Herald on 90 day trials
The NZ Herald likes the 90 day trial period for small businesses:
The Government and the trade union movement do not see it that way. Labour Minister Trevor Mallard described it as “almost a charter for people to abuse newly appointed low-wage workers”. Such an interpretation betrays either a misunderstanding or an extremely cynical view of the aims and intentions of most employers. Why would they use it to sack employees without good reason when good staff are hard to find and much time and effort is put into training them?
Read the Hollow Men and Horowitz to understand why Mallard says this.
A more rational take on the proposed law is that it will encourage employers to give people a chance to show they can do a job. Most advantaged by this will be those who employers might otherwise be reluctant to recruit – the likes of new immigrants without good English, former prisoners, those wishing to change careers, young people without qualifications, and those with no recent work experience. National’s proposal would allow employers to take a chance knowing there will not be the prospect of complex and costly personal grievance procedures if there is a genuine problem.
Yep. With the best will in the world you sometimes just can not determine how someone will work out, until they are in the job.
This freedom has long been sought by small businesses. It was pinpointed as the “single most important change needed in employment law” by the Small Business Advisory Group, which was set up by the Government in 2003. The group identified employers’ fear of hiring new workers as a significant obstacle to business growth.
And business growth leads to more jobs, more tax, more wealth for New Zealand.
When National’s member’s bill was before Parliament two years ago, trade unions staged public demonstrations, terming it an intolerable attack on workers’ rights. In fact, New Zealand is the only OECD nation, apart from Denmark, that does not have a legal probationary period in some shape or form. Other countries have recognised the advantages to both parties.
This is hardly some hard right policy. All the leftie social democratic countries in Europe already have this in their law.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am
“This is hardly some hard right policy. All the leftie social democratic countries in Europe already have this in their law.”
And the Nats should emphasise this every time they discuss this most sensible piece of legislation as it rather spikes the extremist bluster of Mallard, Clark etc.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Maybe I’m missing something, but . . .
1. Can’t small business’s already do this under existing law? What’s to stop them hiring someone as a contractor for three months and then either giving them a permanent job or winding up the contract?
2. Isn’t this going to make it harder for small businesses to hire skilled staff? If you have a choice between a secure job at a large corporation and a small business that can sack you again after 90 days then almost everyone will pick the former.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:06 am
You almost have to laugh at Mallards and the Unions propaganda over this.
Talk about not living in reality.
The upsides are legion whereas the downside is maybe 1/2% of employers taking advantage.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
ravad, Agree. See ACT’s Plan which does just this. Why doesn’t National do the same thing?
I started and grew a business from 2 staff to ~60 a few years back. One of the projects that our business worked on was for the employment court. If ever one wants to be put off becoming an employer, reading a few of the astounding judgements finding in favour of the employee (‘rortee’ was close in many cases) should do the trick.
The idea of a tyranical rick-prick employer is a myth in 99.9% of cases. And so, true to Labour’s modus operandi 99.9% must suffer rather than have the 0.1% targeted and punished.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:17 am
No chance. If an employee even implies that role could become permanent at the conclusion of a contract… and it doesn’t, then the employee can take a case. And they will win.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
“If you have a choice between a secure job at a large corporation and a small business that can sack you again after 90 days then almost everyone will pick the former.”
Not “almost everyone” Dan. The former is most likely to be picked by those who feel their abilities would not withstand a probationary period. Someone like you and the rest of your leftist mates perhaps, who prefer the cloistered corridors of ivory tower government placements where their inabilities can be successfully submerged in feather bedding and verbiage and long reports and extended meetings and protected by soft administrations and union bullying- to the coal face of small business and any true measurement of their worth.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Why would the Herald take the inane utterings of Trev Mallard seriously anyway?
Afterall this is the meathead who attacked Tau Henare in parliament over a non-existent woman, “Shazza”. She was neither Trev’s wife nor his mistress, yet Trev was still so insanely incensed that he lashed out and assaulted poor Tau.
Trev also dreamt up the imaginary US bagman he accused National of last election (still waiting for facts to back up your grubby smear there Trev), or was he just confused with Labour party’s own Monte Carlo billionaire bagman? Ooops!
Trev Mallard obviously suffers from vivid hallucinations (well vivid enough to fool him, but that may not be that difficult) – why should we waste our time listening to anything he has to say?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
What is obvious here is that all the emotional scare tactics are coming from people who are professionals at just one thing – leftwing politics. NONE of them have EVER actually started a business and employed someone marginal.
It is an absurd situation for a country to get into, to have these people both running it AND dictating the terms in which all debate is to take place. Conservatives have failed to get their heads around what is being conducted by the Left – total war, with psy-ops to the forefront. Thank goodness Farrar at least is starting to bone up on Horowitz.
The Herald’s support for this last miniscule little – and essential – measure, is a small sign of comfort that the worm might be turning in some quarters. It will be really something if even the ComPost follows suit.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
If this is your understanding then you should have no issues with the proposed law as…
1. It is just “status quo” so what is the big deal in clarification the law for everyone
2. It is only small businesses (the ones who see it as the “single most important change needed in employment law”) that will be affected and they seem prepared to take the risk.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
doh! edit to my 8:17 post above:
No chance. If an employer even implies that role could become permanent at the conclusion of a contract… and it doesn’t, then the employee can take a case. And they will win.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
national has two problems with this vote-loser for them..
..one is perception..
..you are screwing (mainly) low-paid workers…again..
..the other is in the actual plan…it is too long..(which only adds to that ‘screwing-perception..)
…any probationary period need not be longer than 30 days..
..if the person doing the evaluating hasn’t got the person sussed by then..
..they should be fired..
(but i have to say..the twofer of this..and the privatisation of a.c.c…will greatly help the (soft) centre-left support..
..to straighten up..and fly right..
..eh..?..)
(and granny herald sides with the employers..?
..against the workers..?
who’d have thought..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Philu, does this mean you might actually get a job????
July 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
and what part of your vast experience of a) ever having a job or b) having staff leads you to believe that 30 days is enough fool?
and selling drugs does not count.
in my (actual real world) experience of staff, most of them are on their best behaviour for the first month as they try to learn the systems and processes of the job, or simply they are just learning and won;t actually be doing the job for the first month or few weeks. its only as they get used to the place, and fall back into their usual routine can you see how they actually act.
now in bar work, it usually only took a couple weeks to work out if they were no good, but in a lot of office or sales positions, 1 month is not enough.
what proof do you have that any workers will be screwed? i can tell you know i will not hire anyone until this law comes in, and i bet i am not the only one, so there are potential employees being screwed now becuase its too risky to give them a chance.
but i am sure you will have some scaremongering theory come out of your drug haze won’t you fool.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Philu, does this mean you might actually get a job????”
Would anyone ever be desperate enough to put the useless prick on their payroll?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
# getstaffed (1813) +3 Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
“……….If every one wants to be put off becoming an employer, reading a few of the astounding judgements finding in favour of the employee (’rortee’ was close in many cases) should do the trick.
The idea of a tyranical rick-prick employer is a myth in 99.9% of cases. And so, true to Labour’s modus operandi 99.9% must suffer rather than have the 0.1% targeted and punished.”
Look, this is a very important point. WHERE does Mr average Kiwi in the street ever get to read about these “astounding judgements”? And people say I’m paranoid because I think there is some kind of collusion in the “mainstream” media so that no news that would embarrass the Socialists ever gets printed. And this is just one glaringly obvious subject among many.
And as for the “tyrannical rich prick employer”, of course this is a myth, but again, this is one incredibly successful leftwing myth, isn’t it. I have gone on about this before, but the Left conducts political warfare against CLASSES and they get away with it because the only political warfare we are on the watch against, is that political warfare that is against races and other “by birth” minorities. But why is “all employers are tyrannical rich pricks” any better than “all Jews are tyrannical rich pricks”? (It is probably more true that our society’s best people are to be found among the self-employed).
Again, I have gone on before like this, but most employers who have recently taken on their first employee and are still below 20 employees are more vulnerable in their circumstances than are the employees that get all the legal protection. They are probably motrtgaged and leveraged up to the hilt and may well take home less money than their employees, and may be swallowing losses and diminishing equity. Note, too, the rate of failure of recently-started businesses. And that the rate of failure of ALL businesses at all levels is around 10% every ten years. And by the way, governments are by far the primary threat to the success of any business, far worse than the threat posed by economic conditions and competition.
A guy doesn’t become an asshole just because he has left his job and started a business, and what’s more he has become a heck of a lot more vulnerable financially, yet all the swingeing protections of the law that had been on his side a moment ago, are now stacked up against him.
I ask, why are all the assumptions that the employee is the poor vulnerable party needing protection?
I once spent several months helping a family friend keep his small business going while he was in the process of selling it due to ill health (Crohn’s disease) and the biggest stress of all was one employee with problems of his own who failed to turn up to work intermittently with no warning, leaving a premises unopened and frustrated customers banging on locked doors outside. But the way the law stood, my friend was deemed to be some sort of money tree or cash cow, able to “carry” the “outright liability” person on his small (3) payroll. A sigh of relief was breathed when the employee went on the sickness benefit, but the next thing was a “constructive dismissal” suit that cost my friend “go away money”; this when the business’s cash flow was already under major stress.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
And by the way, it is a measure of the Lefty small-mindedness in New Zealand particularly, that a “small business” (that gets some concessions under law of this sort) is one with less than 20 employees. In Aussie, it is 100. In the USA, it is 5000.
Look too, at all the spewing from the Left over “the super wealthy” Exclusive Brethren businessmen, what were they now, a lawnmower and chainsaw shop owner, an office fitout guy, a hydraulic fittings maker………?
BARF.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
We need more productive private industry in NZ.
This policy is good for ‘marginal’ employees who might otherwise not be offered a job, and also for ‘would-be’ employers who have previously declined to start their own business lest they unwittingly become entangled in employment law.
There is no way I’ll invest capital, time and energy staring another business until NZ employment law crawls away from the socialist stone age that we’re currently wallowing in. This policy is a step in the right direction.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“Look too, at all the spewing from the Left over “the super wealthy” Exclusive Brethren businessmen, what were they now, a lawnmower and chainsaw shop owner, an office fitout guy, a hydraulic fittings maker………?”
At the same time as they (the left) were doing shady deals with billionaires like Owen Glenn.
DOUBLE BARF.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Quite funny that the Left thinks the media is biased towards the right, while the Right thinks it’s biased towards the Left eh Philbest?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I’ve got a deep sea drill operator job going. The equipment’s gettting a bit old but i’m sure it’ll be fine for a dive or two. Perhaps.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:53 am
philu (9:19am) commenting on employment matters makes about as much sense as Jim Anderton commenting on illicit drug use…eh…?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
grendel..you’re obviously a bit of a ‘sweetie’..
..have you met ratty..?
you could unite in your vipuration..
(form a rap group..?..’we hate commies!’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
maybe anderton and i could/should swap..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“..against the workers..?”
Whoar has the gall to cast an opinion on employment matters! That’s extremely rich coming from someone who is nothing but a leech, living at the expense of others.
The same bludger who proudly claims being on the DPB for a number of years and refuses to seek employment.
The only word that comes to mind is…parasite.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am
It’s worth a crack philu (9:59am). JAP’s membership would double – but would you feel comfortable standing alongside Jimbo, knee-deep in bullshit…eh…?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“With the best will in the world you sometimes just can not determine how someone will work out, until they are in the job.”
Yes indeed. It is just like this with MPs too. Some people who look great on paper turn out to be completely mediocre when they get into the House. And a few are the reverse: A new MP from some entirely unimpressive background turns out to be a natural.
Hmmm. It might be nice if we could give new MPs a 90-day trial… but I guess three years will have to do.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:15 am
No disrespect to philu but he is the perfect example of someone who this policy would help. I have never met him but if I imagine him going for an interview with his resume –
Past 10 years:
Blog… …ger
Live …blogging.. of …Parli…ment Questio.n..Time
Ex-drug addict…
If he impressed me at the interview and I wanted to give him a job there is no way I would do so under the current laws. Under the 90 day policy that decision is far less risky and I would be more likely to give him a shot.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“Hmmm. It might be nice if we could give new MPs a 90-day trial… but I guess three years will have to do.”
S, russell, not so much with List MPs!
July 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I would be more likely to give him a shot
Get in queue. phil himself is first up, but it’s a different kind of ‘shot’ to the one you’re referring to. Then there’s probably a bunch of others with yet another interpretation of ‘shot’
July 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“Quite funny that the Left thinks the media is biased towards the right, while the Right thinks it’s biased towards the Left eh Philbest?”
Dunno what’s funny about another standard leftist falsity. All of the real data supports the right’s view rather than the left’s. As usual, the left’s loud pronouncements are just hollow lies. Propaganda that they repeat over and over with the objective of it becoming accepted as the truth, and with the outcome that the socialist media then get away with even further leftist biases.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
There is nothing to focus the mind on employment matters than to see your own name at the top of an Employers’ Monthly Schedule. Your own name; not some company or Trust or partnership or other entity; but, your own name.
I’ve been there. Done that.
Employing people is a big gamble. It is not a $60 boxed trifecta. There is hugely more at stake than that. As in any gamble one must try one’s damndest to get the odds in your favour. This means not employing racial groups that figure prominently in the crime figures. The trouble is that by doing that you miss out on some real gems, but the risk involved in finding those gems is too great for the reward offered. Basic risk/reward analysis.
I think what John Keys wants to do is reduce the cost of the risk, so that the risk cost more closely relates to the reward benefit.
In amongst “The Smelly Armpit Gang” are some real gems. National’s employment policy gives those gems a chance to show what they are. Without National’s policy the “gems” will have little chance of getting a full time job. That is because the only people who would take that sort of risk on are employers with the business acumen of a Labour cabinet minister. Financiers would be foolish to advance dough to such dickwits.
Risk/Reward Analysis. Go for women aged 46 – 55. Over 55 too old. Under 46 they might get pregnant and the costs are too much. Go for women rather than men in that age group. Men spend too much time analysing, in minute detail, the foibles of Graham Henry.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Dunno what’s funny about another standard leftist falsity.”
Well why do certain people and sites waste so much time attacking the Herald as ‘a bloody Tory rag then’?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
To name only one example, admittedly.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
stephen: I could offer a few reasons:
1. They are so far left, they think that anyone merely centre left is a raving Tory
2. They are doing it deliberately because they are paid to do so by the 9th floor
3. They are so used to fawning adoration from the media that even the slightest hint of criticism gets them into a lather.
As RedBaiter says, there are plenty of studies showing left wing bias in the media, and a few by reputable lefty sympathisers showing no bias. There really aren’t any reputable studies showing right wing bias. So whilst both sides complaining might indicate we have it about right, it also might mean that one side is being dishonest. Objective studies is what we need – and those that I have seen show a left wing bias.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ah I see. Hmm. Fundies are bad.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
As a small business owner I think a 90 day trial period is a fantastic idea.
My business would be crippled if I employed someone who turned out to be a drop kick, which is one reason I have not even attempted to grow my business further, It is just to much of a headache along with kiwi saver and all the other hoops I have to jump through.
The other reason is as a family man with a few kids the cost to benefit ratio of growing the business with the resulting loss of working for familiy’s payments is hard to justify. I do not like to reason this way but it is hard not to. I treat my family support payments as a tax cut, but I would prefer actual tax cuts for small business than obscene family support payments, so I am in control of my own money.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I notice that the herald’s piece is big on right-wing rhetoric, but pretty thin on the facts.
Anyone wanting the other side of the story should visit my blog. I’ve done quite a bit of work in this area, so it’s quite detailed.
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/07/nationals-2008-industrial-relations.html
July 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Here’s some work I’ve completed on this issue.
Well National, in acknowledgment of its potential unpopularity, has with little fanfare, released its industrial relations policy. Predictably, they’re trying to paint it as moderate by equating it with the current “Employment Relations Act”, but a closer look reveals that this is far from the case.
As a policy statement it’s very bare bones (another of their “one page wonders”), and the devil of course would be in the detail of the eventual legislation.
It does however contain several noteworthy features:
1) Ostensibly the worst aspects of the Probationary Employment Bill have been done away with (mediation is to be available to workers who have been unlawfully treated).
However, it’s difficult to say just how useful mediation would be under this proposed regime.
For instance:
During the trial period, either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance without a personal grievance claim being brought.
So a worker may be ostensibly fired for “under performance”, but because there is no requirement for due process (official written warnings, based on valid reasons like persistent lateness), an employee may be fired for having the wrong sexuality, the wrong religion, the wrong fashion sense, or refusing to carry out unpaid overtime or unsafe tasks. There will, in practice, be no protection against arbitrary dismissal.
In a recent post I showed that this aspect of the Nat’s IR policy will mostly impact on the poorest and most vulnerable workers. I also explained how the lack of enforceable employment rights would lead to “downward wage pressure” for the same workers who were hammered last time National were in power.
2) National will allow union access to workplaces with an employer’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld.
This is where the detail will really count, as a union’s access to a workplace, will be entirely dependant on what National defines as “unreasonably withheld”. My bet is that, in practice, an employer would be able to deny unions access under the flimsiest of pretexts (i.e. Employment Contracts Act 1990s). This of course is aimed at making it harder for workers to improve their wages and conditions of employment through organising collectively. The net result will be lower wages and higher profits for foreign businesses – which will mean more of New Zealand’s wealth disappearing overseas.
3) Restore workers’ rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union.
This will mean a return to the bargaining arrangements of the 1990s – where an employer could arrange a lawyer (or another representative) to draw up a collective agreement. Here’s an extract from my thesis which show’s what this meant, and may mean in practice:
So in practice this will likely mean that employers will be able to force employees to accept the terms of employment drawn up by a representative of their choosing.
4) Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross examine before an impartial referee.
National wants to turn the Employment Relations Authority into an expensive, lawyer driven court, making it harder for employees to have their rights enforced, and easier for employers to deny the rights of workers through a war of financial attrition. The provision which will ….
Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal….
…..will have the same effect. It was this expensive, lawyer-driven approach to dispute resolution which meant that only half as many employment disputes were received and disposed of every year during the late 1990s compared to now. So in practice this will mean that employment rights become a privilege of the wealthy.
The Standard covers the rest of this issue excellently (as usual) and Jafa Pete has also completed a comprehensive analysis.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’ll post a few pieces that i’ve completed over at my blog on this law. The herald’s piece is predictably big on right-wing rhetoric, but small on detail.
Well National, in acknowledgment of its potential unpopularity, has with little fanfare, released its industrial relations policy. Predictably, they’re trying to paint it as moderate by equating it with the current “Employment Relations Act”, but a closer look reveals that this is far from the case.
As a policy statement it’s very bare bones (another of their “one page wonders”), and the devil of course would be in the detail of the eventual legislation.
It does however contain several noteworthy features:
1) Ostensibly the worst aspects of the Probationary Employment Bill have been done away with (mediation is to be available to workers who have been unlawfully treated).
However, it’s difficult to say just how useful mediation would be under this proposed regime.
For instance:
“During the trial period, either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance without a personal grievance claim being brought.”
So a worker may be ostensibly fired for “under performance”, but because there is no requirement for due process (official written warnings, based on valid reasons like persistent lateness), an employee may be fired for having the wrong sexuality, the wrong religion, the wrong fashion sense, or refusing to carry out unpaid overtime or unsafe tasks. There will, in practice, be no protection against arbitrary dismissal.
In a recent post I showed that this aspect of the Nat’s IR policy will mostly impact on the poorest and most vulnerable workers. I also explained how the lack of enforceable employment rights would lead to “downward wage pressure” for the same workers who were hammered last time National were in power.
2) National will “allow union access to workplaces with an employer’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld.”
This is where the detail will really count, as a union’s access to a workplace, will be entirely dependent on what National defines as “unreasonably withheld”. My bet is that, in practice, an employer would be able to deny unions access under the flimsiest of pretexts (i.e. Employment Contracts Act 1990s). This of course is aimed at making it harder for workers to improve their wages and conditions of employment through organising collectively. The net result will be lower wages and higher profits for foreign businesses – which will mean more of New Zealand’s wealth disappearing overseas.
3) “Restore workers’ rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union.”
This will mean a return to the bargaining arrangements of the 1990s – where an employer could arrange a lawyer (or another representative) to draw up a collective agreement. Here’s an extract from my thesis which show’s what this meant, and may mean in practice:
So in practice this will likely mean that employers will be able to force employees to accept the terms of employment drawn up by a representative of their choosing.
4) “Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross examine before an impartial referee.”
National wants to turn the Employment Relations Authority into an expensive, lawyer driven court, making it harder for employees to have their rights enforced, and easier for employers to deny the rights of workers through a war of financial attrition. The provision which will ….
“Allow injunctions and important legal questions to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court, and allow a general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal….”
…..will have the same effect. It was this expensive, lawyer-driven approach to dispute resolution which meant that only half as many employment disputes were received and disposed of every year during the late 1990s compared to now. So in practice this will mean that employment rights become a privilege of the wealthy.
The Standard covers the rest of this issue excellently (as usual) and Jafa Pete has also completed a comprehensive analysis.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
here’s another, entiltled “National Prepares to make war on the poor”
July 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
To see the graph and sources for my previous post you can visit the following post on my blog:
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/07/national-prepares-to-make-war-on-poor.html
July 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Link whoring now Roger. Most of what you write above is crap, but it would take me all day to point out the number of different ways you are wrong. Unfortunately for me, I have a day job and can’t spend all day going through your rather verbose comment point by point. I will note, however, that you present straw men and assumptions about how things will work, and use those to damn the National policy.
For example, suggesting that a union member needs consent to enter premises, said consent to not be unreasonably withheld, is a problem is quite ludicrous. And in the same way you paint this as an attack on the ability to organise, I could paint it as a long-overdue centring of a regime that currently absurdly favours union organisers who disrupt workplaces and create chaos – people are actually trying to earn a living, and cannot have their employees all stop work just because a union rep decides to turn up – even where the employees aren’t union members. In some assembly line businesses, when one person stops working the whole place stops. It is impractical the way it is at the moment.
As for your thesis – we’ve had the benefit of your scholarship before. It wasn’t impressive.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Paul:
“As for your thesis – we’ve had the benefit of your scholarship before. It wasn’t impressive.”
Well – my A-grade average and subsequent achievement of a first-class honours degree would suggest otherwise. So if that’s your entire argument (seems to be) it’s a pretty lame one.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Roger, if your work is sufficient for an A grade average, then I despair for our education system.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Roger Gnome – I think you’ll find that the universal response to your unverifiable anecdotal claims of an A average and 1st Class Hon degree will be…”Yeah right”.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I do wonder how much objective scholarship has gone into those 3,806 posts too…
July 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
3-coil:
“I think you’ll find that the universal response to your unverifiable anecdotal claims of an A average and 1st Class Hon degree will be…”Yeah right”.”
Amongst the kiwiblog right perhaps. But then again loony fanatics often have problems with acknowledging the truth.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
As one who works for an organisation who has as one of its objectives to advocate for business efficency to government its amusing the number of times ‘But we are different” is used as the excuse to not join the rest of the world
And when we ask but why are we different there is a long silence.
And so it is with this issue. Poll driven fruit cake Mallard determined to under mine and waeken the chances of marginal employees gettiong work all so he can suck up to his Communist mates in the Unions.
Likle all Socialists and Communists these losers dont give a tuppenny damn for ‘their people the wrokers/ They are just voter fodder for their grand scheme of command and control
July 28th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
What nome is saying is that most OECD countries are stupidly providing for employment probation periods, while New Zealand and Denmark are braving leading the world in uber-socialist employment dogma.
Why he needs so many words to explain this perplexes me.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The simple fact that you have completely overlooked here Roger/Phil is this.
Have you ever had to employ any staff?
No I thought not- therein lies your problem-
You have never had to go through the angst and disappointments of getting the correct employee for your particular job description and you fear the consequences of taking on someone who previously could turn on you and expose you to far more expense rather than having the ability to take some one on in confidence knowing that with-in a few weeks you will soon know what problems you have picked up with the new staff member.