1. When I was a member of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association,
which is the secondary teachers’ union, as you know, I had a colleague
called Marion Findlay. She was active in union matters, and her husband, Ken,
was prominent in the Meatworkers’ Union.
I mention these people, because Marion once expressed to me the opinion
that male workers were much more likely than female workers to take industrial
action. The obvious implication was that male-dominated industries were likely
to be better paid than female-dominated ones, as a result of their relative
ability to achieve wage increases through industrial action.
The consequences for so-called “Pay Equity” are that it would
be inequitable for Parliament to reward female workers for their relative
lack of effort and self-sacrifice in the area of industrial bargaining, and
the New Zealand unions must be aware of this fact.
2. Female applicants are able to enter the New Zealand Police without needing
to attain the same physical standards as male applicants. This is inequitable,
because it discriminates against male applicants. Some arguments, such as
a claimed need for “diversity”, may be made in favour of this
discrimination, but non-discrimination is a Human Right under New Zealand
and international law, whereas diversity is not.
I am not aware that New Zealand unions have taken up the cause of males
who have been discriminated against in this inequitable way by the New Zealand