Flexible Working Hours Bill
Sue Kedgley’s bill, which has had its first reading, is one that sounds a nice idea but in reality would be a major hassle for employers, and I suspect seriously discourage employers from hiring (especially) women with young children.
First I should state that generally employers will be flexible about changes in working hours for employees they value. It costs a lot when you lose an employee, and more and more employers have had children themselves and are sympathetic.
But this bill removes decision making from the employer. It mandates that an employer *must* agree to reduced or different working hours, unless they can prove it would harm their business, and that the ERA can over-rule an employer’s decision about what is best for their business.
Now the current law protects well those who leave the workforce to have babies. Their job is kept open for up to a year and they have the right to return to that job (or equivalent) for the same hours and same pay.
This law actually requires those with children to have more rights than other staff, and be able to effectively set for themselves what hours they will work. They could say one month they will work 25 hours a week and then a couple of months later demand they only work 10 hours, and then hey again want to be back to 40. And the employer will be legally obliged to agree, unless he can *prove* why he or she should not agree.
April 8th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Yes well why employ people who have child care responsibilities especially with this sort of legislation. But on the other hand it is definitely in the public interest not to put too many barriers in the way of people wishing to have children. In the bad old days when the male worked and supported a family men got paid mopre to partly reflect that and to reflect they could give their job a total commitment. Kedgely wants her cake and to eat it as well. At end end of the day women of child rearing age will not be employed with these measures and maybe that is a good thing overall.
April 8th, 2005 at 9:17 am
I cannot identify the mischief this Bill seeks to remedy. In the real world employers and employees are reasonable people and my experience is that as human beings we are perfectly capable of making our own arrangements without State intervention, thanks very much.
April 8th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Yet more fruitcakery. What about people who have other reasons for needing flexible work hours? Those who play elite sport, those who are members of the territorials, those who simply want to have interests outside work? I am never entirely clear why having children is a privileged activity over these other activities.
Does the bill specify mothers, or can fathers also make use of this potential provision?
April 8th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
PaulL, point well made! Its just more intervention from busybodies who have never actually employed a single fellow New Zealander. The Greens are a joke. None of them have had a proper job, let alone been an employer, so who are they to draft Bills on employment law? Margaret would be pleased though!
It seems to be premised on the idealogical dogma that “employers are bastards” and “employees are victims”. Fine, as an employer, I will cease to employ “victims”. Take that Sue. Suckle the fall out.
April 12th, 2005 at 12:18 am
The Bill can’t be that bad because it is based on UK legislation, passed by the Blair Government.
April 12th, 2005 at 12:24 am
The Bill can’t be that bad because it is based on UK legislation, passed by the Blair Government.
Yes it applies to both parents. Sue K’s press release outlines the framework in which employers and employees can negotiate reduced working hours.
“An employee will make a request in writing, setting out the working patterns they want and how it could be made to work. Employers will have to undertake a formal business assessment of how such flexible working could be achieved.
“If an employer turns down a request, their decision can be challenged through an appeals procedure. Where cases cannot be resolved in the workplace, binding mediation and arbitration will be available, as will the opportunity for an employee to take a case to the Employment Tribunal.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR8418.html
Which would seem to provide reasonable checks and balnces to the speculation in the comments above.
April 12th, 2005 at 12:26 am
Yes it applies to both parents. Sue K’s press release outlines the framework in which employers and employees can negotiate reduced working hours.
“An employee will make a request in writing, setting out the working patterns they want and how it could be made to work. Employers will have to undertake a formal business assessment of how such flexible working could be achieved.
“If an employer turns down a request, their decision can be challenged through an appeals procedure. Where cases cannot be resolved in the workplace, binding mediation and arbitration will be available, as will the opportunity for an employee to take a case to the Employment Tribunal.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR8418.html
Which would seem to provide reasonable checks and balnces to the speculation in the comments above.