Key unveils redundancy package

this is crap!! my partner has been employed with same employer for 9years and gets a redundacy of $2,600 bloody crap and plus the package offered from Mr Keys is not worth it at all!!!

big increase with the unemployment!!! i thought they were to avoid it. Well i would like to thank him for the stress and depression which will be in alot of peoples homes this month, especially mine!!!

Getting made redundant because of an illness which had occurred earlier this year is not encouraging other employers to hire & if we were to dispute this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ being unemployed doesnt paid the court & solicitor fees!

I got made redundant. I don't have kids. I'm single. And I don't get an accommodation supplement. I'm still waiting 10 weeks later for the unemployment benefit. Why give to some and not to others.

Sorry, Cordz.

When I posted above I had not read your second post.

I have worked in both a "unionised" and a "non-unionised" environment, and in some cases the latter was quite a large employer.

What happens in some environments is that an informal situation exists. Two people would be doing exactly the same work, but the "boss" would know that one had a family to support. The outcome would be that, although both would be doing the same work one was paid more than the other - and it was informal/unstructured/indiscriminate - relying on the sentiments of the individual employer.

Personally, I would prefer that things are organised. I prefer that there is an equitable reward system based on the individual's productivity and then there is a structured transfer system (taxation system) which fairly and uniformly redistributes income with the intention of creating community and a robust society.

Lower taxes is the simple answer to everything, isn't it Cordz?

Lower taxes, and those with kids would be able to pay for their education without there being state schools.

Lower taxes, and they would be able to pay for all their kids' healthcare in private hospitals (and their own).

Lower taxes, and those who haven't had any children would be able to save enough money to support and hospitalise themselves in their old age instead of relying on other peoples' children working and paying taxes to help them.

Let's not have community - just let's all not pay any tax, aye Cordz?

I suppose there are people with your ideas who have lost all their savings with the collapse of deregulated financial institutions?

I feel sorry that this might have happened to them or anyone else, but where would such people be without the "community" which they had so readily condemned?

I would like to write at length about it; better still I would like an academic historian with the facts to write about it. But I believe that, except for the years between Rogernomics and Labour introducing "Working for Families", there has always been some sort of structural assistance in our society to working people with dependents.

Rogernomics (or the New Right) resulted in a "gap", or a period of misperception, concerning our characteristics as a reasonably sophisticated society.

In response to #12

Yes, kids cost more than $15/wk to support, but don't you find it interesting that so many families need a 'hand out' in the first place? That they would need any help they can get, even in the form of only an extra $15 a week, which like you say, is not much when you think about the total cost of raising children?

My point isn't that families with kids are in the wrong as such, more so that they shouldn't be isolated for 'special treatment'.

Families with kids are having to 'rake in cash' from the government, because they don't have enough in the first place. If taxes were lower, people would be able to support their kids without additional assistance. And those who choose to not have kids will not be penalised for it.

Anyway, those without kids would still be indirectly subsidising those with kids, even if Working for Families and the like were abolished. This is due to 'free' education for kids, free dentist care for kids, vaccines for kids etc. I think is already ???fair???, without the additional ???isolated support???, as to some degree, I think that 'society' as a whole, should look after 'our' future generations.

It would have been back dated further if we had the election earlier :)

At least it is something, better than nothing surely.

Murray - "And the banks and mortagagees should have to take some of the responsibility - they shouldn't have made credit so easy in the first place."

I agree 110% on that one. I am still being pestered to take out a personal loan with GE even though I clearly cannot afford one right now.

Responsible lending is not a reality, why would it be if a bank can have your house as collateral durng a housing boom?

I totally agree with: #3 Posted by Cordz ??? 16:44 PM | Monday , 15 December 2008 just because i dont have children i dont count? its hard with or without children. Also if taxes were lower i could see more people actually bothering to find a job knowing that they will recieve their money they have earnt. well, not much i can do about i spose aye.

Rent your rooms out to other single people, get a second job or sell up.

I am all for children being able to grow up without experiencing being booted out of the place they call home when their parents have been doing their best.

And the banks and mortagagees should have to take some of the responsibility - they shouldn't have made credit so easy in the first place.

The banks were aiming for higher profits and should have to sustain losses if their schemes have failed.

how many jobs were lost under helem clark lead goverment ?

...couldn't agree with you more. My husband and I are a young married couple with no children and a mortgage. I hate to think what would happen to us if either of us were to be made redundant, our lives would be down the toilet as there would be no help out there for us. We made the decision to buy a house and put off having kids for a few years (5 or so) because we couldn't afford to own our own home and have a child, I think it's disgusting that in this day and age that even though we earn very good money such a descision has to be made and even more disgusting they we are deamed less important by the government because of it.