Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Is no one going to mention underarm bowling then?
I was hoping not, but you ruined it...
-
Possibly due to the fact that depiction of urophilia is specifically illegal in New Zealand.
The films, videos and publications classification act doesn't apply to television. Which isn't to say there wouldn't be a broadcasting standards breach, but you can't go so far as to say the depiction is specifically illegal on New Zealand television.
-
The unwritten laws of sport add another layer to the rich tapestry of sport. It's another way in which today's players and fans are connected to the history of the game.
Stuff carries a bit of a discussion (cribbed from the SMH), listing a few that have, and do exist.
Those who speak against unwritten rules aren't really suggesting that a fielding team should run out an injured batsman short of his line, are they? And is the practice of dribbling out the clock really that offensive?
That said, we shouldn't get too precious. Apparently, there is an unwritten rule against Mankading someone in cricket. Don Bradman had this to say in his autobiography about the controversial incident where Vinoo Mankad gave his name to the history of the sport:
For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the nonstriker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the nonstriker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.
-
All jobs are subject to the Minimum Wage Act; I do not accept that a rise in the minimum wage affects all workers, or even all employers.
But then I am ANAL.
:-)
-
Yes, you could equally say that Labour was re-elected twice after having abolished it.
I could.
That too would support my argument that it wasn't a particularly big deal.
And Graeme, labour laws need to be crafted to protect those who have the least power to bargain. That would be who, exactly? Ah, that's right, those "semi- or un-skilled workers" who are the ones in the worst position to try and bargain away a trial period, the ones with the least job security to start with, and the ones most likely to be employed by exploitative employers.
A wonderful argument. But given that my argument was the Russell was wrong to state that this would affect every one of the 400,000 NZers who start a new job each year, I'm not sure where it gets you.
Indeed, you help make my point with this argument: there are plenty of good arguments that can be arrayed against 90-day probation periods, and against the extension of 90-day probation periods, without needing to oversell its effect.
-
the ECA went down like a cup of cold sick, yet they insist on bringing aspects of it back again, in effect.
That's a nice theory, but National won two elections after passing the ECA so it may not have been a big deal for as many people as you assume.
-
I think that making the eligibility for the period universal will tend to make its application nearly so.
Just like the minimum wage?
-
That's just hilarious.
...
That's just hilarious.I fail to see why. I know a number of people who shifted into new jobs, now working for employers who employ fewer than 20 staff over the last year or so. Not one has had a 90-day trial imposed.
Will most new employees? Perhaps. Will many more semi- or un-skilled workers? Probably. But it will not apply to everyone? Clearly and obviously not.
-
where it will affect an estimated 400,000 employees annually (that's the number changing or moving into jobs)
You're missing the words "up to". This isn't compulsory. And you implicitly point out, if employers want the best skilled staff, those who insist on probation periods are less likely to find them.
The polite way of putting it would be that it's the government looking after its core constituency, at the expense of others.
Except that "employees manifestly outnumber employers in the economy". National will get many many more votes from employees than it does from employers.
-
Since when did baseball count as a major world sport, but not cricket?
1992.