Myths over the probation period bill
Goodness the way some people are reacting you would think National was passing a law allowing every worker to be fired for Christmas. In reality the law – which was an explicit election pledge – is extremely modest, and merely catches us up to the rest of the developed world.
Here’s a few things you may now know:
- A probation period is not automatic for new jobs in small businesses. It only occurs if the employer and employee agree to it. Try offering me a job with a probation period, and I’ll tell you where to stick it! Mind you as a business owner any of my clients can sack me at any time without any notice!
- The 90 days is a maximum, and it can be less.
- All employment rights such as good faith, non-discrimination, non-harrassment, holidays, leave, OSH are maintained during a probation period. It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance. If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.
- There can be only one trial period per employer. An employer can not have a trial period for an employee who has worked for them previously.
- If you leave a benefit to take up a job terminated within the 90 day probation period, there is no stand down returning to the benefit.
- While small businesses (less than 20 staff) make up 97% of enterprises, they only employ 31% of employees.
- The law only applies to new jobs, and can not affect any existing employee in their current job.
I suspect those who have never worked in a small business, will never understand the need for this law change. One bad staff appointment can wipe out the entire firm’s profitability. Many small businesses owners have periods where they are paying themselves less than the staff.
Most business owners will do almost anything to keep a good staff member on. It is expensive and a hassle to have to find a replacement. If they do use the provisions of the new law (to be) it will be because they relucantly have concluded the person is unsuited for the job. You can’t always tell in advance from a CV and 60 minute interview.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Yes to all this.
And not just the CV & interview, but the referees & the employment agency, if you use them.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
as one who has worked in businesses from literally 5 to 5000 plus people you are correct. the idiots raving on against the law have never ever had any experience
they must be ignored as the yesterday people that they are. Irrational and irrelevant.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Indeed the hysteria over all this quite absurd. Fair enough they believe such legislation should not be a matter or urgency. On that point I too agree it should not be a matter or urgency. But its a rather commonsense piece of legislation that I am sure most people from the provinces will look forward to. Likewise, those who live in larger towns and cities will also find such legislation beneficial. Its a win-win all round and if anything for those less skilled, for those who Labour say are so vulnerable to this legislation if anything, this bill will allow those people a chance to be employed where one normally wouldn’t.
Also Labour’s treatment to Kate Wilkinson is disgusting. I’ve been listening to the house and they’ve made all sorts of outrageous comments. The way she speaks, the fact she has Exclusive Bretheren links. Links of which I might add are simply her acting for a few in matters of legal issues. Many lawyers represent criminals, that doesn’t make them a criminal. Its an absurd argument and Labour looks pathetic.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
And now that the Bill has past I am preparing the termination letters to each of my staff that I will give them on Xmas Eve in lieu of the staff party.
I will then employ a whole new staff in the New Year and sack them after 89 days and employ a whole new staff and then sack them after 89 days and employ……………………………………………….
December 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
gd, you illustrate exactly how much lefties know of business.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Dispelling myths or making them, DPF?
Merely catching up with the rest of the developed world? Or going backwards and forgoing a position of leadership. It’s not as though the provisions in the UK, for example, haven’t been contentious, actually.
1. Even if you agree to a probation period under existing law, you still can’t contract out of the PG provisions. National’s proposals do away with PG coverage for those affected.
2. Yes, you can negotiate less, but we are talking about small workplaces, most of which are to be found in the private sector services, where the most vulnerable workers are. What are the chances that those most likely to be affected by this proposal can negotiate a shorter term?
3. “It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance” Wrong! What about being sacked because you joined a union, or even just because you told someone you might? For example. Because the boss doesn’t like your boyfriend? Because her husband gave you the eye?
Do you really know what you are talking about?
December 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
gd,
You don’t know anything about employment law either. You can’t make staff redundant and then replace them with new workers. It is a good way to get sued in the employment court.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
gd … If you actually _were_ in business (and your comment indicates you are not), then you will be bankrupt faster than you can say “training the new guys”. The point is, that many businesses have hesitated to take on new people because they cannot then fire them if they don’t work out.
And the point is that current employment law tends to give the employee the benefit of the doubt. Now I don’t run a business at the moment (hoping to eventually), but I have seen in my organisation an inability to get rid of people who were clearly not performing, and beyond that were actually doing damage to that organisation by their continued employment. Yet we were told that we could not terminate that employment because we would lose the case in the employment court.
So I am all in favour of this probationary period law. And as DPF says, it catches NZ up with the rest of the world.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Well said, DPF, GD, and everyone else so far. (No sign of the lefty trolls yet).
I have said this often before, I am sick and tired of the ideological demonisation of people who actually provide jobs for other people. When someone leaves their job and starts a business, he is still the same person with the same family and house and so on, but he is now MORE vulnerable economically, not LESS, yet the bloody socialists law comes down on him like a ton of bricks in favour of anyone he gives a job to, on the basis that employees are “vulnerable” and need “protection”.
This bunch of politics of envy haters and wreckers can just stuff off out of our faces now and for eternity as far as I’m concerned. And don’t come around telling some guy with an employee from hell who is destroying his small business, that he deserves to lose everything as a result of failing to see through someone by means of a job interview or three. You do that, you deserve to have your face busted by the poor guy who is on the skids as a result of your rotten laws.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I reckon David does know what he is talking about, but JP, it’s pretty clear you don’t.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
David in ChCh and tknorris: he’s being sarcastic.
What you don’t understand is that the most vulnerable part of a small business is the small business. You cannot afford to carry anyone or anything. There are no vulnerable workers in a small business, just ones that don’t appreciate the situation. If an employee knows how risky small business is and they purposely seek out companies to damage, how can they be vulnerable? It’s the business that stands to be “the victim”.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Gingercrush:
“…..Labour’s treatment to Kate Wilkinson is disgusting. I’ve been listening to the house and they’ve made all sorts of outrageous comments. The way she speaks, the fact she has Exclusive Bretheren links. Links of which I might add are simply her acting for a few in matters of legal issues. Many lawyers represent criminals, that doesn’t make them a criminal. Its an absurd argument and Labour looks pathetic…..”
You probably didn’t mean it to look like that, Gingercrush, but are the EB to be likened to criminals in terms of whether or not MP’s are wise to associate with them or not?
It seems to me that all the EB are really guilty of, is being anathema to the P.C., Cultural Marxist, anti-christian Left.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
So Ed, DPF can be totally wrong — it simply is not true that “It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance” — but he still klnows more than me about this. I try not to abuse people, but there is no alternative here. You’re an ass.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Um… then you can take a PG? I think that’s what DPF said.
I’m pretty sure gd was kidding.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
jafapete, why should an employer give someone a job? Maybe they shouldn’t and just shrug.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
jafapete …. get over it. This was a manifesto commitment. We won, you lost, eat that (to quote the late and unlamented Minister of Finance in a failed government)
December 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
No Llew. Read it again carefully. No, you can’t take a PG. This may be hard for you to get your head around, but on the most importnat point in his post, DPF is totally wrong. Those are just a few examples I gave of cases where you could be sacked for reasons other than non-performance but could still not take a PG. I made the examples realistic, BTW, just to give people a bit of an idea about how things work in the real world.
PS Ross, you may like to lower yourself to Cullen’s level, but I will continue to endeavour not to.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
tknorris:
David In ChChch:
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
jafapete:
And, if your employer sacked you under a probationary period because you joined a union, why would you not be able to take a personal grievance?
If they are going to sack you for performance reasons there will be a fair and agreed upon measurement of said performance that is within a staff members control. If they feel they cannot make their performance targets they can discuss it with their proposed employer. Or they can not accept the contract and look for other employment.
And because there is a mechanism for measuring performance an employer will be unable to sack somebody for personal reasons under the disguise of non performance.
What about this is hard?
What this bill will do is open up more options for people and bring a measure of protection in for small business. It is a good idea. The only people I think are concerned about this are the ones who essentially don’t know what real work is and are simply out there for a free ride at their employer’s expense. There’s all too many of them in NZ.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Yes thanks for correcting me PhilBest.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Can you confirm what it is I should read carefully? DPF’s above post?
Here’s what Kate Wilkinson says in the NZ Herald:
* making it clearer that workers will still have the right to lodge personal grievance claims on the basis of sexual harassment or discrimination.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10547238
December 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Sacking someone after 90 days for sexually harrasing your wife – sounds sensible to me. You like making a cuckold of yourself jafapete or do you just generally disrespect your wife? Maybe you’d like to pay for the time of a court case instead, and all the while the vulnerable employee continues to effect productivity with immunity. That’ll make you feel good, eh boy? Upholding the law in all. Being fair with scumbags. Wasting your time and money.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Personal Grievences are fine and dandy. For the employee.
All the folks that have taken my business for a PG have won. $5k is the payoff. We did the procedure right, and despite them being people we would never re-employ or give glowing references for they got their loot.
What would be fair is for companies to be able to counter claim against lost profit, upset customers, bullied staff, loss of inventory due to theft etc.
I have a new one , and we are going to fight this tooth and nail. Because the staff member was dreadful. See all of the above!
In the UK, there was a 2 year grace period for Companies. (Too Long). Now it is 1 year. (About Right)
and as usual if the company or officers are guilty of horrible things, and particulary bad process they have UNLIMITED fines to deal with.
The net result of this new and popular move will be more employment in NZ. Hurrahhh
December 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
geez tknorriss and David in Chch My apologies if I have to spell out my little jokes
Sorry the humour went over your heads
. Actually employed my first staff member when I was 22 yrs old (35 yrs ago) and working as an accountant . had 5 women staff aged between mid 20s and early 60s. Was a great learning curve for a young lad . Taught me a hell of a lot made a lot of mistakes tried to not repeat them to often
lost count but probably personally employed around 200 people and been responsible for others employing a good multiple of that.
Work with all the legislation in the employment area since the early 1970s
Big lessons learnt. Treat the people you employer as you wish to be treated and most of the time they will respond positively
Dont ask them to do a task that you wont do.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
oops. I re-read all of gd’s posts … I see what you mean. As Roseanne Rosannadana used to say: “Never mind!”
December 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Excellent post DPF sums it up neatly. The merits of this bill are excellent.
As for the procedure, the HRC have come out and criticised a bill passed under urgency like this. I do understand the concern that it is not going to the select committee. But neither are a whole host of bills National has deemed early enough to pass before xmas under urgency. National has been elected on a platform, including this bill, which is National’s key employment policy. National has also said it will act even more quickly than usual given the global economic crisis.
On balance, I can understand why National is going to pass this bill before xmas and am pleased they have done so.
I think the criticism has been massively overplayed, probably because this is a heated issue amongst lefties, unionists and Labour who want to relitigate the mandate earnt on November 8 2008. It is also ironic for Labour are as guilty as sin for rushing a far more complex EFB through select committee and passing it under urgency despite the massive amount of issues still left to resolve. Hypocrisy? You bet it is.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
And how does one prove that it wasn’t a “performance issue”? Because all a harassing or discriminating employer, especially one that talks to their lawyer has to do is claim it was an performance issue, and these are by definition uncheckable, because there is no body to do so – the Employment Tribunal and courts have been removed. And then the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that it was not work-related.
If this law actually went through select committee this issue would be thrashed out, and perhaps the loophole closed. But there is no chance to do so.
It’s only a myth if you ignore the loophole big enough to drive a bulldozer though.
And for all those claiming that this helps businesses get rid of employees who can’t do their job – existing law already makes that possible, the first 3 months included. If the process is broke, then fix the bloody process.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
llew:
“making it clearer that workers will still have the right to lodge personal grievance claims on the basis of sexual harassment or discrimination.”
scenario:
Employer asks employee to have sex with them – employee says no – employer says do it or you’ll be fired, employee still says no – employer fires employee.
Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act an employee would take a personal grievance and win, because the employer sisn’t follow the correct dismissal procedures.
Under National’s new legislation the employer will be able to do this. The employer can simply claim that the employee was fired because they are lazy (they don’t have to go through proper procedure). So the burden of proof is on the employee to prove that there was sexual harassment – which is often very difficult because you need witnesses and not many bosses are stupid enough to sexually harrass employees in front of their co-workers.
So National’s 90 day get the sack bill doesn’t protect against using this type of sexual harassment (i.e. using threat of dismissal to gain sexual favors).
So National’s claim, that workers will be protected against sexual harassment with their “wild west” 90 day get the sack Act is bogus.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
If you’re a honest hard working employee, then you have nothing to fear.
If your new boss is thick enough to sack you within 90 days just because he/she doesn’t like the look of your girl or boy friend, then you wouldn’t want to and shouldn’t work for this person anyway, unless you’re a useless slacker who couldn’t even do a half decent job… but than that’s hardly the employer’s fault anyway.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
lew:
“making it clearer that workers will still have the right to lodge personal grievance claims on the basis of sexual harassment or discrimination.”
scenario:
Employer asks employee to have sex with them – employee says no – employer says do it or you’ll be fired, employee still says no – employer fires employee.
Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act an employee would take a personal grievance and win, because the employer sisn’t follow the correct dismissal procedures.
Under National’s new legislation the employer will be able to do this. The employer can simply claim that the employee was fired because they are lazy (they don’t have to go through proper procedure). So the burden of proof is on the employee to prove that there was sexual harassment – which is often very difficult because you need witnesses and not many bosses are stupid enough to sexually harass employees in front of their co-workers.
So National’s 90 day get the sack bill doesn’t protect against using this type of sexual harassment (i.e. using threat of dismissal to gain sexual favors).
So National’s claim, that workers will be protected against sexual harassment with their “wild west” 90 day get the sack Act is bogus.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Most employers are good people, and wouldn’t hurt their employees if they can help it. I’m not anti-employer by any means. But there are some bad ones out there.
No?
Survivor: Where 9 employees are hired, and the 6 best are kept.
Speedup-Slowdown surprise: Are we going to be busy over the next few months? I’m more than 50% sure, so I’ll hire knowing I can fire at any time.
My nephew needs a job: off goes the newest employee.
Idiocy: The employer shouldn’t have been hiring.
The last is probably the most likely. But all of these will occur. How do we know? Because they happen and the employers get taken to the Employment Tribunal and told they can’t do it.
Justified dismissal law is there for a reason.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I can’t really see this happening, it’d be a really expensive way to get 6 employees. And the 3 fired would probably have grounds for grievance./
December 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
georgedarroch if it is discrimination or some other reason dressed up as performance than the probationary employee would be able to go to the Tribunal to have the matter resolved. It simply means if there are legitimate performance related issues then the employer cannot use the Tribunal to remain in a job in which he or she is not performing.
No law is perfect (and the current law is rather imperfect and not well tailored to small businesses at all!) but you must balance the benefits with the costs and overall this law has merit and should be passed. Ignoring the benefits or this law is simply disengenuous and an exercise in leftwing hyperbole and scaremongering (not an uncommon thing).
December 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Performance issues. Those three just weren’t pulling their weight.”
December 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Kudos to DPF. Summed up very well.
I had a look yesterday at the hysteria on The Standard about this, and very clearly most of the people on there have no idea how business works, and most of them are beneficiaries (I personally define this widely to include people living off other’s labour e.g. to include govt. employees (not all but definitely these twerps), students, union reps etc.) and as others have said have no idea how private enterprise works! I just wish the limit was 50 people.
As an employer, I would never, never fire someone just for the sake of it. Its way too disruptive, and like 99% of employers i am here to try and make a living for myself and my family and provide as good a living as I can for my staff.
Note to Leftist idiots: Small business owners are the good guys!
All I would say to your morons who oppose this bill is stop leaching off others and go and start your own business and figure out how the real world works, but then, as a leftie, you are probably a vindictive and jealous nonentity to who would fall into the 1% of bad employers who probably would misuse this eminently sensible law!
(union reps would love to have this law apply in their workplaces to fire non-union employees!)
December 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Why is it lost on so any people that it is small businesses or, around 10% of the population creating 80% of the wealth, that generate the taxes, that pay the benefits (amongst other things), for those too lazy to work?? I’ve been in business for around 30 years, starting up enterprises and employing people from all walks of life. Many of them have been ex crims and/or, long term unemployed. I’ve been used and abused by many, but occasionally I’ve been lucky and struck real gems, who have worked with me for many decades. Staff are a business’s greatest asset (or greatest liability) and I will hire or fire anyone I damn well like. Since I take all the risks to create wealth in this country and to put food on the table for those with whom I employ, that is my divine right. I’ve always treated my employees with dignity and respect, and aways go the extra mile for them. I do not need any regulations or laws, to tell me how to treat the people I employ, off the back of my own sweat and toil.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
” If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.”
I should bloody well think so specially if it was the boss or his son who did the deed!
December 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Paul, oranjemakker, and others:
Employers should be able to dismiss bad staff, and employees should have protection against unjustified dismissal by bad employers.
Where have I said that employers are bad people, or not hard workers, or anything of the type? Please don’t put words into my mouth, and I won’t put words into yours.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The bill has finally been published…
Section 4(1A)(c) puts a penalty on unjustified dismissal. Section 120 requires the employer to provide a reason for dismissal, if requested.
The employer is under no obligation to provide any reason whatsoever for the dismissal. Sinks the discrimination provisions, because they rely on it becoming apparent that an employers claims of work related issues are false.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I am sorry George, but you are either lying or seriously misinformed. If you oppose this bill, you cannot in fact state with any credibility that under current laws “Employers should be able to dismiss bad staff” , because under current laws you really can’t without a massive risk, without either settling with the employee ($5k min) or going through a ridiculous process of written warning etc. What you clearly don’t realise is that the moment that you give someone a serious warning they effectively become lame duck employees. Big firms can carry these, small ones cannot. This is where lefties, from Phil Goof down, are deliberately misinforming the public. They keep on parroting this lie that you can somehow get rid of bad employees, the reality is you cant without great difficulty, expense.
I would go further (and this is quite an important point really) and say the current laws are more humiliating for the employee as you have to tell them why they are poor performers and its very tough. i have had to do this and its so much tougher on them. This law will allow a much cleaner, more pleasant break: e.g. “you’re a nice guy, but its just not working out. This role does not have the right fit for you. Good luck”, etc.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
To llew and others who simply don’t get how DPF is wrong, I’ll try to put it as simply as I can: “sexual harassment or discrimination” does not define all of the possible reasons for sacking someone apart from non-peformance. Arbitrary dismissal can be the result of an almost infinite array of motivations. I gave some examples that are not uncommon (for expressing an interest in joining a union) or that are highly plausible (jealousy) and could sit here all night thinking of more examples. But I’m beginning to get the impression that you just don’t want to know.
As for the arguments based on ideas like 10% of the population creating 80% of the wealth, or anybody on a benefit is too lazy to work, that’s just downright stupid, and I’m surprised George can be bothered replying to such nonsense. Is this the quality of National’s policy making?
Sorry, orangemakker, but small employers can and do get rid of non-performing employees without too much bother. I’ve successfully advised some on how to do this myself. Get better advice.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“going through a ridiculous process of written warning etc.”
If you think it is ridiculous to give someone a written warning, then it is you who has the problem.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Brilliant oranjemakker. You have just said it all in your last two posts. George is a dipshit. Most here treat him like one, you have gone out of your way to try to educate him in reality. You are wasting your time.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
jafapete of course thinks that Phil In is the great hope for a socialist revival and that Chris Trotter is at the cutting edge of intelligent media commentary. What have you been smoking jafa? Again —–dipshit.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
It angers me no end to hear the left bleat about this piece of legislation, they act as if it is a workers birth right to have a job and for the employer to carry that worker if they are unable or unwilling to do the job.
Goff compounded the lie yesterday in the house when he said it was easy to dismiss a non performing worker which as those of us in business or who have been business owners in the past know only to well to be a an outright fucking lie.
I know of one employer who when forced to fire under performing salespeople (after prolonged non performance) simply writes a cheque for anywhere between $5000 and $10,000 depending on the circumstances as he knows he will end up having to pay this if it goes to court, he is of the opinion that it is a cheap price to pay given that the under performing staff member would cost him far more than that in lost business and down time while he has to “council the useless bastard” and pretend to be interested in the “issues he faces” that might affect his work.
Any reasonable boss will take an interest in the lives of his people and any decent boss will do what is needed to make sure that the work environment is as comfortable and stress free as possible but to be expected to sit there and listen to somebody who is NEVER going to make the grade prattle on about his domestic life and how this is the reason he is not pulling his weight is simply ridiculous.
The left also refuse to comment about the rouge employees who far outnumber the rouge employers, the bosses have not had any defense against these parasites and as pointed out by others one or two of these pricks can destroy a once profitable small business almost overnight.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
For fuck’s sake, this is only for the first fucking 90 days!!!
Don’t make it like from now on employers can start sacking all employees at will.
If it doesn’t work out in the first 90 days, the chances are it would be better for both parties to part ways anyway.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Thanks Johnboy!
Jafapete: You say that “small employers can and do get rid of non-performing employees without too much bother. I’ve successfully advised some on how to do this myself. Get better advice”
You are a muppet. If you follow the law as specified it takes ages, so your advice must be on circumveniting the law.
This is just an example on the bureaucractic process from the ers.govt.nz website.
We can save time and help preserve our working relationship by solving our own problems as far as possible.
The following are suggestions for what you might do if you think there is a problem, and what help is available.
Clarify what the problem is from your point of view Make sure there really is a problem. Check your facts and make sure you have not assumed or misunderstood something.
You might discuss the apparent problem with family or friends or advisers, and find out what the law is and/or what our employment agreement says.
You can:
Contact Employment Relations Infoline
get pamphlets/fact sheets from Department of Labour offices
talk to your union, a lawyer, community law office or industrial relations consultant.
Talk to me. We should discuss the problem, either directly or through our representatives. You may bring a friend, relative or colleague to support you in the discussion. You should make sure that you discuss the facts so that you can clear up any assumptions or misunderstandings.
If we have not resolved the problem by discussion, you can do some or all of the following things:
Contact Employment Relations Infoline, who may provide information and/or refer you to mediation
Participate in mediation provided by the Employment Relations Service (or we can get our own mediator)
If we reach agreement, a mediator provided by the Employment Relations Service can sign the agreed settlement, and that will bind us
Choose to have the mediator provided by the Employment Relations Service decide the matter for us, and if so, that decision will be binding on us
If mediation does not resolve the problem, you can take the problem to the Employment Relations Authority for investigation
The Employment Relations Authority may direct us to mediation if it thinks that will still be useful
The Authority can investigate and make a determination about the problem
If you are dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority, you can take the problem to the Employment Court for a judicial hearing. (The Court may also tell us to go back and have more mediation.)
Note that if the problem is a personal grievance, then you must raise it with me (as your employer) within 90 days after the action complained of, or the date you became aware of it, unless there are exceptional circumstances. (A personal grievance may arise where an employee believes he or she has been unfairly treated or unjustifiably dismissed.)
If the problem is about minimum entitlements under the law, you may ask a Labour Inspector to enforce your rights under minimum rights legislation, such as the Minimum Wage Act or the Holidays Act.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
One of the problems facing employers is the objective test of justification. The test used to be whether the action taken by the employer was within a range of actions available given the facts of the individual case. There was some leeway. Now there is an objective test — would a reasonable employer have dismissed. The ERA can and does substitute its opinion for that of the employer even though the employer made the best effort. This is may well work — though many argue otherwise — when the employment relationship has subsisted for some time. It makes life difficult when the parties are still getting to know each other.
The theory behind the amendment is to enable the employer to take a risk. Of course there will be abuse. Read some employment court cases. They are available online. Some employers are so far over the top that one can well understand why the law may have been pitched at the more protective level. Exactly the same applies at the other end. It can be heartbreaking to go through the process knowing that the employee is going to fight all the way and lever a result using time, cost and stress rather than merit.
So, which end of the continuum do you pitch the marker? The objections advanced by the opposition may occur but are probably at an extreme end. Does that mean that all small business owners are demonised? Most of the small business owners I know are more than happy to hang on to a good employee and are unlikely to fire at 90 day intervals.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
No sweat OJM george and jafa are just a pair of leftys with their own useless blogs that get no traffic so they come here to try and drum some up. I suspect they are just reincarnations of Tane or Roger Nome or whatever who can’t post here so use assumed names. Lets face it it is NZs best blog and once you have been banned for life what else can you do. You can sniff commos out pretty easily if you check out that they seem to have huge resources of statistical data at hand and no matter what any sensible person who has actually run a business says they will not change their views. They also lie a lot like Ratbiter but if you press them for facts they shit on themselves. As long as you enjoy an argument by all means keep talking to them but to be honest they are just a waste of spacetime. Still TV is crap at the moment so might as well waste time here. I think most of them are just silly little left wing boys whose sole take on life is being a mover and shaker in their local students union and who have delusions of importance if they get a pat on the head from the union or the liars party losers.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
i find nothing wrong with this probation and have used it lots of times here in oz
at the end of the day it takes the fear out of employing someone(it is all up to the employee)
alot of young people dont want to work nowdays and to be stuck with someone like this would be a nightmear
myself and my partner have just gone through 4 useless fucks before we found the right one,we still lost time and money but at least its over and we have the right people to move forward
December 11th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Sick of the bleating from idealogues who have never employed folks, or risked everything they own.
All to easy to pander to the better sentiments of the majority about the dear old worker.
Good people are really hard to fine, and are much valued.
Nothing creates a worse feeling than ‘poaching’ of your better performers, who have added value and have had a lot of training etc.
The Unions Leaders are too often useless, irrelevant incompetents who filch off their fellow members. Socialist Brotherhood? Pah!!
They just love the power and sounds of their own voices. Do they really have a relevance? Hmmm not sure.
Labour is so mobile now in the communication age, I doubt it.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
They seem to have buggered off must be half price meals at the student union or trades hall.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
ha ha ha! Actually, I must make a small clarification to hte above post about 99% of employers. They would not dismiss people under the new law just for the sake of it….. unless the employees in question are Jafapete and George… in that case, wait till day 89, and tell them to get fucked! would be worth hiring htem just to be able to fire them later
December 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sad pathetic little trolls, clinging dearly to policies and ideolgies that they love, but have no life experience as to why.
Ah Bless!! Must be wonderful to be that young and know so much.
A bit like that creepy little Dutch Prick that taped the National Cocktail Party, and found out NOTHING.
Bet he likes his goods delivered at the back door! Pilot or Navigator? Hmmm. Just a nasty little shit actually.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Personally I think the employer and employee should be able to make any contract they like. You don’t see employers taking employees to court when they resign but it is routine the other direction (hooray for lawyers working on contingency fees!) when the employer termintates the relationship.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Shit would you pay THEM for 89 days? I won’t hire you OJM as my HR manager.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
OK, good point, fire them after 1 day, once they have quit whatever sad other job they may have
December 11th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Thats better now you are shaping up nicely. Must be getting icecream and fruit salad for dessert at tradeshall tonight?
December 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I run a smallish company (around 40 staff) in NZ and over the last year have had to employ around 20 staff (we moved a part of our business to Whangarei) and will be employing about 10 more staff there in the next 3-6 months. Some comments:
1. Every sane employer wants good staff. When a new employee starts the first thing that happens is training. This is an investment that the employer makes. Often this training period last 90 days (in our case, phase 1 is 90 days, then phase 2 another 90 days later). This represents a significant investment by the employer, since the new employee is not productive over that period.
2. It costs to employ staff – either your own time (100+ interviews over the last 12 months) or agency fees (typically 15% of annual salary)
3. Sacking staff for other than performance issues (expect for obvious things like sexual harassment) is dumb – it impacts not only the person sacked but also the rest of the staff.
4. Smaller businesses are particularly impacted by small staff (I have owned a business with 5 staff – you end up working for the staff, not them working for you) – 4 weeks annual leave, sick pay – the owner ends up being the floating resource to keep the ship afloat. A single bad worker can cripple a small business.
5. There will be exceptions – the few employers that will take advantage – but the vast majority of employers simply want their businesses to succeed, and this law will give them the opportunity to try someone and see if they fit. And if they don’t (which will be the minority) they have the chance to get out without major cost.
My prediction – in 6 months, everyone will wonder what the fuss is about
December 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
If these myths are not reality and the bill is so modest then why is there this need for urgency?
December 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Because there is more bloody important work to get on with like saving the country from economic disaster and trying to find the bloody cash to bail us out of the shit that the wanker history professor has dropped us into with his 9 years of economic mismanagement.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Because John Key and Co have no idea about handling major issues. Shafting workers and getting cheers from kiwiblog is all they know how to do.
The dollar has tanked, Telecom has fucked the telecommunications infrastructure, finance companies have laid waste to investors, gangs and P dealers are out of control but National has no answers for these problems – all they can do is revert to type – fuck over the workers, reduce taxes for therir rioch prick mates whilst increasing taxes on the productive, yet underpaid worker, deny the worker a decent retirement income, and fund health care on the basis of she who shouts loudest, not on the best bang for the buck.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Billy The Dork…
“Telecom has fucked the telecommunications infrastructure, finance companies have laid waste to investors, gangs and P dealers are out of control”
right. Under whose watch did this happen???
December 11th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“shouts loudest, not on the best bang for the buck.”
Sounds like you can produce the best result on that score BillyBonker. Suggest you disappear up your own anus.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“gangs and P dealers are out of control”
Billy Bonker – thanks to a liarbour Police Minister who foolishly thought the problem stems from the moon!
December 11th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
OJ, it doesn’t matter “under whose watch” this happeed. What matters is the current government, the people who wanted the job, either don’t have a clue or don’t care. A bill for sacking workers is far more important than structural reform of the the economy and the coommunity. BTW, I am prepared to bet my left nut a lot of the money financing national came from those who made big$ from P and other drugs.
If I was the government, nmy urgency would be
a) reform of the laws controlling corporations,
b) reform of drug laws,
c) rebuilding and renationalising infrastructure such as telecommunications and electricity,
d) strengthening communities by assisting the reformation of community groups
NOT twiddling about the edges of industrial laws.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
“If I was the government, nmy urgency would be”
People who can’t spell never get to be the government!
December 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
So, jiohnboy, I take it you’re all in favour of health policy being made on the grounds of political expediency, not science?
dad4justice, have you ever made a contribution to a debate? Its not only NZ that has problems with drugs, it also happens in countries with right wing govts, no govts and dictatorships. Pullk your head out of johnboy’s cunt and do some study.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Micky
There is a need because the Government wants to get things done, now I know you are not used to that but you have three years to get used to the idea, and as for your feelings on the matter…..nobody gives a shit.
Billy
You are an idiot, please piss off to the Labour party funded Standard.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
As John Tamihere rightly pointed out on RadioLive yesterday, many small business owners (i.e. employing under 20 staff) have a mortgage over their house in order to maintain cashflow for their business.
They are the ones that hold the risk, so why should they not have some more security?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Sorry joinbhoy, I am an exccellent speller, but a shiothouse typoist. Under the stoopid right wing guvmint of my yoof, only girslz was aloud toern tippintg.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“If I was the government, nmy urgency would be”
Thank god you are not, in case you missed it last time I repeat, nobody and I do mean NOBODY gives a fuck what you think.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
big bruv, sorry, you don’t get to make the rules. I am here, get used to it.
I know you like kiwiblog being an echo chamber, but tuff titz.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“So, jiohnboy, I take it you’re all in favour of health policy being made on the grounds of political expediency, not science?”
People who spell as badly as you not only never get to be the government they don’t even get classed as the opposition.
Leave it to Cullen at least he is literate.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“Pullk your head out of johnboy’s cunt and do some study.”
Are you James Sleepo’s mutant alien brother?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
> Most business owners will do almost anything to keep a good staff member on
Of course – bills like this allow small businesses to shed bad hires. It’s no surprise the unions are against it because for the most part they represent the interests of poorly-performing workers against employers who would rather not have them at all.
The whole thing strikes me as funny anyway, because I work as a contractor on a mutual seven-day no-reason notice period. If I don’t like where I’m working, I can walk, and if my employers decide they don’t like me or my work (or if my position is no longer required) they only have to pay me for seven days past that point.
Personally, when I come to hire staff for my fledgling company, I’d be sorely tempted to only hire contractors.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Dad control yourself. David will give you a demerit of at least 20 points and my wife would not let that other person put his head where you have suggested even if it would fit.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
You fly DB where are you at?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Billy Pork chop….
If your other posts did not prove that you were an utter nutter, this ridiculous quote surely does:
“BTW, I am prepared to bet my left nut a lot of the money financing national came from those who made big$ from P and other drugs.”
Beyond moronic… but lets for a second take that comment seriously, can you please clarify this observation and explain why you believe this is the case?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Don’t let them suck you in OJM.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Then again BillyBonker has not got the brain of even a warehouse vacum cleaner.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
As I see it, if you’re happy for a non-performing worker to be continually employed, then you’re happy for your child to be non-performing at school.
Achievement does not fit into the Marxist-Socialist agenda that has crippled our country for the last nine years.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Billy
Stop with the blatant trolling, only a complete fuckwit or a Labour party knuckle dragger would deny woman with her2 breast cancer the drug they need to possibly save their lives and then use that denial as a was of scoring political points.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Johnboy,
I’m now in sunny Melbourne (well, sunny today at least) working as a software developer on a contract basis while getting a company that I founded with an old friend of mine off the ground.
I have worked in a variety of roles in my youth – sorting freight at a courier company at 1AM, working on a factory floor as a process worker, through to retail and helpdesk work before breaking into the software development field thanks to a friend (hi Regan!).
Some of those jobs involved probationary periods, which were illegal at the time, but guess what? The people who hired me were willing to take a chance on me, knowing that if I turned out to be a slack-jawed goof-off, they would lose very little. I was happy to go with it, because I’m not a slack-jawed goof-off.
The only people who lose when probationary periods are legal is people who aren’t worth hiring in the first place.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“Achievement does not fit into the Marxist-Socialist agenda that has crippled our country for the last nine years.”
Look at Helen and her monkey and you can see this is true they have not achieved very much at all with all our cash they have blown.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
As Dear Leader was happy to Quote often.
The Role of Government, is whatever Government determines it to be.
Roughly translated pinkos, you lost and you will simply have to STFU for the next 3 years.
If the policies are unpopular, or the current leaders who have total control then the Intellectual Socialist Marxist Co-Operative might get another chance at the Helm.
Unlikely.
Best if you pussies go and fit your shower regulation device, so that you can all save the Planet!! Weirdos.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
No DB. I flicked over your blog and saw you mentioned flying and bending planes. Old retired PPL myself just wondered where you were at. Still miss it after 17 years. Nothing quite as character building as putting one on the ground in a good xwind and leaving it in re-flyable condition for the next fellow.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Are the boys back from the student union cafeteria yet?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Ah, right. Did some remedial circuits with the CFI after the hard landing which went well. That said one of the mainwheels deflated sometime shortly after the last landing. Not my fault this time, just an unlucky mechanical failure (photo at http://flickr.com/photos/duncanbayne/2302121614/in/set-72157600230948942/).
I haven’t flown since (want to find a new school after being unhappy with the service I received from RVAC, plus I simply have _no_ spare time at the moment). I’ve spoken with the guys from Red Baron (http://www.redbaron.com.au/flight_training/) and plan to do some training with them when I next have the free time and money (would have to spend a few weeks at least in Sydney for that to be worthwhile).
It is a _lot_ of fun isn’t it? What did you fly? I’ve around 12 hours in the Evektor Sportstar and a couple in an ancient C150 Aerobat.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Did my time in a C152 and got a rating on a C172 and then a PA28. Flew around a bit then bought another house and could not afford it any more what with the mortgage and not being a wealthy union organiser or Liarbour MP of course so realised I was flying too infrequently to stay safe so gave it away. Still miss the thrill though.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Thanks for the photos.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Are the boys back from the student union cafeteria yet?”
Double helping of icecream tonight so we wont see them for another 10min.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I skimmed the thread until I saw justanotherfuckwitarseholepete claiming he had successfully advised small businesses! To what? Go into receivership? Telling the counter jockey at McDonalds that your burger is cold and they should microwave it does not count as advising business, cloth ears…
December 11th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Jafapete.
When you talk about the boss not liking your boyfriend, are you referring to Madeline Setchell?
December 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“justanotherfuckwitarseholepete” = jafapete=====brilliant!!!!
December 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
But to prove true brilliance what can you do with g-e-o-r-g-e-d-a-r-r-o-c-h!
December 11th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
The pinkies are Sooooo Angry!!!
They just can’t see that there was a big swing against them.
In FPP they would have all but disappeared.
As for Wiggy, and his Put me First Party, then the ‘Court of Public Opinion’ spoke.
It was a resounding and unnanimous “Guilty”, and the sentencing was for “Life”
By the way wiggy, where is our money that you stole?
Pity you are unwarranted, and unbadged. Pity you smug loser.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Johnboy I think georgydullrock should do 90 days in a jafared and poofter pink stripped boiler suit in a chain gang on State Highway Number One in wintertime.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Speaking of NZF, anyone have the latest demographic figures to hand. What proportion of the country will be over 65 in 2011? And NZ European? And senile?
December 11th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sounds good Dad. He could just join the territorials and do basic at Waiouru and get the same thing without the poofter pink.
Well without the pink anyway depending who his sarge is.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“Speaking of NZF, anyone have the latest demographic figures to hand. What proportion of the country will be over 65 in 2011? And NZ European? And senile?”
Ill be 65 in 2014. Still white hopefully( though my grandkids are blond maoris). Already senile (or so the wife says). Hope that clears things up in my case (if not I probably wont care by 2014).
December 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Have the Ladies and Kinder gone bo bos?
Ah Bless!!
December 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Sleeping off the christmas din dins they had at the trades hall where all the jellies are red.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
A good kick up the bum is just what Labour voters need.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Unions are a waste of money.
New Zealand would be better off if it got rid of Unions.
December 12th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Muldoon had the right idea, de register the Unions that will keep them quiet.
December 12th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Well it’s not as if the ERA was that good at ‘protecting’ people in the first place:
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/12/does-saying-it-make-it-so.html
Lee MWT
December 12th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Opponents of this proposed law have their heads stuck in a Victorian time-warp where the workers, anticipating a lifetime of labour on some factory floor, are oppressed by obese industrial taskmasters who puff cigars and victimise the workers.
I suggest they wake up and stop expecting us to participate in their fantasy.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I think the lefties on this blog are upset about this bill they have been told that it will remove the rights of the employee. But the only right they are removing is the right not to have their performance/job fit assessed after 90 days. This bill actually gives the employer the right to determine whether a new staff member is “up to it”.
DPF “All employment rights such as good faith, non-discrimination, non-harrassment, holidays, leave, OSH are maintained during a probation period. It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance. If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.”
The employee may still bring a grievance should they believe that the real reason is other than performance/job fit. The Employment Tribunal may still consider the grounds for the dismissal to ensure they comply with performance/job fit. I know you lefties cannot understand this,try harder. Ignorance is no excuse for hysteria.
The benefits of this bill are huge. 1) Encourages employers to hire otherwise “risky” employees. 2) An employee (perhaps one confident of his or her abilities and with good credentials) can cotnract out of this provision so it will not apply across the board. 3) It is limited to SME’s. 4) It gives employees some experience making it likely that if the person cannot secure that job, then they will be in a good position to secure the next. 5) For those on a benefit, if it does not work out, there is no stand down to go back on the benefit. 6) Employers are not going to throw away good staff in some attempt to take advantage of this act, employees take time to train and fit on so changes are not desirable as a general rule. 7) Employers have to spend a great deal of time and money on processing failing employees through the warning system (one informal plus two formal 2 warnings) and at the end of it the employee may got to Court anyway to argue a grievance. This is an unacceptable risk and compliance costs for many SME’s so why would they hire anyone other than an experienced worker? 8. This law will encourage employers to hire staff during this tough economic climate helping lessen the burden on the taxpayer of having more and more people out of work. This is the rationale for urgency (in addition it is a key part of National’s mandate and a similar bill has been to select committee before and it is pure semantics to argue the member bill is quite different, the philosophy and substance of this bill is very much the same and it has been watered down to address some of the select committee’s concerns).
All the hysteria from the left on process is a joke when you look back at what the Clark government rammed through. EFA and retrospective validiation of election overspend anyone?? Dont worry what is good overall for the country in these tough times?
December 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Earlier this morning Wendyl Nissan kept telling Paul Holmes and the Newstalk listeners there was no need “to ram this bill through under urgency.”
Has she not heard about the recession and about the threatened and actual job losses and business closures?
Maybe not given her awareness of most economic issues.
The New Year is when many of these layoffs and closures take effect – and on the other hand many people do their hiring at this time of year.
So both the timing and the reality of the recession make passing this Bill an urgent matter.
(Of course Ms Nissan sits on a few cushy jobs and is not worried about her immediate prospects so has little empathy for others.)
But imagine you are in a small town and have worked in a timber mill all your life and it closes for lack of construction work and you are out of work.
Your employer was the only sawmill in town – and indeed the only “manufacturer” in town.
So you respond to an advertisement seeking workers in the Dairy factory in the town just down the road.
Of course you have never worked in a Dairy factory in your life, and the employer is reluctant to take on someone without experience.
But now you can say “GIve me three months to show you I am a quick learner. We had many changes in plant and technology over my time in the mill and I can learn to use your machinery and computers just as a learned to use the machinery and computers in the mill!”
At least you have a chance.
That is why this Bill MUST go through before Xmas.
But where are John Key’s PR people? I have not heard anyone make this point!
I would be prepared to have a go for ninety days!
December 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Read the law:
Employment Relations Amendment Bill: Part 2
Amendments to principal Act
6 Probationary arrangements
Section 67 is amended by omitting “or trial” in each place where it appears.
7 New sections 67A and 67B insertedThe following sections are inserted after section 67:
“67A When employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less“(1) An employment agreement containing a trial provision, as defined in subsection (2), may be entered into by an employee, as defined in subsection (3), and an employer as defined in subsection (4).
“(2) Trial provision means a written provision in an employment agreement that states, or is to the effect, that—
“(a) for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days), starting at the beginning of the employee’s employment, the employee is to serve a trial period; and
“(b) during that period the employer may dismiss the employee; and
“(c) if the employer does so, the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.
“(3) Employee means an employee who has not been previously employed by the employer.
“(4) Employer means an employer who, at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into, employs fewer than 20 employees.
“(5) To avoid doubt, a trial provision may be included in an employment agreement under—
“(a) section 61(1)(a), but subject to section 61(1)(b):
“(b) section 63(2)(b).
“67B Effect of trial provision under section 67A“(1) This section applies if an employer terminates an employment agreement containing a trial provision under section 67A by giving the employee notice of the termination before the end of the trial period, whether the termination takes effect before, at, or after the end of the trial period.
“(2) An employee whose employment agreement is terminated in accordance with subsection (1) may not bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.
“(3) Neither this section nor a trial provision prevents an employee from bringing a personal grievance or legal proceedings on any of the grounds specified in section 103(1)(b) to (g).
“(4) An employee whose employment agreement contains a trial provision is, in all other respects (including access to mediation services), to be treated no differently from an employee whose employment agreement contains no trial provision or contains a trial provision that has ceased to have effect.
“(5) Subsection (4) applies subject to the following provisions:
“(a) in observing the obligation in section 4 of dealing in good faith with the employee, the employer is not required to comply with section 4(1A)(c) in making a decision whether to terminate an employment agreement under this section; and
“(b) the employer is not required to comply with a request under section 120 that relates to terminating an employment agreement under this section.”
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0008-1/latest/whole.html#DLM1765613
Employment Relations Act 2000: Personal grievances
102 Employee may pursue personal grievance under this Act
An employee who believes that he or she has a personal grievance may pursue that grievance under this Act.
103 Personal grievance
(1) For the purposes of this Act, personal grievance means any grievance that an employee may have against the employee’s employer or former employer because of a claim—
(a) that the employee has been unjustifiably dismissed; or
(b) that the employee’s employment, or 1 or more conditions of the employee’s employment (including any condition that survives termination of the employment), is or are or was (during employment that has since been terminated) affected to the employee’s disadvantage by some unjustifiable action by the employer; or
(c) that the employee has been discriminated against in the employee’s employment; or
(d) that the employee has been sexually harassed in the employee’s employment; or
(e) that the employee has been racially harassed in the employee’s employment; or
(f) that the employee has been subject to duress in the employee’s employment in relation to membership or non-membership of a union or employees organisation[; or]
[(g) that the employee's employer has failed to comply with a requirement of Part 6A[[; or]].]
December 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
S67B(3) of the Bill demonstrates that Jafapete, Idiot/Savant, Steve Pierson and co are either ignorant, scaremongering or they just cant read law.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Jafa The Hut proclaims hmself an expert at advising small business.
Being an office janitor and advising the business owner whose toilets you clean on how best to avoid crusty bits on the inside of the toilet bowl does not qualify in my mind as “advising small business”
December 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Owen
Wendyl Nissan is the biggest airhead in the media. A complete waste of space Every Friday Holmes and Mike take the piss out of her and like all dumbarse lefties it all goes right over her head.
Shes the complete example of the Chardonnay Socialist A Clark luvvie. Thick as 2 short planks. It was nutbars like her that voted for the bloody socialists and kept them in power for those 9 looooong years.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Saw a comment above and thought it interesting, so I looked it up.
If the last election had been based on FPP, and
If there was a 70 seat Parliament
the current position would be . . . . .
National 41
All other Parties 29
That’s what yu call a majority government!!
December 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Just think if this was legislation to be brought back in when the Pinkos get organised in a couple of decades. But this time with the 90days removed and far heavier penalties for dismissal.
How about the PG claim to be a minimum of $100,000-00, plus costs, plus an UNLIMITED fine for whatever the Company or Employer may have done wrong in discrimination or constructive dismissal, on all NEW appointments from the day that the Pinkos returned.
What would that do for recruitment and employment in this Country from that point onwards?
Employers are not always wrong. An extreme view? That is what the UK has at the moment effectively.