Hard News: A news site where you can find the news!
113 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Something here Bear in mind Yoof will be dealt with differently soon as National has stated.I am pretty sure 13 weeks if you cant say why you lost your job, which the new law will create.
-
It's not primarily people on stinking fast fibre or DSL
And let's not forget the shift to mobile browsing...
-
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. Resignations and firings mean you're stood down for 13 weeks.
And the fact that under 25s have to live on $165 rather than $199. Cause, y'know, rent, bills and food is cheaper when you're 24.
-
And Cheeses almighty, $3000.00 fine if your kid isn't enrolled in school. $300.00 to start, then $3000.00 if you don't do as you're told. What if you just get here, want to check out the choice of schools?Time is definitely of the essence. Will be Law by Saturday. F*#kn Hell :(
-
$3000.00 fine if your kid isn't enrolled in school.
Does that outlaw homeschooling then?
-
Does that outlaw homeschooling then?
Or correspondence? Tolley says consultation will happen after the law is passed so in answer to your question, you will have to ask her next week.
-
Tolley, Minister of Education.....asked"What does a Vice -chancellor do?"Tolley, What does a dictionary do?
-
13 weeks stand down for unemployment
Bloody hell! Is there a source for that?
If you resign, or get fired for misconduct, s60H of the Social Security Act 1964 mandates a 13-week stand-down period before payment of a benefit may commence. It's mandatory in the case of resignation, but discretionary in the case of termination.
So it's possible that it'd apply in the case of employees terminated out of a trial period. I'm sure the lawyers will have fun arguing it.
-
I'm sure the lawyers will have fun arguing it.
Which Lawyers? The ones on the front bench of the National party, the middle bench or the back bench?, or the ones representing the unemployed, (oh that's right they wont exist) and meanwhile, just hope you are not 17. This sux already and it's only day 3.
-
Whereupon they form their own micro-party, convince the voters of Stupidville to keep electing them despite their having left the Nats/Labour, get a nice job as Minister-outside-Cabinet and allow their ignorant pomposity to reach whole new levels.
I'm sure there's a TV comedy in that...
-
BTW, if you want to see the rest of the bills National has been tryign to keep secret, the Greens have put them up here.
-
Look on the bright side of the fire-at-will legislation:
It has irrevocably branded National as a bunch of worker hating, arrogant forget nothing learn nothing charlatans, and it has gifted Labour three years of media friendly fodder of tales of outrageously unfair dismissals, forced sexual relationships and the whole range of human interest stories so beloved by Close-Up, Campbell Live, etc etc.
Drip-Drip-Drip...
-
This Education Bill has huge implications and it is crazy not to put it through the scrutiny of a select committee. One result is that is going to make it very hard for parents of children who are school refusers or school phobics. Watch out parents of kids with autism - they will be open to prosecution if their kids can't cope with all the stress of school and refuse to go.
Kids with special educational needs and their parents better get ready for the humiliation of having their potentially poor achievement against inappropriate 'national' standards made public.
-
Ozstralian cheese! I 'spose I could support the packers but I'd rather buy some good NZ stuff.
Yeah I wonder how 'Coon' cheese would go down here. It's not like Coonawarra is that hard to say.
Re the Nats playing hardball: If they have been on honeymoon, then is this analogous to the first time they hit their wife? It could just be a little slap, but it sets the tone. Will the wife take it?
Polls could answer the question. They'll certainly hint at exactly how clearly it was conveyed to the electorate that this kind of thing was what they were going to get. Could make for surprising results. Wouldn't want to pick it to be honest, since I couldn't find much to agree with in all the arguments folks put to me about why I should vote National - my intuitions must be sharply awry with a large chunk of NZers. Maybe middle NZ does want tougher workplaces, and more difficult bail conditions. I guess we'll have to see when the first among them gets laid off by the recession and has to undergo a stand-down and a long job probation.
-
Re the Nats playing hardball: If they have been on honeymoon, then is this analogous to the first time they hit their wife? It could just be a little slap, but it sets the tone. Will the wife take it?
No, Ben. Just no.
-
No, Ben. Just no.
I think I'll wait to see what the wife says. Maybe they think it will just be this once...
-
One result is that is going to make it very hard for parents of children who are school refusers or school phobics. Watch out parents of kids with autism - they will be open to prosecution if their kids can't cope with all the stress of school and refuse to go.
This is horrifying actually. So when the kids just say "No, not going" what then? Those supernanny tactics of reward/punishment, timeout, withdrawal of privileges etc just don't work with adolescents who are determined not to go. Especially when those adolescents are AS, social phobics, depressives. It is not Bad Parenting.
And what are they going to do when a parent can't or won't pay a fine? throw them in jail? Who's going to take junior to school then?
Perhaps they'll put all these kids onto Correspondence School - too bad if both parents are at work and it is illegal to leave them home alone if they're under 14. But of course - I'm forgetting - Boot Camp.
-
Can't believe they've used Flash. Who advises these people?
Not that it matters to me. I get a message saying "This is video is for New Zealand viewers only." I still consider myself a New Zealander but there you go.
-
I'm beginning to think I'm stupid but I cannot find a link to an RSS feed anywhere on the tv nz site. I have looked at the page that talks about feeds and it mentions RSS logos being on various pages but I go to those pages and there are no RSS logos anywhere. Mind you, this is what I get on the page that tells me how to subscribe to an RSS feed:
You will find the orange RSS logo featured across the TVNZ websites. If you want to keep up-to-date with the latest politics headlines from ONE News for example, you'll find a RSS logo next to Headlines on the ONE News Politics section.
You can subscribe to an RSS feed by:
AdvertisementTVNZ Yahoo Headlines Widget
Click here to download the free Yahoo! Widget Engine
Then
Click here to install the TVNZ Headlines Widget
That's it.
Can anyone enlighten me?
-
This Education Bill has huge implications and it is crazy not to put it through the scrutiny of a select committee. One result is that is going to make it very hard for parents of children who are school refusers or school phobics. Watch out parents of kids with autism - they will be open to prosecution if their kids can't cope with all the stress of school and refuse to go.
Because it's not like the system is suddenly going to start offering real options to those families. And frankly, it's not that hard to be declared truant in these circumstances.
It's basically outrageous that something like this doesn't go through a select committee.
-
I get a message saying "This is video is for New Zealand viewers only." I still consider myself a New Zealander but there you go.
Well, New Zealand viewer is not the same as New Zealander, you've got to give them that. Although on the old site I used to be told routinely that I wasn't a New Zealand viewer, in spite of the fact that I was. Haven't bothered to check the new one on the account of the Flash thing.
It's basically outrageous that something like this doesn't go through a select committee.
Makes for a lovely headline pushing the buttons of just the right people, and the Herald (online edition - but I'm not into giving them money) dutifully opens today with "Truancy Parents Face Fine of $3,000".
The logic of punishing economically families that we already know to be under financial stress escapes me, but there you go.
-
I heard some of the debate on the 90-day bill, and recall the point was strongly made that the 13-week stand-down won't apply if you are terminated within the trial period. "To enourage beneficiaries to take the risk", or some-such phrasing.
-
it's not like the system is suddenly going to start offering real options to those families
And that's the crux of my and Hilary's recent posts on the Attitude thread - unless the actual resources and political context are acknowledged, calls for more "personal responsibillity" or an excessively individualised focus are just making complex problems worse, and usually for those with the least power. This should come as no surprise.
-
Watch out parents of kids with autism - they will be open to prosecution if their kids can't cope with all the stress of school and refuse to go.
Or for parent's who can't get a school to take their child --- one of the families at our playcenter has an older son with AS, he's been going to a private catholic school in our area, but they can no longer afford to pay the huge tuition fees and have been trying to find a school to enrol him in. One local principal stated flat out that he doesn't want any special needs kids at his school because they cost too much money. What's amazing is that this is not a minority position amongst the schools in our area - and all the schools in our area are decile one schools.
-
I watched a bit of the fire-at-will debate last night and both Lianne Dalziell and Sue Bradford raised substantial fishhooks in the space of minutes - which would normally be dealt with during the select committee stages. They generously characterised those problems as unintentional, but again it's hardly a surprise that abuse of process produces deficient results, is it?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.