Views galore on Easter Trading
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am by David FarrarWhere do I start. How about with the CTU:
“The current Easter Sunday trading restrictions ensure that retail workers have at least some ability to participate in the huge range of family, community and religious activities that take place around New Zealand over Easter,” said CTU secretary Carol Beaumont.
I find it interesting that given a choice between being pro-worker or anti-employer they go for anti-employer.
I would expect unions to strongly advocate for penal rates on public holidays, and to advocate that no employee should be forced to work on a public holiday, but why do unions campaign to make their own members poorer by removing the right for low paid workers to earn extra money by working? They claim they support higher wages for workers, yet support a law which prevents them from earning higher wages.
If a couple both on $15 an hour had the ability to volunteer to work on Good Friday, and they were not normally rostered on those days, then they could earn the equivalent of $37.50 a hour which for one day’s work would be $600 of extra earnings for their family.
They could then take the family away on holiday the following weekend when things are less crowded, because they were able to earn that extra $600.
The Press attacks the Government for not changing the status quo:
What this shows is that the Government is gun-shy about taking leadership in election year over an issue which is highly sensitive for many Christians and trade unions.
Religious opponents of allowing general trading on Easter Sunday believe that commercialism would somehow undermine the spiritual meaning of Easter, while trade unions argue that trading-hour liberalisation would expose employees to the risk of exploitation. Yet neither of these arguments is convincing.
Better by far that the Government had acted to at least ensure that the trading regime was consistent and logical, rather than allow the law to continue to make an ass of itself during future Easter weekends.
The Dominion Post is more pointed:
Going to a brothel yesterday was fine by the Government. Going to a garden centre wasn’t, The Dominion Post writes.
That – presumably – is not because the Government believes a dalliance with a prostitute is a more appropriate way to mark Good Friday than sowing some sweetpeas, but because New Zealand’s Easter shopping laws remain a hotch-potch of anomalies and absurdities.
Queenstown and Taupo shop owners could happily open their doors without fear of fines because they are deemed to be tourist areas. Their near neighbours in Wanaka and Rotorua could not. Dairies and service stations were allowed to open. Garden centres were not – but many did anyway.
It is small wonder that the laws and the fines that go along with breaking them are regarded as a final remnant of the days New Zealand was run, as former prime minister David Lange put it, like a Gdansk shipyard.
The best reform suggestion comes from Jim Donovan:
The usual arguments are trotted out by the pro-restriction lobby: it’s one day families can all rely on to get together, it’s a mark of respect to our religious and cultural heritage, it’s one day that sporting and cultural festival organisers can rely on … That’s fine for those people who want to put aside those particular days for the things they want to do; but why … should everyone else be captive to those special interest groups’ demands, especially when the vast majority actually take no part in the special events on those holidays? The pro-restriction lobby then trots out pieties against crass commercialism and abuse of workers’ rights.
Jim sums up the usual arguments from the statists who want to force their views on everyone else. He then makes a proposal:
Get rid of public holidays altogether, and in return increase annual leave entitlements by the same number of days. Say you currently get 20 days annual leave and 10 public holidays; instead you’d get 30 days annual leave, to take whenever you like.
To cater for the people who want to fix certain dates for religious or cultural activities, you could allow them to nominate up to, say, 5 days a year where they can definitely take time off (i.e. the employer has no choice). To avoid gaming, once nominated those days MUST be taken, unless the employer and employee otherwise both agree. Of course you’d have to allow for essential services, but I’d keep it a very short list.
I like it. Those who want to have Easter together can do so. In fact under the current law they can’t as they could be forced to work Easter Saturday and/or Easter Monday. Jim’s proposal would give certainty to families who want some guaranteed time together, but allow freedom to choose for everyone else.
The economy, businesses and consumers would effectively gain several days trading a year. And here’s the greatest advantage – ordinary workers would be free to take more days off when they and their employer agree, not when someone else outside the relationship says they should. For example, families could organise get-togethers when it suited them – and avoid the peak fares and traffic jams of the most popular days.
Indeed. Why let a stupid Gregorian calendar formula dictate when you must take a day off.
I’d bet that most people and businesses would prefer the latter. And think of the administrative simplicity. Unfortunately, too many vested interests love the petty power, anti-competitiveness and big-noting associated with public holidays.
It would be great for religious diversity also. Jews and Muslims could nominate as of right five of their religious holidays as days they get to take off. As could Buddhists, Hindus. And Americans here could take the 4th of July off. At present no employee gets to decide as of right a single day they take off. This proposal would give them an inalienable right to take five days off that they nominate and choose, plus another 25 days by mutual consent.
Jim Donovan for Minister of Labour I say.
Related posts:
- My annual rant on Easter trading
- Easter Trading Bills
- Dom Post on Easter Trading
- Easter Trading Bill
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t current holiday entitlements time the employer must give to an employee (given sufficient notice), should an employee request them?
For these five days to be analogous to Easter or Christmas, they would have to be days an employee was forced to take off.
The main justification I hear for these forced days off is that lower-income people would never choose to take a holiday off when they could work it for time-and-a-half of shitty pay. Under Donovan’s plan (unless the five days were mandatory for the employee), those lower-income people would simply never have a holiday, the higher-income people would have those holidays every year, and they would applaud the hard-working free choices made by the people who now work 365 days a year.
[DPF: You are wrong. An employer can currently determine when people take their holidays. And no employer can prevent staff taking annual leave in the year it is due - they just have final say on when it is taken]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Um, who’s going to tell Carol that, based on the latest census data, there’s a lot of families out there whose “family, community and religious activities” don’t revolve around a Christian feast:
HINDU
* Holi – festival of colors and spring (February-March)
* * Mahashivaratri (Shiva Ratri) – night sacred to Shiva (February-March)
* Rama Navami – birthday of Lord Rama (April)
* Krishna Jayanti – birthday of Lord Krishna (July-August)
* Raksābandhana – renewing bonds between brothers and sisters (July-August)
* Ganesha-Chaturthi (Ganesha Utsava) – festival of Ganesh (August-September)
* Dassera – victory of Rama over demon king Ravana (September-October)
* Navaratri – festival of Shakti (in Bengal) or Rama’s victory over Ravana (South India) (September-October)
* Diwali – festival of lights and Laksmi (September-October)
MUSLIM
* Eid-Al-Fitr – The end of Ramadan
* Eid-Al-Adha – Festival of Sacrifice at the end of Hajj
JEWISH
* Hanukkah – The Festival of Lights
* Pesach – Passover
* Purim
* Rosh Hashanah – Jewish New Year
* Sukkot
* Tu B’Shevat
* Yom Kippur
SIKH
* Guru Gobind Singh’s Birthday
* Maghi
* Hola Maholla
* Vaisakhi
* Martyrdom of Guru Arjan
* Celebration of the Guru Granth Sahib
* Diwali
* Guru Nanak’s Birthday
* Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur
BUDDHIST
Vote:* Buddhist New Year
* Vesak (Buddha Day)
* Sangha Day (Magha Puja Day or Fourfold Assembly Day)
* Dhamma Day (Asalha Puja Day)
* Observance Day (Uposatha)
* Kathina Ceremony (Robe Offering Ceremony)
* Elephant Festival
* Ancestor Day (Ulambana)
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Replacing statutory holidays with extra annual leave seems a pretty significant change to me.
You present the whole argument as being about freedom of choice but your conception of how statutory holidays are generally viewed is a little at odds with reality.
Most employees view statutory holidays as a perk – I do not believe that I have ever met an employee who felt a sense of greivance about not being able to work on the statutory holiday and take a day off on a different day.
Your perspective seems to be that employees should view statutory holidays as part of their annual leave entitlement that has been pointlessly restricted by “Big Brother” for no reason. That of course is not the case and does not take acount of how and why our many statutory holidays were created.
I also don’t follow how your argument (at the start of your post) about greater pay for working on a statutory holiday fits in with your proposal that the special nature of statutory holidays be abolished and annual leave entitlements be increased and tweaked (at the end of your post).
It seems clear from your post that statutory holidays have no significance to you, nor for many of the commentators you cite, except as days for not working, or a day where if one does work then one is paid at a greater rate (until that right is eroded if your proposal for the abolition of statutory holidays is adopted?).
ANZAC day? Meaningless for the nation as a whole. Labour day? Meaningless for the nation as a whole. Christmas day? Meaningless for the nation as a whole. Easter? Meaningless for the nation as a whole. Waitangi day? Meaningless for the nation as a whole.
Like Thatcher you seem to think that there is no such thing as society.
The consideration of other religions and other nationalities is laudable but concerning. Our history, particularly as a judeo-christian english colony / maori country, seems to be largely irrelevant to you.
“Mere tradition is not a good basis for a rule, but equally, mere defiance is not a good reason for breaking it.”
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Jim Donovan offers an excellent solution. It is ludicrous forcing non-Christians to recognize the religious festival of a minority cultural group. As a wannabe Pastafarian I could devote my entire 5 day allotment to the ritual consumption of solid and liquid carbohydrates.
Not only would society be culturally richer through the opportunity for different sub-cultures to celebrate, but additional economic activity and wealth would be generated through the commercial activities associated with these festivals.
I guess until this changes occurs perhaps garden centres can gain brothel licenses? Give a whole new man to popping down the road for some rooting powder.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
An employer can currently determine when people take their holidays. And no employer can prevent staff taking annual leave in the year it is due – they just have final say on when it is taken.
Ah, okay. The rest of my post still stands.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I’m still pissed. The only time we actually get time to go buy things and catch up on shopping and what not and it’s closed.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I am in two minds about this. It seems silly having mandatory shop closures on these Easters days because of the christian overtones. The suggestion of “pick your own holidays” sounds fine except workaholics like my partner would never take any time off. Also if you are short for cash you’d work ever minute you could. Your example of earning the extra $600 above and using it for a holiday isn’t very good because on those sorts of wages you are probably going to use it to repay debt or pay for school/sport fees or the power bill or something. For some like us, holidays anywhere are a luxury item. LAso if you have kids and work statutory days you have big childcare issues. Also there are A LOT of people who work holidays as it is, police, Doctors, nurses etc. Until this year I have always been on 24×7 call with every 2nd weekend off.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Ross K wrote:
Very good conservative principle, Ross, and one I certainly agree with. But conservatism isn’t mere knee-jerk reactionary bumpf. Societies change – and New Zealand certainly isn’t the same as it was in 1840 – and there is a difference between evolutionary change that reflects the reality of the world around you, and revolutionary upheaval for its own sake.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
artandmylife,
Exactly. Exactly.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Conservative…..flipside socialist who fears anthing new happening for the first time….
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Ross K: why should the individual be subject to the rule of the state for no valid reason ? If Waitangi Day or Christmas Day or Anzac Day is irrelevant to me why should I be forced to observe it ? On that note I’m heading down to my local brothel to buy a litre of fish oil.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“DPF: If a couple both on $15 an hour had the ability to volunteer to work on Good Friday, and they were not normally rostered on those days, then they could earn the equivalent of $37.50 a hour which for one day’s work would be $600 of extra earnings for their family.”
This is a deliberate misinterpretation. If an employee does not normally work on a day that falls on a public holiday, for example they don’t work Fridays, and work on Good Friday, they would only be entitled to wages at time + half – therefore they could only earn $22.50 per hour – days in lieu are only required to be paid for normally rostered days that fall on public holidays. This is the interpretation of the Holidays Act 2004 that I have come to understand in my experience both as an employee and as a payroll clerk.
Deliberate misstatements (like the earlier) diminish credibility.
As for the choice aspect, many people, especially younger people, are employed in service businesses that operate 360+ days per year. Especially in small retail businesses that operate in this fashion, staff typically do not have the luxury to not work public holidays, simply because it is such.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Policy Parrot,
Most full-time retail workers do work on Fridays, surely.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Ryan – thats not the point. The statement quoted above – and again here – “volunteer to work on Good Friday, and they were not normally rostered on” – means they will only be paid time and a half.
Now either this an oversight, but I give DPF more credit than to make a sloppy mistake like that – or a deliberate misstatement.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ah, I see. Apologies.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Good idea DPF – I would like to swap a few public holidays around and take them when there is an annual sporting event on, rather than wasting them on days when nothing is open.
Watching the superbowl (Monday lunchtime) here in NZ I have to take 1 day of annual leave which is a waste and wouldn’t mind swapping with say Good Friday.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
ROSS K….. I find your comment is far more compelling than the secular socialist one under discussion, but maybe that is because I am a Conservative, a Christian, and a Patriot.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I second what baxter said.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
what a shame jim donovan didn’t give as much attention to his role as a Tertiary Education commissioner as he does to public holidays…
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Anyone else notice how the numbers of left-wing one-liners goes down in volume on stat days and weekends?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
How on earth can anybody get so worked up about 3.5 days a year?, far from it being “forced” on the public as those 365 day shopping supports would have you believe it is a tradition and some traditions are worth saving.
All the talk about extra days off is simply bullshit, there are 3.5 days a year when EVERYBODY knows that the vast majority will have the day off, it is a great time to organise sporting events, functions and yes even bloody religious festivals….just leave it how it is please, after all that is what the majority of people in NZ want.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Forget Easter trading and all that crap, just be like the bent feminazi Justice Judith Potter and arrange the law to suit, so you can go on a taxpayer funded holiday in South America for six weeks.Go girls go !!
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Who cares who’s festival it is. We are not required to attend church to get the days off. It creates a great family atmosphere when everyone has the same days off. We’ve spent the weekend catching up with family and having a few wines.
I’m a stauch capitalist, but DPF is your life that sad that you can’t go without visiting the mall or supermarket for 1 whole day?
[DPF: Sigh someone else who is unable to distinguish between a principled position and self interest. Hell I probably go shopping less than 90% of NZers. I only assume that people think one argues from self interest, because that is what they argue from. I very rarely argue from self interest. The Electoral Finance Act is one example of that - it actually personally benefits me greatly, but that didn't lessen my opposition to it.
Also Southern Raider, as you think disagreeing with me on an issue gives you licence to call my life sad, well I had a superb day out in the sun for the last seven hours or so.
And finally, I return to that rare concept you and others seem unable to get your heads around - the principled position. For me it comes to the legitimate role of the state. I do not regard the state as having a legitimate role in stopping consenting parties from doing business. If employees wish to earn extra money, if employers wish to open, and customers wish to buy things, then I don't want to have the state stop them from doing so. That's not what I want a Government for. I want a Govt which defends NZ, funds public health and education, looks after those in need. Not a Government which bans people from earning money on Easter Sunday if they live in Rotorua but not in Taupo.]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
RossK good summary, but you missed out all the minor Jewish holidays and the fact that most holidays go for at least two days.
Who’s keen to swap the Christian holidays in NZ for all the Jewish ones and get more time off work, with all the shops closed?
Good thing is most Jewish holidays also involve eating and drinking.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
DPF you present as a “principled position” the idea that the state has no role in stopping consenting parties from doing business. That is clearly absurd. The state prevents all sorts of business between consenting parties. The trade of certain drugs is a good example. Restriction of dishonest dealings and the implication of minimum consumer terms are others. The state has an essential role in creating the background against which the relations between individuals are set and you simply can’t get around it. The “free market” and “perfect competition” are both artificial constructs of the state, supported by the state and enforcement of the rule of law and property rights. You, however, want to have your state and bleat about it too.
And again your representation of this as a freedom of choice issue misses the point. For an employee at least the day off is viewed as a perk (which outweights the “inconvenience” of shops being closed). It is not forced on us. It is given to us. Your attempt to present it as being viewed otherwise has an air of unreality and, dare I say it, desperation about it. Forgive me for speculating but it may be that this is what leads many to suspect that your true position may simply be no more than that there should be consumer trading 365 days a year. If so do you even know why you want this?
Throughout the debate on Easter trading you have run various arguments in together. Take your last post. It is about “principle”, specifically freedom of choice / contract but then at the end you identify the problem of inconsistency but, as I wrote on another thread here, inconsistency is as much an argument for toughening up Easter trading laws as for abolishing them. How about you drop inconsistency then as argument for abolishing the Easter trading restrictions.
[DPF: First of all there is a principled difference between consumer protection laws and between a law which punishes everyone - employers, employees and consumers all because Easter Sunday is some how special. As Jim Donovan suggested, why not empower all employees by granting them the right to specify five days they take off. I also suggest you do not appoint yourself as the spokesperson for all employees. That is the real air of desperation. You also show yourself no better than anyone else who has tried defending the status quo - and start questioning my motives. Is there not a single person who can actually debate the issue without resorting to personal attacks on me? It seems not.
The suggestion that inconsistency be ignored is one I will ignore. Of course people can argue that all easter activity be banned. My reaction is go ahead and make my day. But the current law is riddled with inconsistencies and those who support it seem to just be knee jerk conservatives who oppose any change. The fact Easter Saturday falls between Good Friday and Easter Saturday shows that it doesn't even succeed at guaranteeing people a long weekend. Jim Donovan's proposal would.
Here is a challenge for all the knee jerk conservatives. How would Jim Donovan's proposal disadvantage anyone? It would give more rights to employees, more fliexibility to employers, and more choice to consumers. It would allow those of particular cultures and faiths to have their beliefs protected in law.]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I always used to wonder why the socialists accused many Nat’s of being a party that is actually run by the business round table, of course I have always laughed that off as a product of the rabid imagination most socialists have.
The threads on this topic over the last few days does make me wonder really, the issue is fairly simple , some people want 365 shopping because it is good for business, sure they might dress it up and a philosophical argument or a matter of principal but in reality that is nothing more than a red herring.
I have come to the conclusion that 365 day shopping is more about greed than anything else.
When I was a kid we used to have Easter off (all four days as there was no 24 hour or weekend shopping) and would you believe it…….people actually managed to organise themselves for the whole four days when shops were not open.
We also had the same at Xmas depending on when Xmas and Boxing days fell,bugger me, the world did not stop turning then either.
These were times when people (nearly everybody) knew they were going to be off work, they were times of great social activity and mostly a fantastic time to relax with family and friends.
Now we have the bloody Boxing day sales (and try telling those in retail that they do not have to work), Easter is down to Friday and Sunday and yet some of us are still not happy unless the shops are open on those days as well.
I suppose the next target for the greedy bastards will be Xmas day, the one time that most families DO get together.
The question I have for all you 365 day proponents is this, are you going to be brave enough to tell those as this years Anzac day celebrations that all shops will be open if you get your way?, because is you are being consistent then you must demand that we do not close at all, we (in an effort to be “principled”) should defend the rights of all those thousands and thousands of workers just itching to earn 1.5 -2.5 the usual rate.
Stuff showing respect for the Anzac’s, after all, this is a matter of principal.
P.S Today’s poll would be about the most juvenile thing I have seen on this site, quite frankly it is pathetic.
[DPF: Never have I seen someone so deaf. You have convinced yourself it is about shopping when people have denied this time and time again. You even get the most basic basic detail wrong. No one has demanded shops be open. What has been demanded is that the decision be left to shop owners and their employees, not the state. As for ANZAC Day, my position is the same. I do not think we respect those who fought for freedom, by removing it from people at home. I do not want the state telling shops they can not open on ANZAC Day. However as an individual I would advocate that shop owners should not open, as a mark of respect. I might even support a boycott against a shop owner who opened. But I would not support a law which takes the right to decide away from them.
I am amazed people think society will end if retailers are allowed to decide if they open, yet they don't blink twice at the fact almost all service industries can open, and retailers in tourist areas are open.]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
DPF is it about shopping. Maybe you aren’t justifying on that, but everyone else pushing for it is in retail and has other motives than giving staff the opportunity to work extra hours.
I agree with BigBruv we should go back to no shops for the whole 4 days.
It even starts to put other more special traditions in jeopardy. When at Otago we used to organise “Once Were Warriors Day” on Easter Friday as all the pubs were closed. Consisted of bringing a dozen big bottles of Lion Red and a fish slice. The last one in Otago we held had over 50 people involved.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:50 am
DPF,
Why do you write “punishes everyone”? As an employee who gets to take the day off I don’t feel punished. I look on it as a day that I would otherwise not get to take off – a perfectly reasonable point of view surely. Why do you write “I also suggest you do not appoint yourself as the spokesperson for all employees”? I have not claimed to speak for all employees any more than you have done so. The accusation is hardly a convincing argument and smacks of playing the man rather than the ball.
“Why not empower all employees by granting them the right to specify five days they take off?” Probably because this will lead to the abolition of penal rates for working on what were once statutory holidays. And because of other reasons, some of which I identify below.
I am sorry if my use of the words “air of desperation” upset you. I was really meaning to attack your argument and the starting point you use for viewing statutory holidays. I did not mean to personally attack you. I note that you never addressed the points in my first post.
You are right that there is a difference between consumer protection laws and Easter trading restrictions but if you look at my post you can see that I was taking issue with your proposition that the state has no role in stopping consenting parties from doing business. I appreciate the need to generalise in a blog forum but that particular generalisation is so severe that arguably it loses any value.
As for questioning your motives I guess that in a sense I do – but if you read my post you will not see anywhere in there an accusation of self interest or nefarious motive. Your view, if I interpret it correctly, seems to be that employees and employers negotiate from an even playing field. Therefore even if the majority of employees want to retain Easter closing that is not a sufficient reason because (1) It does not take account of employers who want to open for business and (2) Those employees who don’t want to work wont have to and it is churlish / selfish of them to impose their desires on employees who do want to work.
You may very well be right – but what is the great harm in keeping 3.5 days a year as non-trading just in case you are not, or at least not right for everyone? This more than anything else is the barrier to changing the laws. So many of us look and think – “Do we really need more trading – is it so important that business be open on these few days?”, and we wonder why people are so keen to do away with statutory holidays and non-trading days when there are not that many in the scheme of things anyway. It is also bemusing to see “rights” being resorted to by the proponents of removing the restrictions – rights? Really? Your comment about ANZAC day, viz “I do not think we respect those who fought for freedom, by removing it from people at home.” is odd / perplexing. Those who fought for freedom did so at a time when shops were open for far fewer hours and days than now – I do not think that they were fighting for longer retail hours. Now you might think that all rights are rights and at some basic level they share some quality which makes the comparison between the freedoms that were fought for in World War 1 and the right to shop / work on every day of the year reasonable. I don’t agree with you. I think that the right to be free of invasion by an armed force (the “good” reason given for the war) and the right to shop / work every day of the the year in an employee / employer relationship are fundamentally diferent.
As for the point about inconsistency surely you must concede that inconsistency is not an argument for removing Easter trading restrictions anymore than it is an argument for strengthening them?
“How would Jim Donovan’s proposal disadvantage anyone? It would give more rights to employees, more flexibility to employers, and more choice to consumers. It would allow those of particular cultures and faiths to have their beliefs protected in law.”
This is difficult to answer because it is very hypothetical but I will give it a try:
1 It will disadvantage employees as a group because when no day is a statutory holiday for wage and salary purposes then the application of penal rates and days in lieu is absurd. The move to adopt Jim Donovan’s proposal would surely see the removal of penal rates and days in lieu. This would benefit employers as a group. In order to avoid accusations of bias it should be noted that the gain for employees is the freedom to nominate when they would like to take the five days off (this however is incorrectly characterised by you as allowing those of particular cultures and faiths to have their beliefs protected in law – it does nothing of the sort – the whole point of your proposal is that no cultural or faith beliefs are protected in law rather all are of the same status).
2 The right to nominate five days sound goods in principle – but how will it work in practice – will accountants been able to nominate the days during the last week before tax returns are due to be filed? Will the right to nominate days be subject to what other co-workers are also doing (surely this would be so as the whole point of such legislation is to allow businesses to stay open – you see, you can say that it is to give employees choice and I can equally accurately characterise it as being for the purpose of giving employer’s choice – then we can both argue about whether choice for one necessarily diminishes choice for the other – and whether it does so always or only sometimes).
3 A difficult to define but nevertheless real sense of community which arises from the nation’s largely shared holiday taking at times like Christmas will be further diminished.
4 It erodes the right of an employer not to open for business on a statutory holiday. (It must do, for if an employee has the choice to work then the employer must be under the obligation to open for work. Small business owners who like to be onsite when their businesses are open will not thank you for this one. What if one worker wants to work on Christmas day – will the right of an employer to speciy a “close down” period, being a period during which the employer can require an employee to take most but not all of their holidays, trump the employee’s right to work?)
[DPF: You are wrong on 4. The right to nominate 5 of your 30 days not not affect the employer's right to close down and set when the rest of the leave is taken. Likewise an employer can close if they wish to on any public holiday.
As for penal rates, one could still have them apply on certain days, but allow employers to decide whether to open - like cafes do at the moment.
And do you really think there will be a huge number of people wanting to work on Xmas Day rather than be with their families? I don't think our Xmas tradition needs a law to survive.]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Does anyone think it curious that the argument here has been turned into one of replacing one statutory restriction (stat. holidays and non-trading days), with another one – imposing on an employer an employee’s statutory right to nominate specific days off.
Will an employee have to nominate those days when they first sign up for a job – i.e. will they be inserted in the draft employment contract by the employer? Or would the legislation provide that the employee could just give unilateral written notice? What would be best DPF? No doubt we will all want to ensure that the employee’s right is not merely illusory.
[DPF: Ask Jim as it is his law
If I recall he proposed written notice from the employee. One would need to set a notice period for this - say a month in advance. Also IIRC Jim proposed that once nominated it can not be rescinded]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
DPF
It seems that deafness has become a contagious disease, never have I seen anybody who so blinkered in their approach to 365 day trading, I always thought that the 80′s was the decade of “greed is good”, it seems that is not the case.
You seem to believe that we all live in some of paradise when it comes to workplace relations, the facts are David that many will not have the choice, those in retail will be told they are working and that is it.
The god awful standard has been running a smear campaign over the last few weeks re Key’s comments about wanting to see wages drop in NZ, those of us who come from the right know this is not the case but when you see such rabid support for the abolition of these 3.5 days then one does begin to wonder.
I do find your “I know what is best for you” argument to be so out of character, you accuse me and others of forcing OUR will on workers (the same workers who DO NOT want a change) yet you see nothing wrong or arrogant about forcing your opinion on them.
[DPF: Boy you keep walking into the same wall. First of all your obsession that this is about me wanting extra shopping days is pushed to the front again, despite oh being denied six times so far. Do you enjoy debating with yourself, as you seem unable to debate with me.
Secondly you make your normal assertion that employers would break the law and force employees to work. Under current law they can force people to work on particular days, but you ignore that what I propose is a specific law which says you can't do so for these days. And if an employee says "Sorry I am in Taupo for Easter", then the employer would have to accept it. And please don't invent beliefs for me that we have an IR paradise. Of course a very small minority of employers abuse the law - but there are mechanisms in place to deal with them. I don't believe in punishing all employers for the sins of a few. Unless you are telling me that all employers are bad and abusive?
Finally trying to use the description of your position (I know what is best for you) as a description of my position is a nice Orwellian trick. My position is that employers and employees should decide for themselves what they wish to do. Your argument that this is deciding what is best for them is akin to arguing that giving people the vote is deciding that democracy is best for them, and that this is somehow a bad thing.]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Ignoring all the religious and employment issues, adopting Jim Donovans suggestion would probably lead to reduced road fatalities and improved resource utilization diversity. Imagine not being stuck traffic snaking your way through Wellsford ? Bliss!!!!
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“And do you really think there will be a huge number of people wanting to work on Xmas Day rather than be with their families? I don’t think our Xmas tradition needs a law to survive”.
DPF you are correct – I don’t think that there will be very many people at all wanting to work on Xmas Day. Nor do I think that our Xmas tradition needs a law to survive. Of course I also think that there is very little call for a right to work on Xmas Day and that there is nothing wrong with having a widely held tradition enshrined in the law.
I don’t think our freedom of choice and fundamental rights need the abolition of 3.5 non-trading days to survive.
Anyway I am content to the let the matter rest there. It seems that neither side is going to convince the other here.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
[DPF: You are wrong. An employer can currently determine when people take their holidays. And no employer can prevent staff taking annual leave in the year it is due - they just have final say on when it is taken]
David, you are being disingenous. The emphasis is on the employer to allow annual leave (where the entitlement has accrued) rather than dictate when annual leave is taken. The only time an employer can require annual leave to be taken is when there is a shut down period at some point during the year (usually Christmas). In all other cases an employer may not unreasonably withhold annual leave. I would suggest that Ryan’s point stands.
Do you really think identifying 11 days (assume we are going to keep the 11 or are anniversary days excepted?) for stats is going to work? That’s going to be more of a pain in the ass for employers (rather than having 11 days when everyone is closed – in the professional setting – you have to juggle another 11 working days around staff absences), take away the suddendly important ability for workers to earn more by working a stat (at least for 7.5 of the stats), destroy holiday economies (sporting, cultural and other events that are linked to established holidays – bunny shooting and Warbirds as topical examples) and create a change to society that there is no great call for.
As far as I can tell the big issue with the trading laws are the exceptions NOT that there are 3.5 days a year when the shops are shut. Most of the public are not really interested in the ideological debate – they just want a few days a year that are pretty much guaranteed as off. Is that really too much to ask?
As an aside I would extend it by at least half a day – i suspect midday opening on New Years day would be a vote winner amongst most in the retail sector and particularly those who have had to struggle through a New Year’s sale with a hangover!
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Um, no. I am not wrong. It is rapidly getting into semantics but the point I was making is that by saying an employer can determine when an employer can take their holidays suggests they can say “you will take your holiday now” when the reality is that an employee requests a holiday and an employer can only turn it down reasonably. The only exceptions are an annual close down period (if included in agreement) or if an employee has not taken holidays within the 12 months that they are due (didn’t mention that above to be fair) . The legislation site is having a hissy fit so I can’t post the section – I think it is around s17 of the Holidays Act.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Craig Ranapia at 10.25am
Are you suggesting that these religious days have the same standing or should have the same standing in NZ as Christian holy days?
NZ as we know it was established quite clearly within the Christian tradition of western Europe. To deny that is ahistorical, wishful thinking or just nutty and attempts to move us away from traditional Christian holy days have got us into the mess we are now in. It’s hilarious to see our legislators and interest groups trying to deal with this problem. They remind me of the Keystone Cops.
I’m all for statutory holidays to mark the main Christian holy days, much as we have had in the past. I suspect our grandparents and great grandparents – you know, the founders of the nation – would probably vote for much the same. And while we’re at it, let’s have the shops closed on Sunday too.
Shoppers of the world unite! Ignore the shops! You have nothing to lose but your credit cards!
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Actually, kiwitoffee, the Holidays Act has no standing on the status of Easter in Catholic canon law, doctrine or practice. What I was saying — and thought I was saying very clearly — that if Carol Beaumont wants to defend the status quo at least partially on the grounds of “participation” in “religious activities”, then it might be intellectually honest to admit that there’s a hell of lot of people who just aren’t Christians.
No, kiwitoffee, New Zealand was established as a colony of a nation where Catholics had been allowed to sit in Parliament, or become civil servants less than decade before — while at the same time raising the property qualification to effectively disenfranchise most Irish Catholics. (The first practising Jewish MPs were not admitted to the Commons until 1858.) Where, to this day, the head of state is required by law to be a communicant in the Church of England.
What I find ‘nutty’ and ‘ahistorical’ is making an argument from history that is, to be generous, sloppy and confused.
Even better, kiwitoffee, why don’t we bring in legislation forcing everyone – and I mean everyone, everywhere – to not only observe Shabbat, but the most ultra-orthodox interpretation we can find?
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Craig Ranapia:
OK, then the Christian tradition of the UK which was and is part of western Europe. And England was, of course, Catholic before it was Anglican. It makes no real difference to my point.
I’m not bothered if people don’t wish to participate in religious activities, if that’s what Carol Beaumont was referring to. The fact is that these holidays – Easter and Christmas and Sunday – are based on Christian holy days and the drift away from them and into just another opportunity to work or buy something does us (Christians and others) no good at all. As the cliche goes, we are losing the plot.
I see no need for us to adopt Jewish holidays, though I’d be happy to give it a go. The Israelis do that, whether one is Jewish or not.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Yes it does, kiwitoffee. If you’re going to make arguments from history, please try and make them with some care.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I worked at an airport in the UK that had exactly that scheme – 30 or 35 days annual leave with no obligation to take public holidays off. People normally took Bank Holidays and the like as annual leave, but it was great being able to decide whether or not to take a particular day off. You could, for example, take more days off in summer than winter.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 10:42 am
WRT whether people would choose to work on Xmas day, I suspect many non-Christians would.
I had occasion to fly to Wellington on the afternoon of this most recent Xmas day. I was concerned as to how hard it might be to find a taxi at the airport when I arrived, but the taxi ranks were reasonably full with what appeared to be taxi drivers from predominantly Mulsim countries.
Likewise I was working in China during the Chinese new-year a couple of years ago. I was forced to take time off work on the main holidays, but I wouldn’t have minded at all working (as I had plenty to get done). As it was I just worked from my hotel room. The point being that those not bought up in the local culture, often have little to no attachment to the traditional holidays that may be in place.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Craig Ranapia at 8.42am
I am trying to be careful with the history, Craig.
If you think that the UK Christian tradition is not part of the western European one, then there’s not much to be gained from our discussing it further.
In any event, as I said earlier, it has no bearing on the point I was making i.e. that NZ was established within the Christian tradition of western Europe. Or were those nineteenth century Hibernians and Orangemen deluded in thinking they were actually in NZ?
Vote: