Its a kiwi Easter tradition that comes along with Hot Cross Buns and chocolate eggs - the tedious annual debate over Easter trading and the aftermath, the prosecutions of those who violated the law and opened their doors on Good Friday, Easter Sunday or both.
It looks like the Labour Department has in its bag about 33 violators this year, give or take. I'm sure that is just a token.
Some people do have to work on our sacred days. Doctors, policemen and those who keep the infrastructure of 21st century civilization ticking over - the unsung heroes who keep the electricity flowing into our homes and the sewerage flowing out amongst others.
But Labour Department Inspectors? What value do they add to our quality and way of life by pinging a garden center manager who dared to open his doors on Good Friday? Shall I tell you? None, nyet, nada that's what.
As you all know I'm sure I don't believe that these sacred days should be opened up for commerce. They are sacred and I would like to see that sanctity preserved.
And those caught in the Labour Departments net are just small fry. And I doubt the inspectors who do the pinging are not motivated by a deep sense of maintaining the religious character of these special days. The cynic in me thinks triple time or whatever the going overtime rate for public holidays in the public service is in 2009 is a far more a motivating factor.
And those who sign off on the overtime - what drives them do do it I wonder.
Perhaps, and this is pure speculation on my part mind you, but perhaps the motivation is to show the Easter Trading Laws are unworkable, unfair and unreasonable. By sacrificing a few garden center types (mostly self employed) every year they provide martyrs to keep the controversy ticking over for another year. And will continue to do so until the Laws surrounding Easter Trading are rescinded and a new and more complex set enacted providing for more commerce on our sacred days and more laws for the Labour Department to police.
Perhaps we should look at prosecuting the Labour Department for having its employees working on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
Seems like Justice would be better served that way than nailing a few garden center managers' ears to the wall.
It looks like the Labour Department has in its bag about 33 violators this year, give or take. I'm sure that is just a token.
Some people do have to work on our sacred days. Doctors, policemen and those who keep the infrastructure of 21st century civilization ticking over - the unsung heroes who keep the electricity flowing into our homes and the sewerage flowing out amongst others.
But Labour Department Inspectors? What value do they add to our quality and way of life by pinging a garden center manager who dared to open his doors on Good Friday? Shall I tell you? None, nyet, nada that's what.
As you all know I'm sure I don't believe that these sacred days should be opened up for commerce. They are sacred and I would like to see that sanctity preserved.
And those caught in the Labour Departments net are just small fry. And I doubt the inspectors who do the pinging are not motivated by a deep sense of maintaining the religious character of these special days. The cynic in me thinks triple time or whatever the going overtime rate for public holidays in the public service is in 2009 is a far more a motivating factor.
And those who sign off on the overtime - what drives them do do it I wonder.
Perhaps, and this is pure speculation on my part mind you, but perhaps the motivation is to show the Easter Trading Laws are unworkable, unfair and unreasonable. By sacrificing a few garden center types (mostly self employed) every year they provide martyrs to keep the controversy ticking over for another year. And will continue to do so until the Laws surrounding Easter Trading are rescinded and a new and more complex set enacted providing for more commerce on our sacred days and more laws for the Labour Department to police.
Perhaps we should look at prosecuting the Labour Department for having its employees working on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
Seems like Justice would be better served that way than nailing a few garden center managers' ears to the wall.
Drive around, ping some poor retailer- collect time & a half plus a day in lieu.
ReplyDeleteBeats working for a living...
I agree Andrei.
ReplyDeleteI will argue passionately for the benefits of a national holiday built around an observance for Easter and Christmas, even when these occasions mean little to some of the populace.
I will argue passionately to ensure that people who do not wish to work over Easter are not being pressured to work over Easter, nor that they suffer in anyway for exercising their choice.
I will make a general plea for people to consider that for them to shop during a holiday, other people must serve (I coined the phrase that such servants are nothing more than "liberal dhimmis" in another post), and therefore to consider carefully this desire to shop.
These opinions are offered to help minimise a swing too far in the other direction.
However, I do not support the government's jack boot approach to enforcing this particular law in this way. It's not helpful to resolving the issue and it's unfair to those that freely choose to open their business.
PS: Still want to see business owners, directors and CEOs serving behind the counters of retail establishments if they open.
ReplyDeleteArguing for shop closures on religious grounds is pretty shaky at the best of times.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Govt isn't keeping the shops closed because of a small and diminishing Christian opposition, any more than a much stronger Christian presence was able to stop the liberalising of the liquor laws, abortion law reform, weekend trading or smutty books in libraries.
The Govt is keeping the shops closed because surveys over the years show (latest 2008) that 64% of the population dont want Easter trading.
Second, a check of Easter trading laws around the world, including Catholic nations, shows that there's no uniformity in closing, even where there's a strong Christian presence. Its mostly a cultural, not a religious prohibition.
NZ did not get the reputation as "the working mans paradise" for nothing. Our forebears worked long and hard to attain the holidays we have, not particularly for religious reasons but simply to get time off from the demands of the bosses. What we have is a tradition of closing the doors over Easter.. and its hardly based on religion these days.
JC
ZenTiger - somewhat of a contradictory post. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What's the point of having a law if it isn't enforced?
ReplyDeleteJC - actually no doubt a lot of truth in those points you make. Likely the no trading rule is more cultural than religious, though I am sure they are linked, since 3 of the 3.5 no trading days fall on religious festivals.
Funny how you never hear the cries of 'unfair' from Farrar's so-called "classical liberal" club on ANZAC day, or even that now epitome of consumerism formerly known as Christmas.
"though I am sure they are linked, since 3 of the 3.5 no trading days fall on religious festivals."
ReplyDeleteYes, but its an historic link. It also has the practical point of limiting holidays.. trust me, the govt ain't about to create any more "religious" holidays :)
JC
I actually agree with Sean. There is no point in having a law you do not intend to enforce. Either we want these as legal holidays and are prepared to enforce them as such (as the majority of the population appears to want), or we want working on them to be optional (currently a vocal minority viewpoint).
ReplyDeleteSaying you will have a law but not enforce it is an easy cop-out to try and avoid criticism from the supporters of either viewpoint. One side is satisfied because there is a law, the other side is satisfied because it won't be enforced. In theory.
But in actual fact you haven't addressed the issue at all. You have just handed it on to the personal discretion of the law enforcers, and they will choose to prosecute or not based on their personal biases. Who knows what will happen?
This is the same cop-out that was taken by Sue Bradford et al, when they put in the smacking law but claimed it would not be enforced against people just smacking - which was nonsense. We don't want to promote exactly the same way of (not) dealing with controversial issues ourselves.
Sean, it was Andrei's post and my comment. Maybe you mean my comment? I also agree with you, my point is contradictory.
ReplyDeleteThere is no point having a law that isn't enforced.
Part of the paradox is in the point that the law is deliberately flouted and the fines small enough to apparently warrant the risk of opening, and according to one retailer, small enough to still make it worthwhile to open.
I'm left acknowledging that paradox, and not sure of how the law needs to be structured - given the number of anomalies and exceptions already.
Maybe a worthwhile topic once I've have time to reflect.
There are thousands of laws on the books that are never enforced.
ReplyDeleteThere are many others that are only enforced in cases of blatant violation of them.
Whereas with a few the authorities go out of their way to detect violations. This is a case in point and realistically the majority of violators this Easter will not be called to account - only a token few. Its a game.
The Law could remain on the books and only should be invoked where large enterprises violate - not the mom and pop operations which seem to be the ones snared by this moronic exercise. Nor would inspectors need to work on these days to gather evidence. The evidence would be manifest in debit and credit card transactions - payroll receipts etc.
Apologies ZenTiger, it is indeed Andrei's post, therefore I will now direct my venom towards him...;-)
ReplyDeleteAndrei - regarding your last comment, I couldn't disagree more. Regardless of how many unenforced laws are out there, my point still stands: What's the point of having a law if it isn't enforced? Either scrap the law altogether or enforce it. The law of the land must have credibility for society to function as intended, and I have no problem with updates and changes to laws over time if that is what the people choose. Also in maintaining credibility the authorities must take a consistent approach - to suddenly have this definition of "mom & pop stores", and then give them an exemption seems just bizarre. Maybe the large enterprises aren't being pinged since they are adhering to the law. As for level of blatantness, this should be reflected in the penalty (I am not necessarily saying it is).
I would say that in almost all cases it is greed driving the offenders to break the law. Yes we need to earn a living, but these no-trading laws only apply to 1% of the time. The garden centre owners have $$ in their eyes.
One thing I agree with my opponents on this issue is that there are confusing anomalies and exceptions, and that the fines are impotent. But this is no reason to scrap the Easter trading laws, only to tidy them up.
it is indeed Andrei's post, therefore I will now direct my venom towards him...;-)
ReplyDeleteNo venom required, we merely have a differing perspective on the philosophical basis of man made laws.
I think they exist to show establishment disapproval of actions and activities. Sanctions that are applied for breaking them vary according to the extent of that disapproval, in general - although we all know that the lawmakers can't even get that right. Bernie Madoff who stole billions will likely get a lighter sentence than the average car thief for example.
the law as it stands prevents the warehouse opening on Easter Sunday as well as the mom and pop garden center. You don't need the heavy hand of the law prosecuting a subset selected from the small violators to keep the warehouse closed.
Just the ability to prosecute them if they do open.
Alright Andrei, I thought the little emoticon thing was supposed to indicate tongue in cheek. Don't worry, I wasn't getting fired up.
ReplyDeleteWho does this "establishment" represent, that you speak of?
The heavy hand of the law wouldn't come down on any select subset if that subset adhered to the law. Pretty simple stuff really. I am not so sure why you keep wanting to give them free reign. Seems a bit unfair really.
Social responsibility shouldn't just be limited to the larger "corporates".
Hey that was a great post and this is an interesting debate.
ReplyDeleteThe cost in enforcing and punishing the shops in question (maximum fine of $1,000) certainly doesn’t justify the due process, and is job justification for a few public servants.
I myself spend Easter Friday watching 3 x Woody Allen movies thanks to my favourite Video Shop being open, and going for a swim, thanks to my local City Council pool.
Both the Video Shop and Swimming Pool were packed, so there clearly is demand.
My bet is those that criticise the ‘law-breakers’ for opening illegally, also availed themselves of petrol and an ice-cream, bread etc at their local shops/station etc on Friday.
So those that argue for the sanctity of Easter see nothing wrong with the corner-dairy opening, but are somehow duplicitously against his neighbour, the chemists, opening as well?
I think a compromise situation could prevail.
That’s to say – nothing open prior to midday and I mean nothing (except petrol stations and dairies)
The midday rule would sort it out, and let the business’s and consumers choose & give time for observance.
Keeps both sides happy and fascist Dept of Labour unemployed.
Gotta shoot.
Paul.
So those that argue for the sanctity of Easter see nothing wrong with the corner-dairy opening, but are somehow duplicitously against his neighbour, the chemists, opening as well?No Paul, we accept, and I'm sure the Good Lord does also, that there are some activities that must go on 24/7 365 days a year. And opening the corner dairy on Easter Sunday is not one of them. However with Mom and Pop operations whether or not they open is between the proprieters and God and I'm quite happy to leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteHowever if you open the Mall or the warehouse you will require people to work who may not want to and would like to keep the day sacred.
See the difference?
Hmmm...which passage of The Bible is it in which God ordained "Thou must let Mr Patel at the corner provide 20 Rothmans whilst his 'eye of a needle' servant Mr Tindall get’s to play golf on The Lords holiday - so no one gets a bargain”?
ReplyDeleteMust have been buried in Leviticus, I’m guessing.
The Old Testament is full of stuff about employment law in New Zealand, like "God accepts Garden Centres are part of his great plan and Borders Bookshops are the work of Satan".
Silly me, I must read that book more and your analogy will make greater sense.
See ya.
Paul.
Did you read what I actually wrote
ReplyDeletePaul?
If you wish to keep the Sabbath Holy or not is up to you and is no concern of mine.
If you don't want to keep the Sabbath holy and also want to oblige those who do wish to keep it that way to violate their wishes and conscience to satisfy yours then I have a major issue.
It's you that wants to read what you put in writing there Andrei....
ReplyDelete"I'm sure the Good Lord does also, that there are some activities that must go on 24/7 365 days a year"
"However with Mom and Pop operations whether or not they open is between the proprieters and God and I'm quite happy to leave it at that".
What strange mumbo-jumbo reasoning is this?
What happens if Steven Tindall reaches the same accord with God that you insinuate ‘Mom and Pop’ are, in your books at least, automatically privileged to?
What happens to the ‘Mom & Pop’ who don’t run a dairy, but a bookshop, that is struggling in the current economy - why can’t they get the same ‘ordained’ permission to open that you think is a given for the Dairy?
Where do your reasoning from that God says it is O.K for Kiwi’s to buy a packet of Rothmans from a Dairy on Easter, but not a magazine from a bookshop?
Sorry mate, I can’t get my head around ‘your logic’.
Off for now.
Paul.
Do you understand the concept of free will Paul;
ReplyDeleteIf I choose to work on Easter Sunday whatever the merits or otherwise of that choice I am exercising my own free will.
If Steven Tindall exercises his Free will and economic power to force others to work on that day he has over ridden the free will of others. who would choose not to.
Ha ha ha….your whole argument comes around and bites you in the arse there Andrei.
ReplyDeleteBefore I start , it’s normally Zen (who is a Cure fan and goes-up in my rating) that comes to the rescue when his team-mates find themselves in a corner, so start yelling “Zen come rescue me from that horrible atheist and his logic”.
Andrei, I imagine you are referring to the ‘free-will’ denied by the N,Z Government for the Christian owners of a bookshop, to open for trade on Easter ,whilst the Hindu’s in The Dairy next door can?
The free-will atheist petrol stations owners have, but Catholic shoe-shop proprietors are denied.
The free-will Scientologists have to open their restaurant, but not the Baptists who operate a computer-shop across the road and are struggling to pay the rent.
This whole argument is about free-will, but you have chosen to take this from of the concept earthy present-tense, which I can at least rationalise, into this murky world of superstition, much of which you seem to be making-up as you go.
I have even given you the opportunity to use scriptural justification for your approval that somehow it’s O.K in your books, for the corner shop to be open over Easter, whilst his neighbour, the butcher, is prevented in doing so – so far you have ignored this and gone off to the broader intangible, vacuous ‘free will’ red-herring.
Gotta go, still beers to drink.
Paul.
PS: After 3 posts I’d like to think I’d get that long awaited scriptural quote on who is, and who isn’t allowed to open on the Pagan holiday now called Easter.
PS 1: Normally when I’m making inroads into your position, you guys attack me personally.
Thanks for your kind words Paul. However, I don't think I'll be able to chip in on this discussion as I can't actually figure out what your argument is, and I can't figure out what part of Andrei's post you have taken issue with.
ReplyDeleteWhere do your reasoning from that God says it is O.K for Kiwi’s to buy a packet of Rothmans from a Dairy on Easter, but not a magazine from a bookshop?Where have I said anything of the sort Paul?
ReplyDeleteThe commandment states
"Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy"
When the Lord Jesus Christ healed the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath he was challenged by the Pharisees, pedants I'd posit.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.Is buying or selling a packet of Rothmans equivalent to lifting a sheep from a well?
Your call and you have been given the freedom to make it for yourself as has the vendor of said packet of Rothmans, IFF* he is indeed the proprietor of the Diary.
But if the Rothos come from Angelo's cigarette warehouse and the checkout operators (who tend to drawn from those citizens with less lifestyle options than the good Angelo do wish to maintain the Sanctity of the Sabbath they cannot.
Not hard to understand surely.
PS: After 3 posts I’d like to think I’d get that long awaited scriptural quote on who is, and who isn’t allowed to open on the Pagan holiday now called Easter.rectified*IFF is the standard rendering of the phrase If and only If for those not educated in the syntax of Mathematics and logic
I can see your logic Andrei, but I still maintain that making exceptions is only confusing and makes the law more unworkable to the point it is dropped and (almost) everyone suffers. I mean what happens if the proprietors of the mum&pop operation don't actually work there all the time but have an employee or two, and demand that they work on Easter Sunday, or they now start putting pressure on suppliers to deliver on such days etc etc. It's bad enough as it is.
ReplyDelete