Monday, July 19, 2010

Emotive reporting

We're guessing that Yvonne Tahana and Edward Gay from the NZ Herald are card-carrying members of the EPMU, the union which represents journalists. On what do we base that? Have a read of this:

Unions will hold a war council this week to decide how to fight sweeping changes to employment laws.

The move comes after protesters stormed security and police cordons outside the National Party's annual conference at the SkyCity Grand Hotel in Auckland yesterday.

They entered the hotel shouting slogans against the Government's changes, which include making it easier to fire workers, extending the 90-day trial for new staff and tightening union access to workplaces.

Note to Yvonne and Edward; emotive reporting strips away the news value of the story. To begin by saying that "Unions will hold a war council" is emotive, and hyperbolic in our always-humble opinion. Sure, the unions will meet and map out a protest strategy, but WAR? Give us a break. War was what wounded our grandfather at Gallipoli. War was the horror that our father endured in North Africa, Crete and Greece.

Unions protesting a government policy is not "war", and to describe it as such insults those who truly went to war to fight for the freedoms we enjoy today. One of those freedoms is, of course, the freedom to engage in peaceful protest, within the law.

Yesterday's protest by unions and left-wing activists was neither peaceful nor within the law. That it is endorsed by journalists with a union agenda is doubly ironic. The union movement had nine years of union-friendly government to advance its agenda. The National-led government is merely redressing the balance to make employing staff less of a minefield.

And let's face it; if there weren't employers prepared to put their own butts on the line and employ staff, there'd be no need for unions. Perhaps, when they hold their plan-the-next-protest meetings, the unions might care to reflect on just what they wish for!


James Stephenson said...

"Sweeping changes"...really? Extending a provision from one sector of employers to all of them and a couple of other bits of tinkering and it's "sweeping changes"? FFS over at the (sub)Standard it's "Class War".

On the evidence of the level of Union outrage versus reality of government policy, these idiots would likely hyperventilate themselves to death if presented with actual significant change.

Mr Key, can we experiment with that please?

Anonymous said...

no more emotive than the war on drugs. individual rights need to extend to all areas of life.

Anonymous said...

To begin by saying that "Unions will hold a war council" is emotive, and hyperbolic in our always-humble opinion. Sure, the unions will meet and map out a protest strategy, but WAR?

The disproportionate language matches the unions' reaction to quite reasonable adjustments to employment law.


alex Masterely said...

The reporting and the protest was all noise and bright lights, but nothing of substance.

And they got the wrong venue for the protest.

You would think that McCarten Minto and Unite whose members include staff at Sky City would be aware of the existence of the convention centre. Noddies.

I can't see this issue getting much traction except among the extreme left. Why? Because the floating voter in the street will see the involvment of those tired old campaigners Minto and Bradford in the protest, will think "tossers ", simply shrug and get on with things.

For the floating voter the tweaks being made by the Nats to the employment laws will not be a die in a ditch issue as the left would wish them to be.

If anything the emotive language being used by some will simply increase the acceptance of the changes as being good for the country.

Anonymous said...

I've been an employee and I am currently an employer. There is no doubt at all that workers get shafted. Personally, I reject this policy, though am a supporter of the government overall. There is no quicker way to driving a wedge between the haves and have-nots than by giving more power to wealthy business owners. And don't argue that business owners aren't wealthy. We are. That is why we run businesses instead of working for someone. Cheers, Sebastian.

pdm said...

Sebastian - 70% at least of New Zealand business owners would be better off working for someone else. I suspect that it was as a `worker' that you created your supposed wealth.

My niece is a business owner. The business survives because her moth (my sister in law) subsidises the business every month. My sister in law (aged 70) and her late husband were `workers' all of their lives.

pdm said...

Oops line 2 second para.

moth should be mother.

Anonymous said...

@PDM where do you get your 70% figure from??? Your dreams I should think. Also, your niece should get out of business. That sounds unsustainable. I created my wealth through business, not on a salary. But that was a goal of mine. It is not for everyone so therefore waged workers should be treated very well. Good-oh, Sebastian.