Except…

The HR dept of the Uni I worked at were a bunch of dicks….. they operated in a logic free zone and rewarded brown nosing, PC behaviour and punished the hard workers. Getting out was the best thing I did but this was a grossly unfair way to run an organisation with apparently no accountability.

I can see the need for some controls but what we have now is ridiculously left wing, some balance is needed.

I have less sympathy for an employer who is an outright bully and makes no effort to be fair. Example I can think of is screaming in front of customer for employee to f off. Real nice.

expat

Outrageous that one of the core financial and political supporters of Labour is having to deal with the realities of a tightened purse.

Budget 2009

“Budget 2009 includes a net increase in new operating initiatives that totals $5.8 billion across the period from 2008/09 to 2012/13. In the 2012/13 year these new initiatives total $1.45 billion. Some initiatives are front-loaded into 2009/10 to help take the worst edges off the effects of the recession.

The increase in new operating initiatives, as well as changes in benefit forecasts and other forecast changes, results in a total increase in core Crown expenses of $2.9 billion in the 2009/10 fiscal year, after including the impact of savings in the 2009/10 year.

The combined impact of these increases, as well as projected future budget spending, is an increase of $16.4 billion in core Crown expenses between 2007/08 and 2012/13.”

Yeah, them’s tight purse strings.

I guess it is pragmatic to pay less even if you are right.

I think employment disputes in NZ are pretty even sided, there are employees that are complete muppets and you wish one of the remedies was a bullet to the brain, to stop someone else having to put up with them, but equally there are employers who couldn’t do a worse job of firing people if they tried, some are so bad you wonder how they manage to have survived so long.

Personally I think there should be a register of all employers that have consistently failed (more than twice) in their firing procedures, and also a register of employees who have had more than 2 cases thrown out, or have had a grievance where serious violence or theft was proven, even if they win on procedure

All the people i know that started teaching have all since scrapped the idea in search of enough money.

Somehow I knew the interview was blown when I answered that I always endeavoured to employ the best person for the job regardless of race, sex, education etc and that I have found good and bad in every group whichever way you want to slice society.

Slightly off topic but I remember I was emailed daily by some mob called the EEO who wanted me to make sure I hired an equal number of females and males. I eventually rang the head women in WGN and told her to stop interfering in my business and that I would employ whom I thought was the best person for the job. I finally got off the email list but I had to listen to a 10 minute lecture first.

No employee who is good at this job will suffer, no employee who gives his boss a hard days work will be threatened.

DPF is right on this, it is a fucking nightmare trying to get rid of a “bad apple”, it also works against an employer who may want to take a “punt” on somebody who may have been unemployed for a reasonable length of time or on a person returning to the workforce.

It’s SO outrageous that employers are expected to follow a procedure correctly when sacking someone. Time we got rid of that socialist carry-on. Bloody peasants should be more grateful to have jobs at all…

In relation to salary sharing, let’s do that, but across the whole education budget, up to and including Ms Tolley. And let’s require the private sector to introduce transparent gainsharing across all organisations. Indeed, let’s apply Mr Key’s principle as a universal feature of remuneration in NZ. Now, that would be cunning.

..pfftt.. ” outrageous ” he yells from the sidelines…pffttt…your’re outrageous mallard…

…she did not believe higher earners should have to forgo any chance of a pay increase so the less-well-paid could benefit.”

OMG! I never would have imagined I would read such a statement from a CTU president and so blatantly two faced. According to Helen Kelly the lowest paid are “a priority” but fuck’em anyway, the real priority for the CTU is the higher earners. I guess the higher earning Union members pay more in Union fees- so Helen in turn gets a pay rise?

And Trevor considers the idea of higher earners giving up a pay increase so lower income earners can benefit to be “outrageous”?! This is what Labour is about now? Screw everybody else, just look out for yourself? This is brand Goff? Shit, no wonder Labour are about as popular right now as Christchurch boyracers outside a hotel at 2 A.M.

I would have to say that compliance with procedure is not as hard as it is made out to be. A bit of common sense and some manners would get an employer close enough on almost every occasion. Telling someone to “fuck off” because they made a balls up without finding out the reasons why on the other hand tends to led to PGs.

As for the other article I have to laugh at the laments by the Union and Mallard of taking money off workers to pay other workers. Explain again what a progressive tax system is?