believed I had little knowledge of the challenges people in those roles faced. To my delight (lol) an opportunity came up so I thought I’d give it a shot seeing as it was in the area of Pasifika education and youth development. It certainly provided some helpful insights into the culture of the public service and I’m glad that I came to my senses and eventually left.

Leaving the university for employment in the public service was an exciting move for me taking my love of learning, evidence-based approaches and passion into a policy-setting environment. Well that wasn’t my experience. In fact, my hopes for this role and the reality were worlds apart. I came under managers and management structures that discouraged and many times silenced critical thought and reflection; advancing people and ideas that were institutional, disconnected and lacking compassion. And what saddened me most was that many of my own people – people of Pasifika heritage – were choosing promotion and status over the desire to influence social change. And whilst I don’t begrudge the very real need to get a bit more money to pay your bills, I grieve the way so many of our own give in to the pressures of a neo-colonial workplace.

This working-marriage was never going to work and after a few short years, I was gone. In fact things became so inglorious that my then regional manager chose to tell it was time to seek other employment opportunities granted all the turmoil I’d caused, while he stood unzipped over the men’s urinal. Talk about taking the piss out of something. Admittedly, I did meet some amazing people with a real heart to affect social change. But more often than not, like me, they were on the factory floor of the public service squeezed of their voice, personalities and aspirations. We certainly had each other to draw strength from, but the culture of the place is so hierarchical and linear that it bleeds your soul.

The state services code of conduct has some underpinning principles like integrity. fairness, respect, neutrality and professionalism. So I struggled to understand why the culture of the place from senior management ‘down’ was insecure, dishonest, inconsistent and culturally unsafe. Perhaps this will lead me to a chapter on the gross shortcomings of managerialism within the public service, which promotes like-minded, paper-pushing and lacklustre people and practices? Of further concern for me personally is the sad reality that so many of my own people are caught in this neo-colonial rat-race to the ‘top’ only to realise it’s unfulfilling, empty and a complete myth. Tomorrow I’ll be supporting a dear friend who’s going to mediation against a public service employer, who showed them the door because that individual chose to stand up to their dishonesty and cultural hypocrisy. The neo-liberal scrap-heap for people like my mate who actually give a damn about Pasifika people.

Writing this piece reminded me of a comment made in my original induction when I joined the state service. A man who’d spent many years as a bureaucrat in Wellington said – in this place you can do shit-all, relax on a permanent contract and see that bank account fill up faithfully every fortnight. Real leadership fills a team with the necessary hope, practical and often courageous steps required for social transformation. It addresses the social inequalities all too common in many parts of our community and finds ways to facilitate their pursuit to reach their full life-potential. Surely, that is what it means to be a ‘public servant’?

 

Work like a maniac, deprive yourself of sleep, and you might be able to buy a shitty house in Hamilton

Unknown

Recently the NZ Herald posted an article, ‘Student becomes property investor’ about a young 22 year old student, Brandon Lipman who, ‘against all odds’ and through ‘hard work’ managed to scrape together the $45,000 needed for a deposit on a house in Hamilton, New Zealand. Wow. This is an impressive feat in the current housing market in New Zealand, particularly in places such as Auckland where housing prices are spiralling out of control and wages are still as low as ever. The NZ Herald reported,

“The keen basketball player saved the money while studying towards a commerce and science degree, working from 9pm to 5am each night at Countdown supermarket during his first year,”

Through what Brandon calls ‘sacrifices’ and ‘hard-work’ (and a lot of help from his parents), he has been able to secure buying his first home before he has even finished his degree.

Be, inspired!

If Brandon can do it anyone can. Sounds easy, right? After all, Brandon is living proof that the New Zealand dream of owning property is possible at a young age, despite our hard economic times.

There are three words for all of this: Utter. Fucking. Bullshit.

I have something to say to Lane Nichols who penned this article on Brandon (where do they find these people? Probably, on the mean streets of Parnell) and the NZ Herald at large, who often push bullshit stories like these, as some kind of underdog triumphant that we should, and can, all aspire to:

Please stop painting upper-class white men who managed to step-up on the property ladder through ‘sacrifice’, ‘hard-work’ and good old fashioned ‘elbow grease’ as some kind of ‘underdog’ story. They aren’t. As my friend aptly said in response to Lane’s article “I reinvented the headline for this: Privileged White Man from the Upper-Middle Classes Trades Personality for Property Portfolio”.

Sometimes the international papers such as the New York Times , also make out like Taylor Swift is some kind of ‘underdog’ who faced huge adversity before she ‘made it’ in Hollywood with her pop songs about dating famous dudes who also sing shitty pop songs through auto-tune. The reality being, Taylor was born into to the one percent, and her daddy bought into the record label she was signed to. This is called: A MASSIVE LEG UP. Obviously, Swift is not an underdog; she was born into the rich elite and has benefited, like I do to, greatly from white and class privilege. Hard-work was not the only thing that got Taylor to the top of the billboards, by any means.

You know what happens when poor people get a ‘leg up’ from the state? The right-wing and the centre right shame them for it and call it a ‘hand out’. The poor and working poor are told they are feckless and lazy and are undeserving of any kind of state help or ‘leg up’. I thought it was worth pointing this hypocrisy out.

What this all means is: if we as ~ individuals ~ fail to rise above the poverty line, fail to secure well paid work, and thus fail to save for a house deposit and in turn fail to achieve our dreams (even if they are as humble as securing meaningful, well paid work), it is our own fault. We did not work hard enough. We made bad life choices. You, are just a bit of a loser. It is not the fault of a failed economic model and the savagery of late capitalism that only serves the super wealthy at the expense of the 99 percent. It’s not the fault of retired National politicians like Ruth Richardson whose budget reforms in the early 90’s in Aotearoa, known as ‘The Mother of all Budgets’ eroded welfare, job security and landed young people with crippling student debt. Your failure to do well economically, has nothing to do with a minimum wage that does not cover rising living costs in Aotearoa.

Nah, let’s never EVER hold power to account? Something journalists in this country seem to refuse to do apart from rare exceptions such as John Campbell, whose current affairs show was recently axed. Let’s just blame people for their unfair and depressing circumstances, not what created these circumstances in the first place.  To compound feelings of worthlessness, frustration and failure that so many people who are struggling to stay afloat and buy food (let alone a house), are feeling right now, the NZ Herald and the New York Times hold up shining examples of young people, who are nearly always white and come from wealth, such as Brandon and Taylor Swift (seriously?) who ‘made it’ in tough economic times and/or through [manufactured] ‘hardship’. So why can’t you?

The NZ Herald ran a second piece ‘Property Investment not a reality for students – Association’, in response to mounting criticisms of Lane Nicolas’s profile piece, pointing out, that perhaps Brandon’s story of triumph was not a fair representation of all students. The article quoted Rory McCourt, who is the president of the student association, saying “Most students are wondering how they’ll afford next week’s rent or ever pay back their mounting loan. Mr Lipman’s story is the exception, not the reality,” but Brandon still insists in this second piece that hard-work can, and does pay off. “Everyone puts up with different things,” said Brandon.

Yeah we certainly all do, have to put up with different circumstances, like sole mother Trina Nesbitt who is living in a caravan in Christchurch, with her two kids, because she cannot afford the city’s rental prices.

I am part of a generation that has been locked out of the housing market and this reality is not going to suddenly change because I land a minimum wage full-time job at a supermarket and work long shitty hours, stacking shelves.  How on earth Brandon managed to save $45,000 in just a few years even with his parents paying for his living costs is, beyond me. As a low waged earner working two jobs in the service industry, I can tell you the math, simply, does not add up.  North and South recently quoted Shamubeel Eaqub, principal economist for the NZ Institution of Economic Research, saying,

“[…] the average house price in Auckland has spiralled to ten times the average income of a couple in their 30s. That means most young New Zealanders – including those now in their teens – will never be able to afford a place of their own.”

We have been told, as young people, that if we endure a little bit of ‘discomfort’, we’ll be better off, both financially and spiritually, in the long term. This is a brutal lie to tell young people. The idea that hard-work will get you anywhere in our society of ‘haves and have nots’, where structural poverty, racism and sexism disadvantages large sections of society, is nothing more than neoliberal myth making.  In the Book Ruth, Roger and Me: Debts and Legacies 27-year old author Andrew Dean writes,

“My Generation of New Zealanders has been told that being uncomfortable will make us work harder and strive further. We have been bought up on what Ruth Richardson calls the ‘stiff medicine’ of her reforms, and now we must be healthier for it.”

I am tired of examples like Brandon being held up to my generation as proof that if you swallow Ruth’s ‘stiff medicine’ and work like a maniac and deprive yourself of the necessity of sleep, you too can buy a shitty house hundreds of kilometres from where you live.

 

A version of this blog will also appear on Posse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

White Male Privilege in NZ media

Unknown

Y’all know Sir Bob Jones, right? He is that white baby boomer and property tycoon who thinks his racist, sexist opinions are the last word on everything. But I guess in today’s world, millions of dollars buys you the luxury of being completely divorced from reality and not having to give a shit about 99 percent of the world. Last year he even wrote a piece stating that a liveable wage was a “privilege” not a basic human right. After all, being able to afford the necessities of life like food is a luxury of the rich, right? Well, he is at it again. A few weeks back he wrote a piece on #Ponytailgate for the New Zealand Herald, and it was bad. Really bad. This is how he started off his editorial ‘Why I think Ponygate is nonsense’:

News broke that the Prime Minister, presumably exercising a perk of office, had seemingly hurled a coffee-shop waitress to the floor, then not once but twice, and regardless of his accompanying wife’s feelings let alone those of the other patrons, their children, two sensitive pet dogs and a wheel-chaired granny, violently had his way with her. Then emerging triumphantly from under the table wearing her knickers on his head, he’d searched around for fresh victims, before launching salivating and naked into the street in a quest for fresh flesh to commit his vile corruptions on.

Bob’s #Ponytailgate parody might just take the cake for minimising language use. John Key repeatedly pulled the ponytail of a young waitress named Amanda Bailey over the course of several months. Ms Bailey has already laid a sexual harassment complaint and is talking to Unite Union about further actions she might be able to take over the Prime Minister’s unwanted physical contact and harassment. Bob downplayed a very serious event that served to minimise a young woman’s agency and right to bodily autonomy and likely led to her feeling powerless and humiliated. So Bob, a powerful and rich male, decided to heap further humiliation on her as punishment for speaking out.

Obviously John Key did not rape or violently attack Amanda, as Bob pointed out so, no big deal right? It’s not like casual sexism – the daily harassment that women face both at work and on the streets as well as the unwanted touching of their bodies as playthings or objects – helps to create rape culture and fuel a male-centric society that teaches men to hate women and to believe that sex is their entitlement? Apparently we, as women, should be thankful for any male attention we get no matter how degrading, abusive or bullying.

Casual sexism makes women an accessory to male fantasies and desires and robs them of their agency. As Laurie Penny wrote in her book Unspeakable Things: sex, lies and revolution, “Be a good girl. Smile and make people feel comfortable; accept low pay, long hours the occasional grope in the corridor[…]”

Sir Bob Jones believes what he calls the “media beat-up” over John Key harassing a young, low-paid waitress is no big deal. In his mind, it’s worthy of ridicule and minimisation – but what happened to this waitress is part of a much bigger social problem. Plus it’s important to note that this is not the first time John Key has behaved in sexist ways that contribute to rape culture – this is something that Sir Bob fails to understand.

When news broke that the Roast Busters men had been getting underage girls intoxicated and raping them, Key barely took the matter seriously, saying “these boys just need to grow up”. He said it as if entrenched, engrained, sexist, violent behaviour is something boys just grow out of. As if this behaviour is not part of a cultural construct that we as a society need to disrupt and collectively stand against. John Key is living proof that “boys” don’t just grow out of sexist behaviour, if #Ponytailgate is anything to go by!

Bob’s good mate John Key has gone on to state that his constant yanking on a young woman’s ponytail was not sexist, because he says he would have yanked on a male waiter’s ponytail too.  Thank God we have Pākehā men around to tell us what is and is not sexist, because it is an encoded male right to tell us how to feel about issues that deeply and structurally affect women. That shit never gets old. I find it very hard to believe Key would have called a male’s ponytail “tantalising” as he sidled close enough to wrap his fingers around it and then yank on it.   Don’t you?

It doesn’t matter where anyone falls on the gender expression spectrum, no one has the right to touch another person’s body without their permission. I guess Key missed this human-rights memo?

Oh, and speaking of basic human rights, Bob lambasted what he called the “Children’s Commission and Women’s Affairs” for standing up to Key. I think Bob meant the National Council of Women since Sue McCabe, Chief Executive of this council, wrote a widely shared open letter to John Key in an attempt to raise awareness that Key’s sexist and bullying behaviour was part of a much bigger social problem. But who needs journalistic accuracy when you are as rich as Bob? He wrote:

Come to think of it, having an interest in the classics, I dutifully give my 7-year-old daughter’s ponytail the occasional tug. That incestuous confession should excite diverse madwomen from the Human Rights mob, Children’s Commission and Women’s Affairs, all utterly unnecessary agencies which greatly irritate everyone at the long-suffering taxpayer’s expense.

Laurie Penny went on to point out in Unspeakable Things, that “rebellion is always riskier when you are a girl” – after all, “sanity is socially determined”. Labelling women who stand up for human rights, who are unprepared to remain silent when they witness and endure injustice, discrimination, unfairness and yes, casual and structural sexism, as “madwomen” is a polemic argument and is drenched in coded sexism. Women who stand up for their rights and gender equality have been labelled as “mad” and “bad” throughout history.

Many of the Suffragettes were incarcerated, force feed when they went on hunger strikes following the refusal of Suffragettes to be regonised as political prisoners  – all because they demanded that women should have the democratic right to vote. In Victorian England when women “rebelled against Victorian domesticity, [they] risked being declared insane and committed to an asylum. This was usually at her husband’s or father’s request.” This is stated on the United Kingdom’s Science Museum website. And when Gregory Corso – a key member of the beat movement in the 1970s – was asked why there were so few women among what Laurie called “the half-mad, celebrated, drug taking, sexually experimental Beat writers of the 1950s ,” he responded,

There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. In the 50s if you were male you could rebel, but if you were female your families had you locked up.

Sir Bob Jones is a depressing example of just how far we have not come. He may believe that taxpayers do not want to pay for human, children’s, and women’s rights commissions and councils, but what I as a citizen of Aotearoa want more than anything is for my taxes to be spent on organisations and non-profits that hold those in power to account – that protect the disenfranchised, vulnerable, and the marginalised!

In times of economic hardship, I want my taxes to go to those struggling below the poverty line  (a group which is vastly overrepresented by our indigenous people, women and children) and to people who need welfare and a helping hand, not to sending troops to war or on a useless, expensive flag referendum. And perhaps most of all, I’d like my tax money to go towards funding media that is for and by the 99 percent. As Amy Goodman wrote, a media that “lets people speak for themselves”. Because if we can shift the conversation, we can begin to shift perception and that’s how change takes hold – the Occupy Movement is powerful proof of this. Although obviously that’s probably not something either Bob or John want happening.

I am sure Sir Bob Jones and the many other white male pundits such as Mike Hosking (who has also criticised Amanda Bailey for standing up to workplace injustice) would rather women sit down like good girls and do as they are told and never make a fuss about the horrific violence so many women face in this country. I am sure they would all rather we said nothing about unfair gender-based work discrimination and pay gaps, and for us not to call John Key out on his obviously sexist and harassing behaviour – because  speaking out against the powerful committing injustices against the powerless? Well, this is how power is kept in check. But if we, the silent majority, remain silent and do nothing, those who have power get to keep it, and they get to reign uninhibited.

In the words of Meret Oppenhiem, one of the few female Surrealists to make it into the history books, wrote, “Nobody gives you freedom, you have to take it”. And that’s the last thing the powerful want us to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Little: Zero Hour Slayer?

Yesterday The Labour Party posted this to their facebook:

11165263_10152867726236452_7104021548222066132_n

Hmmm.

Seriously? Labour thinks because Andrew Little called for an end to Zero Hour contracts, magically, hours later they are axed? Not even close. I understand Andrew’s claim only refers to ending Zero Hours in Parliament but, at the very least, this statement by the Labour Party is pretty misleading. Especially because it makes no reference to Unite Union‘s tireless efforts to roll back these brutal and unfair contracts or the brave service workers who spoke out against Zero Hours. Through their collective efforts they forced Carls Jr, Burger King, KFC, Starbucks and McDonalds into pledging they would end their use of Zero Hours.

Andrew Little may have only taken a mere few hours to end the use of Zero Hour contracts in parliament (9 workers have been subject to them in parliament) but his quick and fast victory was made so easy thanks to the grunt work of union delegates, activists and fast food workers on Zero Hour contracts who spoke out at great personal risk. The workers were often subject to their shifts being cut and bullying tactics by management for their bravery as shown in an email from a McDonald’s worker to Unite Union saying, “I am definitely against zero hour contracts at McDonald’s. I’ve been working there and I have literally struggled with my house expenses and the level of bullying was extreme.” A workers rights activist, said in response “Nothing like a victory [in parliament] to erase those that paid the price.”

It is worth remembering the words of historian Howard Zinn, who throughout his life called on us to focus our attention on, “the countless small actions of the unknown people, that are the foundation for those great moments that ultimately enter the historical record without the countless small actions of unknown people that created them.”

It took Andrew Little such a short space of time to win this victory against Zero Hour contracts because of the hundreds of hours that activists and union delegates had already put in to ending these contracts. Considering Andrew was a Trade Union official himself, it is disappointing he did not give credit where credit was due.

Labour needs to be reminded that landmark change comes from the bottom of the pyramid not the top. Colossal, long lasting change that benefits the political underclass – not the rich and powerful – will always come from the unknown people who speak truth to power, no matter the cost. They need to recognise and honour this. Not, ignore it and claim victories over Zero Hour contracts in Parliament without first pointing out what made this victory, possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RMTU may take a test case if MBIE doesn’t

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

The government must seek a definitive answer on whether Chinese engineers working on KiwiRail’s locomotives are covered under New Zealand employment law says Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) General Secretary Wayne Butson.

“Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woodhouse must do more than seek a general answer. Allegations of exploitation demand more than a shrug of the shoulders and tentative legal advice”.

In 2014 Trevor Mallard revealed allegations of exploitation of Chinese engineers working under warranty on KiwiRail’s imported locomotives. A Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) investigation found the allegations could not be substantiated, but the investigators did not view wage records before coming to their conclusions.

“The Minister and MBIE have conducted a shoddy investigation and have now delivered inadequate legal advice. To say that foreign workers working under warranty are probably not covered by New Zealand employment law is not good enough” says Wayne Butson.

“This means that workers with an employment agreement in a foreign jurisdiction who are under contract to do work in New Zealand can do a local job without basic New Zealand legal protections like the minimum wage”.

“The government then has no powers to sight wages or timesheet records and then order compliance. How is this an acceptable situation” asks Wayne Butson.

“If the government does not move to fully clarify the legal status of foreign workers then the RMTU may have to consider taking a test case”.

Asbestos ban for Workers’ Memorial Day

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

Rail and maritime transport workers call for asbestos ban

Workers’ Memorial Day is the perfect time to consider an asbestos ban says Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) General Secretary Wayne Butson.

“The RMTU and its members are joining unions around the world to remember and mourn those who have lost their lives in the workplace”.

April 28 is International Workers’ Memorial Day.

“The RMTU and its members are committed to removing hazardous substances from the workplace and we are calling on the government to make a similar commitment” says Wayne Butson.

“Our theme for this year’s memorial day is an asbestos ban”.

“A recent report urged the government to consider banning the importation and use of asbestos in New Zealand. Almost every week RMTU members find new containments of asbestos in their workplaces” says Wayne Butson.

“This has to stop, but it cannot while the government continues to allow the importation of products containing asbestos”.

“Workers should not have to work in buildings and vehicles that contain asbestos. It’s 2015 – much of the developed world has removed this risk by banning asbestos” says Wayne Butson.

“RMTU members feel very strongly about this issue and Workers’ Memorial Day because our union has suffered a terrible losses of life within the rail and port industries.”

Actions across the country: the RMTU will hold large ceremonies at noon at the Dunedin, Napier, Christchurch and Lower Hutt rail workshops. All trains will be stopping for one minute at midday with suitable public announcements being made on passenger trains to explain the train stoppings.

KiwiRail can’t outsource responsibility

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

The government must guarantee New Zealanders that Chinese engineers working on KiwiRail’s locomotives are at least receiving the minimum wage says Rail and Maritime Transport Union spokesperson Todd Valster.

“Last year the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment launched an investigation into allegations that Chinese workers at the Hutt Railway Workshops were being paid as little as $3 an hour”.

“Yet the investigation hit a dead end. It has been revealed that the company undertaking warranty work on KiwiRail’s new locomotives – China CNR Corporation – refused to surrender its wage records to New Zealand authorities” says Todd Valster.

“KiwiRail’s Chinese-built locomotives needed warranty work because the manufacturers had used asbestos in the engine rooms and cabs”.

“This situation would not have happened if KiwiRail commissioned locally assembled locomotives. Building and assembling locomotives could have happened at KiwiRail’s Hutt Workshops” says Todd Valster.

“Outsourcing must stop. Will the CEO of KiwiRail and the Minister of Transport outsource their jobs next or buy asbestos riddled cars” asks Todd Valster.

“The Chinese engineers are doing warranty work, but that should not mean KiwiRail can avoid its responsibility to ensure compliance with New Zealand wage standards. It is a repeat of the foreign fishing vessels and the exploitation of migrant workers.

All companies and all employees working in New Zealand must be covered under New Zealand’s labour laws. The RMTU is calling for a new investigation with greater powers” says Todd Valster.

“For the bullied and the beautiful”: why bullying is a big deal

“Was this the nastiest X Factor judge response ever?”

Yeah. It probably was.

When X-Factor judge Natalia Kills, backed up by her hubby Willy Moon, harshly criticised the contestant Joe Irvine a few weeks back, social media exploded with criticism and the evening news in Aotearoa was dominated by Natalia’s actions. Many accused Natalia of engaging in bullying behaviour, and by all accounts those accusations where correct. I cringed as I watched this judge’s tirade against Joe, as an artist and writer it was painful to watch another creative being destroyed in public because I know just how devastating those attacks can be.  Even Simon Cowell recently responded to Natalia Kills’ public attack by calling her “mad” and “hateful” and saying he did not think anyone had gone that far on a reality talent show before. Y’all know it is bad when, even Simon Cowell, the original “Mr. Nasty” thinks what Natalie said was pushing it.

Many people, including our own blogger Martyn Bradbury and many on my Facebook feed have rightfully pointed out that there are far worse things to get upset about than some pompous pop stars bullying and humiliating someone on national television and, of course they are right. At least in the grand scheme of things: the 280,000 kids living in desperate poverty in Aotearoa, the fact we are sending troops to war (again!!!), the brutal attacks on workers rights and the devastating effects of climate change. I’ve written about all of these things, marched against them, protested and spoken out against these injustices and human rights violations, but I also know what it feels like to be bullied and humiliated – both privately and publicly. To have my writing and art ripped apart for no other reason than some shit person decided I was fair game, and it was my turn to be their punching bag. It sucks. A lot!

If you have never been bullied badly, maybe what happened on X-Factor is no big deal to you? Maybe witnessing the artists Natalia Kills and Willy Moon, who have since been sacked by Mediaworks and have returned to L.A, abuse their position of power as judges on X-Factor by verbally assaulting a contestant in a tirade of meanness and accusations of copying  Moon’s style (because, apparently wearing a suit with slicked back hair is super original), didn’t affect you. However, if you have been bullied you know how it can make you feel worthless and like giving up – it can take away your hope. If bullying becomes bad enough it can even take away your will to live.

Whether you think what happened on X-Factor was worthy of the relentless air time it got or not, what is important to note is, Natalia and Willy’s actions speak to a wider culture of bullying in this country. Some of the backlash in response to their actions on social media is evidence of this wider culture. While some used social media to hold these two pop stars who behaved so poorly accountable, it was also used widely with glee by people to ‘take them [Willy and Natalia] down’ reported Catalogue Magazine. Some people even told Natalia to “go kill herself.” Using abusive (cyber) bullying tactics to counter bullying behaviour is a bit of oxymoron – and it is abuse. After all hurt people hurt people, and meeting Natalia’s bullying words with more bullying simply perpetuates the cycle.

natalie kills

So for anyone who thinks what these two did was blown out of proportion, I have to disagree. And this is why:

Every day a large minority of young people and kids are going to school hoping to god they make it through the day without being verbally assaulted, kicked, punched and alienated by their own peers.  My nephew has a stutter, he is 6 years old and he gets teased by one boy at his school who cruelly mimics his stutter in-front of other kids. The acclaimed spoken word poet and anti-bullying activist Shane Koyczan cites in his book, ‘To This Day’ which is based on his poem of the same name, that “85 percent of bullying happens while other kids are watching.” Last year a group of girls followed my nephew around and engaged in similar bullying tactics. My nephew who takes after me in that he never shuts up, now tries hard to avoid speaking. Bullying can devastate self-confidence.

Many in Aotearoa are yet to wake up to, or care about, the desperate poverty hundreds of thousands are living in, but so often we ignore bullying just as we ignore poverty, just as we ignore the effects of climate change.  Whether we turn a blind-eye to bullying in the work-place or the school ground or wherever, bullies often get away with it because we let them. Because we are scared if we step up and step in, they might turn their venom on to us.  Koyczan in his book also points out that “bullying will usually stop within 10 seconds if someone steps in to help the victim.”

For some reason thousands in Aotearoa stood up to bullying a few weeks ago, utilising social media to express their outrage. Maybe this public display of intolerance to bullying (those who used bullying tactics to express their disgust not included) helped to give some kid who is being relentlessly picked on at school a little bit of hope? School zones are battle zones for some kids  I think if you told any child, my nephew included, who is surviving bullying that “it is no big deal and there are bigger issues to worry about such as poverty”, they might tell you it really, really is a big deal to them. They might even tell you they don’t want to live in this world anymore. Heartbreaking.

Laurie Penny wrote last year for the Guardian “there has been a chilling surge in suicide attempts among [young] people with their entire lives still to live, many of them linked to bullying.” Shane Koyczan, the spoken word poet I mentioned before spent most of his childhood being bullied, suffering relentless put-downs and name calling and physical violence by his peers, which ultimately drove him to contemplate suicide. His anti-bullying poem, ‘To This Day’ speaks to the profound and detrimental long lasting damage bullying has on the individual. He wrote:

we weren’t the only kids who grew up this way
to this day
kids are still being called names
the classics were
hey stupid
hey spaz
seems like each school has an arsenal of names
getting updated every year
and if a kid breaks in a school
and no one around chooses to hear
do they make a sound?
are they just the background noise
of a soundtrack stuck on repeat
when people say things like
kids can be cruel?//

‘Kids can be cruel’, is often said in an attempt to brush off bullying as if it is a childhood rite of passage, as if it is something we should expect and acccept. Yeah, ‘Kids can be cruel’ but so often nothing is done about the cruelty being committed and because of this, this cruelty often creeps insidiously into adulthood as the X Factor case has evidenced.  Cruelty often goes unchecked, therefore being sanctioned by default.

Most commonly bullying that impacts adults happens in the workplace. Bill Bradford, a Lawyer who works for First Union recently reported “There’s actually an epidemic of workplace bullying in this country.” From the school ground to the work place bullying is a massive social problem in this country.  A 2012 study by the Work Research Institute at AUT University found almost one in five New Zealanders had experienced workplace bullying. In the school playground Koyczan suggests “1 in 7 kids has either been the victim of bullying or a bully.”

Statistically, bullying gets worse with age.

Just recently protesters picketed Pak’N’Save Rotorua in response to workers speaking out about a climate of intimation. Bill Bradford reported “More than 70 staff had recently joined the union and when a list of members was sent to management ahead of a meeting under the Employment Relations Act, the owner and his management team responded with a campaign of bullying and intimidation.”

So often when kids are the targets of bullies we tell them to “stand up to the bully” (which is a terrifying request if you think about it) and we tell adults who are being bullied to “grow a rhino skin” or use some clinched positive affirmation like “chin up”, these are all a thinly veiled form of victim blaming no matter how well meaning and unaware the gesture might be. We are simply minimising for our own comfort. Thus, telling people who speak out about being bullied that there are bigger problems in the world like poverty (because other people have it so much worse), amounts to minimising langauge.

Telling someone who is surviving abuse – and bullying is a form of abuse and violence – to, “toughen up” or to “harden up” isn’t helpful. The person who is surviving bullying should not have to change their behaviour or reactions to bullying, it is the person engaging in bullying behaviour who needs to be constructively challenged and told to change their behaviour. They are the ones who need to be told to be “more compassionate”, so often our society has it  terribly backwards in response to bullying.

Whether it is politicians, such as National’s Paula Bennett, bullying their own citizens who are living in poverty through welfare cuts and poverty shaming rhetoric, managers belittling their staff members and intimidating them, kids in our school grounds surviving relentless torment by their own peers, or two pop stars ganging up and verbally abusing a contestant on some talent show, ultimately all of these types of behaviour (regardless of the context) are designed to humiliate and dehumanise. It all matters. We should give a shit about bullying, and put our collective energy into eliminating it everywhere it exists, from the playground to the workplace, to parliament.

KiwiRail fails the sustainability test

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

KiwiRail is failing to fulfil its environmental obligations says Rail and Maritime Transport Union General Secretary Wayne Butson.

“KiwiRail is considering replacement options for its electric fleet operating on the Hamilton to Palmerston North line. Yet one of the options under consideration is replacing electric locomotives with diesel locomotives”.

“KiwiRail is considering an option which will take the company and the country backwards” says Wayne Butson.

“Mighty River Power is planning to convert 70 percent of its fleet to electric or hybrid vehicles. This is a positive move for the country, the company and its workers. Meanwhile KiwiRail is considering converting its electric fleet to a fossil fuel fleet”.

“There need to be clear sustainability guidelines for public companies. The sole consideration should never be profit. KiwiRail owes it to the country and its workers to rule out diesel locomotives over electric locomotives” says Wayne Butson.

On workers rights and hypocrisy

walker-recall-workers-rights-sign-matt-schilder-630x400

I’m at a Café in Howick, Auckland where the Barista just lost it, he smashed glasses on the ground, threw the part that filters the coffee grounds on the floor and stormed out. I chased after this guy and asked him if he was O.K? He said,

“Nah, I am sick of being paid nothing to be a coffee making machine.” And then he walked off.

You know what is not cool? Employers who make heaps of money off the blood, sweat and tears of their employees while paying them poverty wages and treating them as expendable. I am starting to wonder how owners who treat staff so poorly sleep at night.  I have watched the owner of the same café, which also has a bar attached to it, swoon around his establishment while his bartender works her ass off on a Friday evening, not only making drinks for, mostly, baby boomers in boat shoes and salmon coloured polo-shirts (I’m serious, not even making that up for comedic effect) but also doing bar back, clearing the floor and restocking by herself. All because, as this bartender pointed out to me, the owner refuses to hire an extra bartender/glassy for busy periods so he can save a buck. The owner only pays this bartender just over 16 bucks an hour she told me, to literally do two peoples’ jobs.

How mean spirited do you have to be, to work your staff this hard and give them so little thanks in return? How divorced from reality and humanity do you have to be to then expect your workers (and employers who operate in such callous and unaware ways, always expect you to lick their asses. I know, I have worked hospo for nine  years now) to be grateful for their measly pay check?  Get fucked. You get what you pay for. The sad thing is, that barista who justifiably lost it today because he had clearly just had enough, will likely receive a warning or get fired for his outburst. When it SHOULD be the other way around.

What is the point in serving fairtrade coffee, as this café/bar in Howick does, and promoting other tokenistic gestures such as serving free range eggs and chicken, if you can’t even treat your own staff, fairly? I guess, serving fairtrade coffee in affluent areas gets customers in but paying a fair wage and treating your staff with a bit of dignity doesn’t seem to make much economic sense to so many employers that cater to the mostly rich and well-off, Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen.

Workers rights all over Aotearoa and globally are being relentlessly attacked and undermined.  Furthermore, it is not only hospitality workers who are enduring poor treatment and work place injustice. Just recently the massive fast fashion giant Cotton On, become the first company (that actually got publicly caught out) in Aotearoa to attempt to use National’s callous ‘Tea Break’ bill against their distribution workers, “which takes away the legal right to a tea break and weakens collective bargaining,” as the NZ Herald reported last year. On March the 21 Cotton On, made the embarrassing mistake of posting about ‘Human Rights Day’ on their Facebook Page (the post has since been deleted):

cotton on 2

That awkward moment when a company that outsources the production of their  merchandise to Bangladesh because as Daisy Gardener, Oxfam‘s labour rights advocacy co-ordinator points out, “They are seeking the absolute lowest price from supplier factories and they’ll find that in Bangladesh,” and who attempted to seriously undermine their workers’ rights in Aotearoa, wishes their Facebook followers ‘Happy Human Rights Day.’  The social media backlash was swift with a many people commenting on the hypocrisy of the Facebook post:

cotton on 5

Cotton On, due to social media pressure, and pressure from FIRST Union and their own employees, backed down from taking away their distribution staff’s Tea-breaks, and improvements have been made to wages.  However, as Redline reported, the damage has already been done. Just like hospitality businesses that push fairtrade coffee while treating staff poorly (I once worked at a Café in Melbourne that paid me less than the Australian hospitality minimum wage while promoting ‘suspend fairtrade coffees’ so homeless people or low wage earners could enjoy a free coffee. Seriously. WTF?), Cotton On paints themselves as some human rights crusading company – without irony – while at the same time proposing an attack on their own workers’ rights. Not only this, but since March the 6 the ‘Cotton On Foundation’ which seems to suffer from a serious case of ‘white saviour industrial complex, has been promoting their ‘Necklaces That Sprinkle Happiness Along The Way’ campaign. If you purchase one of these necklaces of “joy” and “hope” 100% of the proceeds go to “their friends in southern Uganda” as their website states.

So while Cotton On benefit from slave labour in sweat shops in Bangladesh which have notoriously sub-human and sometimes deadly work conditions, which have been extensively documented and reported on, they are promoting their human rights efforts in Southern Uganda? What one hand gives, the other takes away.

Maybe Cotton On should spread a little “happiness” on their own employees by, oh I don’t know, treating them as actual human beings rather than as a resource to be exploited? Just an idea.

It would seem independently owned businesses such as the Café I spoke about at the start of this blog as well as massive global companies like Cotton On are pretty good at  distracting (smoke and mirrors) from their own workers’ rights violations by trotting out some human rights mission or pedalling fairtrade, free range produce. Then there are the business owners who don’t even try to mask their blatant disregard for workers’ rights violations, they are seemingly proud of them. ‘Cos LOL worker’s rights.

Rayner Bonnington* owns the Henderson Pak’N’Save and pays the lowest of all the unionised Pak’n’Saves in Auckland. As FIRST Union points out “Even the minimum wage has increased by 50 cents an hour this year but Rayner has offered his workers a measly 32 cents an hour pay rise.” While Rayner makes millions annually, he pays his workers a pathetic wage that does not cover the basic necessities of life; a liveable wage in Aotearoa is $19.25 an hour. Trying to pay the bills, buy food and pay the rent or mortgage is unmanageable on minimum wage, I know as I have rarely ever earnt anything above this. At 29, typing that was truly fucking depressing.

What all of this comes down to is, greed. Companies can, and will (as the café in Howick, the treatment of workers by owners of independent Pak’n’Save’s and Cotton On are all evidence of) treat their workers as expendable and ultimately worthless. After all, workers are a resource to be exploited and replaced by someone else when they make a fuss or do not work hard enough for their pittance. It is a harsh and cruel reality in a flooded job market that finding other people willing to put up with horrible work conditions and shit pay isn’t exactly difficult. People are desperate for work.

Capitalism creates so many casualties.

So, dear companies and independent business owners who champion human rights and fairtrade coffee and organic produce and free range eggs like you actually give a damn, while at the same time exploiting your workers and extracting everything you can from them for your own profit and benefit, stop with the hypocrisy. Start actually treating the staff you currently have, not as a resource to be used up and spat out but as actual human beings with dreams to achieve and bills to pay. Because as the ongoing pickets outside of Pak’n’Save, the social media backlash against Cotton On and the three letters I have written to tell the owner of said café in Howick what a terrible human being I think he is, it is pretty clear the general public are unwilling to except such work place injustices.

*”Please help these workers by contacting Rayner Bonnington and send him a message that his workers who are making him rich deserve a reasoble wage.  Mobile: 021 820 593″ 

 

Labour: towards an MMP strategy

11

Andrew Little’s lightly veiled messages to Labour voters to send a clear message to the government in last weekend’s by-election was the long anticipated entry of the Party into understanding the MMP environment. Prior to the last election there were all sorts of swirling possibilities of how people could be encouraged to vote in Auckland Central, Ohariu, Te Tai Tokerau and Epsom, all in the name of sending the government a clear message. The Epsom example was with regard to the by-election and getting Labour and Green voters to vote Goldsmith to keep ACT out. The message wasn’t picked up by the Left, many of who just couldn’t bring themselves to voting National.

But last weekend, NZ First romped home and the Key government got the message – that the people of the north weren’t going to be taken for granted and left out of important decisions any longer. Whilst I wished it was a more left-leaning candidate that took the seat, understanding the bigger picture means that I can breathe a tiny bit easier with National’s humiliating loss. In fact, I believe that there have been more announcements for the Northland electorate in the past month than there has been in a number of decades. Having no sitting MP seemed to do them quite a bit of good!

For me though, the best result for the Left was seeing the Labour Party accept and embrace that we needed to vote strategically. The mainstream media and ‘stuck’ political commentators continue to frame the discussion in FPP terms and both neglect and scare the electorate into thinking that it’s one party or another. This was definitely National’s strategy when their messaging changed from a big spend-up in the North, to fear that Winston wouldn’t support them on RMA reform. The beauty of MMP is that it allows a number of views and persuasions to be represented when votes are cast. Scaremongering people into believing that Labour and the Greens can’t come up with decent financial policy is the way you push the electorate into the old FPP thinking. So whilst I would have preferred the protest vote to have gone to Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime, I accept that for this time, the strategy had to be weakening the government.

So I formally welcome Labour and its strategists to the realm of positive, strategic thinking in the modern MMP era. I know it’s a tough transition to make, but the signals I picked up from the by-election were promising. Congratulations Little and Haworth for doing what’s needed to happen for almost two decades – getting our thinking and actions in line with the current electoral system. The Pacific community and young people have all worked it out and I’m excited by the prospects this now poses for the Party that I believe best represents my people. The challenge now, is to maintain this level of resolve.

RMTU: Government closes door on local businesses

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

New Zealanders will not get a say on the government’s decision to ratify an international agreement which removes the right to protect local jobs, says Rail and Maritime Transport Union General Secretary Wayne Butson.

“The government is preparing to assent to the Government Procurement Agreement, a World Trade Organisation Treaty which opens up New Zealand Government contracts to foreign companies and closes the door on local businesses and their workers. However the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee is refusing to take public submissions on the decision” says Mr Butson.

“The government knows New Zealanders are opposed to international treaties which remove our right to protect local jobs. That is why the select committee is refusing to take public submissions”.

“Steven Joyce and Tim Groser are claiming the agreement is a win for exporters because overseas governments cannot favour their local companies over New Zealand companies. But the catch is that our government cannot favour local companies for its contracts” says Mr Butson.

“The real winners are overseas companies like Serco who will continue to muscle their way into more New Zealand government contracts. The losers are local businesses who supply government companies like KiwiRail. If our government favours local companies and local workers then overseas companies can take action in the World Trade Organisation”.

“The chances of resurrecting Hillside Engineering in Dunedin are minimal. The chances of other local engineering companies getting a look in for future government contracts are just as grim. Multinationals and major conglomerates will be rubbing their hands together knowing the government will soon remove its own right to protect local jobs” says Mr Butson.