Is there a problem?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:08 am by David FarrarLike many, I have absolutely no problem with the proposition that employees working a full eight hours should have a meal break and a couple of (paid) rest breaks. And the same goes for allowing breastfeeding at work.
What I am not sure about is whether there is enough of a problem, that legislation is needed, as announced by the Government.
I can’t recall an employment contract for FT staff which does not include meal breaks and rest breaks. Whether employees take them is another matter. At Wellington Newspapers the “tea lady” literally would come around and everyone would have a break. At Red Cross we actually gathered in the staff room and our ten minute breaks sometimes stretched on to half an hour as the conversation was always so good.
At Parliament though, there was no communal tea breaks, and even the meal breaks would often end up as 10 minutes at your desk with sandwiches as you continued to work. However that was by choice, and generally you were treated as an adult to manage your own time so if one disappeared for a two hour lunch or a 45 minute coffee at Astoria, no one complained so long as you got the job done.
I’d be interested in knowing how many complaints have employment authorities had over an employer not allowing meal or tea breaks? Also is there any case law so to speak from employment tribunals that such breaks must be provided even if not in an employment contract?
Like I said, I have no problem with making it explicit in law, but is this a problem that needs solving?
As for breast feeding at work, I ask the same question? Has there ever been a complaint filed with an employment authority that an employer told an employee she can’t take a few minutes off to express, or to feed their babies if they are brought into work?
The employers I know tend to be like most people in society, and go ga-ga when someone has their babies in at work, and they’ll happily queue up for the right to hold the baby, and talk baby talk to it.
So again I just ask is there a problem which needs solving. Certainly not all employers are good employers, but has there been reported problems in this area?
The one area I have some concern over the announced requirement to set aside breastfeeding facilities. Big corporates will have no problems doing this, and probably already are. But what about the dairy owner or the small business owner with just four staff. The cost of putting in place a facility that may never be used could be considerable. Will all 100,000+ employers in NZ be audited over the adequacy of their breast feeding facilities by a new inspection unit?
The proposed law should certainly be sent through to select committee for scrutiny. But it would be worth MPs asking for proof of the extent of the problem that this law is “solving”, and most of all with regard to the breast feeding facilities, a caution that a legislated requirement doesn’t end up with costs well in excess of any benefits.
I have a suspicion that if there was a widespread problem with employees not getting meal breaks and being banned from breast feeding, we would have seen action before Labour’s ninth year of office, hence this may be about a sound good solution looking for a problem. Having said that, that doesn’t mean the legislation is necessarily without merit.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Brilliant move. So the small business I work for employing only men and occupying a tiny open plan office will have to provide a private area for the non-existent female employees. Trevor you are a genius.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
David – your response is exactly what Labour would have wanted. As you say, this is effectively the law already. Labour are obviously trying to buy a fight.
I hope that National don’t take the bait and come out with a knee-jerk reaction, that will give Labour ammunition to go on about hidden agendas, etc. Perhaps National could turn it around on Labour, by stating as policy:
a. That the half hour lunch break should be paid.
b. That a paid lunch break could be covered by a further reduction in business tax.
c. That the top rates of personal tax will have to be lowered in relation to the new rate of business tax.
They could even go further by suggesting a substantial increase in the minimum wage, to be covered by further cuts in business tax. Most of it would come back in the form of GST anyway.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am
This is just Labour seeming to be doing something for their voters.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
The Government are desperate for distractions at present and this no doubt is in the category of bad news coming – get a distraction out there so the merits of this can be debated and diverted away from Bay-gate or the interest rates or what -ever. It also demonstrates that we have a government who has run out of a progressive agenda to move the country forward.
It also demonstrates how out of touch this government really is with the needs of small and medium businesses, and what happens when a party like Labour has been captured by radical left wing unionist agendas.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
gee dpf..!
i don’t think this legislation is aimed at the lunchrooms of the august establishments you have found employment..
(think ‘sweatshops/rag-trade/..usurious/exploitive retailers..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
“think ’sweatshops/rag-trade/..usurious/exploitive retailers..”
You really think they’re widespread phil? If so, name them. I expect a long list. Otherwise, STFU.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I own and run a small business, but when we (two of us own and run it – 50% each) started it we made some agreements. They included:
1. Never to employ anyone (we use only contractors) so no employment issues.
2. Everything we do we would try to set up on a contract or lease or rent basis – so we try to own nothing that we operate from (so no problems from having to get WOF for buildings or provide facilities for non- existent employees)
We did this because we wanted to grow a business – not become facilitators of the governments nany state laws – but more importantly we never wanted to become reliant on crap employess who we could only fire at cost, or we had to spend months keeping a record of errors and that sort of rot. Big businesses maybe able to afford that sort of stuff (actually they really cant afford it, its simply lack of competition that allows them to add the cost to the products. If NZ wasnt so costly to import into – ie:freight costs – then we would see all this sort of crap idsappear very quickly)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
DPF: “I’d be interested in knowing how many complaints have employment authorities had over an employer not allowing meal or tea breaks? Also is there any case law so to speak from employment tribunals that such breaks must be provided even if not in an employment contract?”
The answers are, there have been plenty of complaints to the Department of Lablour inspectorate over the past 15 years or so (I checked with a DOL inspector a few years ago), and the response has been that meal breaks are a negotiable matter, which is why you won’t find any case law other than that which deals with what was negotiated between the parties.
You see, in the good old days (for low paid employees), these breaks were included in Awards. Then along came the Employment Contracts Act 1991. Bill Birch promised that people wouldn’t automatically lose their terms and conditions of employment, and this was, strictly speaking, correct. Of course, Bill Birch knew full well that, with really high unemployment and all, new employees in the (vulnerable) low paid sector would be forced to accept lower pay and conditions — including loss of breaks in many cases — and that this would put pressure on existing employees. And so it came to pass. Max Bradford liked this ruse so much that he proposed allowing workers to “sell” their holidays, but people had seen through it by then and we all know what happened to him.
DPF: “I have a suspicion that if there was a widespread problem with employees not getting meal breaks and being banned from breast feeding, we would have seen action before Labour’s ninth year of office, hence this may be about a sound good solution looking for a problem.”
Quite a few workers have no breaks. For example, just a couple of years ago my brother rang me, incredulous because his girlfriend was refused more than a single 15-minute lunch break in her 8 hours-plus shift in a sushi bar in a large Auckland shopping mall. She started work at 6am and didn’t get any break until lunchtime (12pm). When she asked for one she was told that she wasn’t working hard enough. She’s Japanese. Ever seen a loafing Japanese worker? Me neither.
To be fair to you DPF you do allow that the legislation may not necessarily be without merit. Knee-jerk responses like Montys will only serve to convince NZ voters that ACT and the hard right doesn’t have a place in the civilised world, so you’d better keep them quiet for a few more months.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Well put philu, but DPF does seem to be learning to be a little more cautious on areas like this where he doesn’t have a lot of expertise. This should be encouraged.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
reid..take a pill..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I cannot comment on breastfeeding facilities, apart from saying that it does sound unnecessary to make small businesses use them.
However breaks are an issue, perhaps not for those who work in large corporate jobs but for those who work in less well paid and part time jobs. I worked several 8 hour shifts as a parking attendant and, although the employers said they would give all employees two 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch break, as I am a young male they assumed I was fit and strong and didn’t need any. Of course the older women got the breaks, but I was left in the sun all day. I think therefore that breaks should be enforced by the law for all employees.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
The best way to promote breast feeding in the workplace is to roll out HIgh Speed broadband which promotes telecommuting.
Vote:There is no better place to breast feed than in your own home.
But the Unions will probably not be too keen because telecommuting reduces their power base. Certainly, I presume they have no right to enter your home even if you are working from home.
We shall see.
Their response will indicate whether whose interests they really have at heart – the workers’ or the unions’.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I assume the eminent blogger has never worked in hospitality then? Taking a break is often seen as ‘letting down’ one’s co-workers, which puts more pressure on them. Taking a break during the ‘off peak’ hours is hard because that is when you’re supposed to be doing ‘off peak’ work. Maybe they need to just hire more people? Apparently they’ll just hire people for 7 hours instead of 8 though…
[DPF: I've worked in situations where there is pressure not to take a break. But by your own admission the problem isn't one of law, but of peer pressure.]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
McShane: “But the Unions will probably not be too keen because telecommuting reduces their power base.”
Such a sweeping statement, so little evidence to back it up.
If you really want to be informed (and get your thinking straight?) , try reading:
Diamond, W. & Freeman, R. B. (2002) “Will Unionism Prosper in Cyberspace? The Promise of the Internet for Employee Organization”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 40(3): 569-596.
Freeman, R. B. (2005) “From the Webbs to the Web: The contribution of the Internet to Reviving Union Fortunes,” Chapter 8 in Sue Fernie and David Metcalf (eds) Trade Unions: Resurgence or Demise? Leverhulme Series Volume 3 on The Future of Trade Unions (London: Routledge 2005) pp 162-84. Also available as a NBER paper on the NBER website (NBER WP # 11298, April 2005).
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
haha jafaleek puts up some trade union commie books to read . Get a life gripper !!
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
mawgxxxxiv, breastfeeding would be promoted by requiring employers to provide, “where reasonable and practicable”, facilities. Flexibility would be built into the code allowing for smaller workplaces with few female staff, but workplaces with many female staff would be expected to step up.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Why isn’t mum at home with baby?
Great comment Barry
Vote:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/is_there_a_problem.html#comment-425746
March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
# dad4justice Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: March 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
haha jafaleek puts up some trade union commie books to read . Get a life gripper !!
Um, Richard B. Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Professor of Economics at Harvard University, and Co-Director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. He is also Senior Research Fellow on Labour Markets at the Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics and directs the Science and Engineering Workforce Project (SEWP) at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
You may not understand what this means, but I am sure that some of the others will.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
# Alex Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: March 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am: “I worked several 8 hour shifts as a parking attendant and, although the employers said they would give all employees two 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch break, as I am a young male they assumed I was fit and strong and didn’t need any. Of course the older women got the breaks, but I was left in the sun all day. I think therefore that breaks should be enforced by the law for all employees.”
Alex, you may have missed the bit in my earlier post where I clarified that entitlements to breaks are negotiated (with the exceptions of truckies and pilots, I think). In your case you could argue that you had such a contractual entitlement, and go for back-pay. It has been done before. Depends on how many breaks you missed (and therefore how much back-pay is at stake), and how much you want to teach the employer a lesson, and so on.
But if people haven’t negotiated breaks, then they can’t enforce them.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Is this a problem, I though everyone got a lunch break and a tea nreak. But if it needs legislation then so be it. And yes give women a special room for breast-feeding. Though Steve Chadwick wants the alw to allow women to do this in public if they wish. Give employees everything they want and more and more and more. How about legislating for a 35 hour week. And 5 weeks holiday. And put the minimum wage to $15/hour and increasse it to $20/hour over two years. And give every employee a special allowance for lunch but it has to be a healthy lunch. And 2 weeks a year for training. And for every workplace over 6 workers a paid full-time Union Official on-site for employees. And allow unlimited sick-leave
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
What happens if you don’t take your break or just spend ten minutes having a sandwich at your desk as per DPF’s example? Will it be like France where inspectors are needed to make sure people don’t work more than 7.5 hours a day – or if they do they have to get extra paid leave?
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The hookers at the end of street take a break whenever and it’s usually to score drugs.They work 24/7.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“..[DPF: I’ve worked in situations where there is pressure not to take a break. But by your own admission the problem isn’t one of law, but of peer pressure.].”
no it’s not..it’s because of exploitive/bastard employers..who foster those ‘must work..!..must work..!..can’t eat/take a break’ work environments..
blaming the other ‘victims’ of that exploitation is a bit ‘rich’..dpf..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
jafapete.
I said “will probably reduce their power base.” And then referred to the specific example of the right to enter the workplace.
Where do the two papers you refer to compare the present right to enter the workplace (in NZ law) with the probable lack of right to enter the private home (under NZ law)?
I presented a specific argument about a specific circumstance, not a general argument about unions using cyberspace.
Vote:So before you dismiss my argument as based on ignorance please make your argument specific to the issue.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Owen, assuming that most of the additional working from home would be using computers rather than telephones (to use quaint old expressions in order to keep things simple), then cyber-organising is indeed the issue. And one of the advantages of this form of organising is that you don’t need access rights. This is because you can access people electronically. In fact, one small NZ union has already done rather well at organising a certain segment of the IT workers, many of whom work from home, using this method.
I see that you did intimate in subsequent sentences that you were not entirely confident of your asserttions, but what you said was, “But the Unions will probably not be too keen because telecommuting reduces their power base” NOT “will probably reduce their power base.” Got that? “Telecommuting reduces their power base” is not the same as “will probably reduce their power base.”
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I have been promoting telecommuting for a few years now.
Vote:I have yet to see a union join my campaign.
When one does, and in public, I will concede error.
I agree that unions should be promoting telecommuting because their members have most to gain. So should the Labour party for the same reason.
So why does not Governments transport strategy even mention it?
Could it be because telecommuting is yet further evidence of the trend to decentralise rather than centralise?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Most people I know who work in retail are routinely exploited by being expected to sacrifice breaks. I was when I was a student who needed the money, too. I doubt a law change will affect things much, though. When you need your job, and you don’t have a union, and there are others who will do it, and you’re basically in a position of holding none of the cards, kicking up a fuss just doesn’t happen.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
In my experience, valued new-mum employees are given all sorts of latitude to keep contributing to the company.
The proposed law is to give rights to those that have not accumulated “goodwill” with their employers to start with and have entitlement issues.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
As one for whom negotiating and dealing with employment agreements is a daily task I have to disabuse David of the notion that all FT employment contracts contain meal and rest breaks. In fact the converse is true, most do not. This is particularly the case with individual employment contracts, where it is extremely rare for an assured break to be included in the contract. This in contrast to countries like Australia, where meal and rest breaks are enshrined in legislation.
I am a little surprised by the employer reaction here. One would have thought it was beneficial to productivity to allow workers a regular break to recharge their physical and/or mental energies so that they may perform at their maximum potential. Unfortunately the master/servant ideology sometimes appears to get in the way of common sense.
With respect to the breast feeding laws, I would caution commentators not to jump at shadows. The proposed legislative amendments have not yet seen the light of day, so to make presumptions about any onus they may place on employers is presumptious to say the least.
A quick plug for a new blog (sorry Dave), check out my posts on this issue at http://b4botany.blogspot.com – the right wingers amongst you will love the Idiot of the Week.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
presumably you will have pride of place as idiot of the week, launching a political career of exploiting the death of a family member has to be the winner in anyones book.
i;ve worked in retail, hospo, supermarkets, you name it. and we were always allowed breaks. yep sometimes you did not always take them (were always asked, but never forced, and sometimes you still took them if you were buggered), but honestly how hard is it to work a couple extra hours to get over the busy period.
any bar i worked at is was expected that you would get a break but may have to wait, so sometimes yep, i got a break an hour before closing, because their had been a rush from 9-2. but the manager was there in the bar pouring drinks faster than anyone else, dealing with queries, throwing people out and running the whole show. how lame would it be to demand 15 minutes when others don;t need it. after the shift, you always got a free drink (or 2 or 3 or 4 etc) a free meal before the busy period.
as a bar manager once again we allowed breaks but they needed to be taken at the right time, everyone knew that and noone objected. sometimes someone would ask as they were knackered or (usually) ‘needed’ a ciggarette, and if it was not going to hurt the team you let them.
its about win win, not lose win. demanding a break in the busiest period when you need all hands on deck is as dumb as not allowing one when you have space, it helps no one. but enshrining it in law just makes it more likely some useless git is goiing to demand their break when a 50 strong group walks in the bar and wants 4 pints each, and then you will have to becuase the stupid law does not understand how a job with mutual expectations works.
AL
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Presumably the ‘peer pressure’ aspect would come into play there. Might that also be something close to grounds for a written warning of some sort?
Vote: