«
»

Business NZ Conference Part VI

September 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm by David Farrar

This is on workplace issues. Panelists:

  • Trevor Mallard (Lab)
  • Sue Bradford (Greens)
  • Kate Wilkinson (National)
  • Peter Brown (NZ First)

Questions

  1. What changes to KiwiSaver and why?
  2. What changes to ACC and why?
  3. Will you allow grievance free probationary periods?
  4. Will you remove the union monopoly on on collective bargaining?
  5. Will you change the “relevant daily pay” provisions of the Holidays Act

Kate Wilkinson

  1. No policy released. Key has indicated some modest changes to be announced in due course. Against Labour’s KiwiSaver amendment passed this morning that makes total remuneration packages illegal
  2. Will investigate opening the work account to competition so incentives are there for good safety practices, and allow employers to insure for a higher stand of cover. Also will have an independent disputes tribunal for ACC to be fair to claimants
  3. Yes a 90 day trial period for businesses with less than 20 employees.
  4. Yes will allow a collective agreement with no union. Making employees form an incorporated society just to negotiate a collective contract is cumbersome.
  5. The Holidays Act is like the blackboard scribblings in A Beautiful Mind. Will appoint business and union reps to a working group to review the Act, esp for relevant daily pay definition. Not to reduce rights but make law more clear.
  6. General comment – important to be fair to all parties – no major changes but some improvements

Peter Brown

  1. Want to make KiwiSaver compulsory
  2. Do not support competition to ACC. Does support an independent disputes tribunal.
  3. Missed
  4. Passionate about allowing employees to do a collective contract without forming a union, but NZ First does not have policy.
  5. Thinks law has settled down but willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Sue Bradford

  1. Support Government, think it is great.
  2. Oppose any moves to competition. Want more emphasis on equitable compensation regardless of how someone is impaired.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Trevor Mallard

  1. Missed but I guess no major changes
  2. Against
  3. Current Act has probationary periods (but grievances still possible)
  4. Against
  5. Missed

What was interesting is that every speaker against Trevor just spoke to policies and issues while Trevor sounded like he was blogging at The Standard and was referring to Crosby/Textor and the like.

Related posts:

  1. Business NZ Conference Part V
  2. Business NZ Conference Part IV
  3. Business NZ Conference Part II
  4. Business NZ Conference Part VII
Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

7 Responses to “Business NZ Conference Part VI”

  1. getstaffed (9,188) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Oppose any moves to competition. Want more emphasis on equitable compensation regardless of how someone is impaired

    I was born with a genetic impairment that forces me to vote Green. Can I have my compensation now please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. JC (756) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Sue Bradford for President!

    Yes, equitable treatment between injury and impairment/disease is long overdue.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. jafapete (765) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    It’s such a shame that the employers — or at least their chief lobby group — should see employment relations in such them-and-us terms. The questions are all framed from a narrow, selfish, winner-takes-all perspective. Nothing about building cooperative employment relations, productivity enhancement, up-skilling the workforce, etc, etc. Disappointing.

    But thanks for the report, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Buggerlugs (1,609) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Why do organisations bother inviting Mallard to speak? He’s like the dirty old loud leering uncle with Tourettes at a family function, walking round with his fly undone. Sure, he’s invited in the interests of fairness, but everyone wishes he’d fall down the stairs before he drinks too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Buggerlugs (1,609) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Oh, and Pete, I notice you don’t mention unions have been doing exactly (but on a larger scale) that for the last 100 years…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. stephen (4,063) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    I think you’ll find things have changed slightly – well the rhetoric anyway. They’re apparently cooperating on setting up some sort of ‘think tank’ type intermediary organisation together to address productivity, among other things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (9,500) Says:
    September 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Why don’t they just get the hell out of everybody else’s business. Bring back the contracts act with sensible moderation and just let us get on with doing business. There are enough safeguards in the law now for most situations and with skill shortages what employer with any brains is going to P— of his staff. Oh yeh there might be the odd one but then employees do it too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

«
»