90 day trials
July 18th, 2010 at 9:25 am by David FarrarThe best thing about the Government’s decision to extend the option of 90 day grievance periods to all employers, is that the unions have planned a protest today outside the National Party conference.
Many delegates had lamented how much they miss the traditional protests outside, so thanks to the CTU for going to the effort to organise one.
Turning to the merits of the policy, I would commend to readers a copy of the DOL report into the current 90 day grievance free period for small employers. Not online yet, but expect will be on DOL website on Monday. Some key facts from their survey:
- Half of the employers who had hired someone since 1 March 2009 had used a trial period for at least one employee.
- 74% of those in a trial period retained their employment, 5% were still in the trial period and 22% were let go.
- In relation to the last employee hired on a trial period, 40% of employers said they would not (or likely would not) have hired that person without a trial period!!
That last paragraph is staggering, and shows how important the trial periods have been for convincing employers to take on extra staff. With the risk of being lumbered with an unsuitable staff member diminished, many more employers are willing to expand.
43% of those on trial periods were aged under 25, and this makes sense – it is employees with relatively little experience and skills who are the biggest gamble for an employer, and stand to benefit most. Of course one also need to delink the youth minimum wage from the adult one.
What I also found interesting is that a third of those dismissed during the 90 day trial period were let go within two weeks. This indicates that it becomes absolutely clear within days that the person has hired is just clearly not up to the job. Anyone who has been an employer knows this problem.
It costs considerable money and time for employers to employ staff. They want new staff to stay on if they can do the job. But sometimes (and it seems to be around 1 in 10 of all new staff) they clearly show they are either lacking the skills or the temperament to be a productive member of a team, and the trial period allows the employment relationship to be halted without forcing the employer into spending tens of thousands of dollars on an employee who never contributed much of value to the business (it generally takes some months for new employees to come up to full speed).
At the end of the day, remember that 40% figure. 40% of those on trial periods would probably not have been offered jobs at all, if the 90 day law had not been passed.
The Herald on Sunday editorial concludes:
Anything that encourages an employer to take a punt on a new worker – and in particular to give a chance to someone who shows promise but lacks credentials – must be worth trying. It defies common sense that cost-conscious bosses will casually sack someone they have spent three months training. …
But in opposing the extension of the trial scheme unions seem more driven by ideology than good sense.
How unusual!
Related posts:
- Trial periods working well
- Myths over the probation period bill
- 90 day probation for small businesses
- Unions plan “name and shame” campaign
July 18th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I remember the three month trial period from the 80′s.
Three months is a while for a youngster. Most employers would have made their mind up by the end of the second month as well. You should pretty much know if your job is secure by then.
There’s no need to extend a trial period beyond three months. That would just be a govt intimidation tactic.
But the trial periiod is immense confidence for a young worker if they mean business. And it does give them something to bargain with at interviews. I agree with David on that.
Also, maybe employers can start with more candidates and filter the underserving.
I took advantage of that scenario successfully in trial periods back in the day.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:55 am
correct me if Im wrong but after the 90 days is up you cannot just say to the employee..” see ya pal ya not needed “. During the lead up to the end of the 3 month period you will have to show the employee the error of their ways and show a documented paper trail? You will have needed to show re-training of the employee before he/she is let go.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:02 am
We know what National think of 90-day trials, and what Labour and the unions think. Has anyone bothered to check out what unemployed people who are keen to get jobs think?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Being fired after 2 weeks is also indicative of an employer getting people in for temp work and then getting rid of them. A lot cheaper and easier than using a temp agency like Manpower now that you can just fire people for no reason.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:13 am
wikiwiri: I think when they are talking of “extending the 90-day trial”, it means to all businesses, not just ones that have less that 20/40(?) staff, not the actual period of it.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:18 am
More rubbish and ideological tripe from the unions. Helen Kelly and her Labour mates doing what they are paid for.
Good employees and employers should not fear the 90-day trial. There could be abuses, no doubt, but they would have to be investigated and the culprits punished.
It is a step forward for our country in the field of labour relations. Bring it on.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Jake, jake, jake – an employer who wanted a temp for two weeks could also just offer two weeks work in the first place, why would they offer a 90-day trial if they only wanted someone on a shorter term contract? And short term all the more reason to get someone who can actually do the work.
What is the abuse rate of the 90-day deal?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Trial periods are standard in most developed countries, the UK one can extend to 2 years. Having two boys in their late teens we think it is a great idea and it gives them both opportunities to get in and prove themselves.
Vote:It would be helpful if Key would sort out the minimum wage, they are both inexperienced and to be perfectly honest not worth the minimum adult wage at the moment, they live at home so dont really need to earn 550 pw but do need to gain experience.
July 18th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Starboard
Vote:The effect of a trial provision is as follows:
1. An employer may terminate an employment agreement by giving notice of termination before the end of the trial period. The termination can take effect before, at or after the end of the trial period.
2. An employee may not bring a PG claim in respect of the dismissal.
3. An employee can bring a PG if there is unjustifiable disadvantage, discrimination, sexual harassment, racial harassment, duress in relation to union membership or failure to comply with requirements of the restructuring provisions.
4. The employer is not required to give the employee access to information affecting the employer’s decision to dismiss. Nor is the employer required to provide an opportunity to comment. This suggests that an employer can exercise their decision arbitrarily and without being called to account.
5. The employer is not required to provide a letter stating reasons for the dismissal. Again, this suggests that an employer can act arbitrarily and without being called to account.
6. Despite the fact that there is a trial provision, the employee must be treated no differently from any employee who is agreement contains no trial provision. The obligation to act in good faith, except as qualified in (4) above remains. Specifically, the employer and the employee must be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which the parties are, among other things, responsive and communicative. This suggests that the employer is still obliged to follow due process. If the employment agreement contains training obligations which the employer blithely ignores, there may well be some PG for unjustified disadvantage.
6. In a recent case, the Employment Relations Authority cast doubt on the ability of an employer to peremptorily dismiss an employee without some explanation at least. That case was not directly on point because there was a probationary clause involved.
It may well be that an employee who is disadvantaged and poorly treated may have a personal grievance. However, grievance will not relate to the dismissal — possibly only the means by which it comes about. The issue is whether an employee will go to that extent given that except in exceptional circumstances, compensation is likely to be modest. The jury is still out.
July 18th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Pete George
The least important thing for the unions is people who want to work. People who want to work are not paying union membership fees and therefore are not supporting the Labour party. That’s what this is all about, the unions are fearful that their membership will decrease and they will have less money to spend on helping get Labour elected. Sadly the days when the unions were first and foremost the representatives of the workers are long gone, now they are just the fund raising arm of the Labour party.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I hope this also marks the end of the employment grievance industry. A curse upon all NZ Industry.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act have now been announced and it is very difficult to quibble with any of them. It might be a little difficult to define a “technical breach” of a dismissal process. Some Adjudicators do appear to allow some leniency already — recent case where an employment agreement required a dismissal to be “signed off” by the general manager (I think) and failure to do so was not fatal to the dismissal. There is a continuum starting at the point where a technical breach may have no bearing whatsoever on the final outcome at one end and, at the other end, a process that is so substantially flawed that there must be serious doubts as to whether the right decision could ever have been made. It will be interesting to see where, on the continuum, the line is drawn.
The other interesting point is that the inquisitorial process is to be modified and will be more judicial in character. Full details are not yet available. One change is cross-examination. The ability to test witnesses in the first instance is highly desirable. This is, in my view, one of the shortcomings of the hearing process before local authorities under the Resource Management Act.
I think one of the consequences of this change will be greater costs. If however the proceedings are properly managed, time limits can be placed on cross-examination as has happened with the District Court.
Really good that frivolous claims can be thrown out early on. It will be interesting to see what stage of the process this can happen. Remember that by the time that the Authority comes to grip with an application, the employer has had to down tools and go through mediation. It goes against the grain for a mediator to be able to report a vexatious claim. What is discussed in mediation should remain in mediation. Does a claim have to be vetted before it goes to mediation?
Vexatious claims can also be dealt with adequately by costs awards.
I look forward to the fine detail.
Also good that an employer can call an employee’s bluff and get some medical evidence without having to wait 3 days. I know of one instance where an employee called in sick and, about half an hour after the call, was seen piling into a car replete with ski gear and snowsuit.
Sue Bradford appears to think that this is an assault on the rights of employees. Interesting concept that — protecting cheats.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3930344/PM-details-labour-changes
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Simply put it is now easier for non-union members to get jobs over union members. Much like youth rates are terrible for unions. Protectionism. Join our gang.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Couple of things have me beat on this issue:
The stats the original post gives, seems to support the ideas of another comment last week: in a survey of EMA members, roughly 400 employers have no idea how to hire. Run the percentage figures over that 400 unit example and there seems to be no point to a 90 day trial – at least, not the reason offered by cheerleaders of the bill.
“…It costs considerable money and time for employers to employ staff. They want new staff to stay on if they can do the job. But sometimes (and it seems to be around 1 in 10 of all new staff) they clearly show they are either lacking the skills or the temperament to be a productive member of a team, and the trial period allows the employment relationship to be halted without forcing the employer into spending tens of thousands of dollars on an employee who never contributed much of value to the business (it generally takes some months for new employees to come up to full speed)…”
This paragraph just doesn’t make sense. How can you suggest an employer is putting “considerable time and effort” into selection, and then say that a third of those employed under 90 day agreement are then let go within two weeks? Either those employees were exceptionally charming salespeople or the employer is wasting time and money through their lack of skill. How many of the 22% that were let go, actually chose to leave themselves? Who sacked who? The arguments here are all about the “lack” in employees. It would be more realistic to say that the lack exists within both parties.
Young people can outwork old timers from day one, depening on the task – you won’t find a 60year old keeping up with a 19 year old runner on the back of a garbage collection truck. Young doesn’t equal useless at all. And what’s all this about paying them less because they live at home? Next you’ll be calling them rich pricks and taxing them more because they own their own home. That kind of logic smells of attitude, not good business sense or good employee relations.
Overall, why is National risking unnecessary political uproar about such a tiny amount of jobs? That’s 88 positions, of the suggested 400 surveyed, that have to be refilled. Not going to lower unemployment rates anytime soon are they? The way they sell it, it’s as if 100% employment will be reached over night. It just doesn’t make sense. In my experience, small companies have no problem ditching people they don’t like. They’ve never spent tens of thousands of dollars on anything.
I’d argue that a postion that begins with the threat of immediate dismissal isn’t a “relationship” at all, or is at least doomed to fail. We’re told 22% do fail. What’s really happening with the rest – might just be that employers are hiring increasingly more meek employees. We don’t know, that’s the beauty of stats.
I wonder too, if those whose “relationships” fail, are eligible for some kind of benefit, or whether they now to turn to crime to support themselves. All questions to ask. I guess I just want more than the myopic arguments and blah blah nothing figures handed out by the people who support their own ideas.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Excellent summaries Nookin.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Did you actually read the research, DPF?
Not what you are saying at all.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Toad
Who cares what the research says, who cares if the union scum do not like it, who cares if the Greens are against it?
National are in power now, we on the right love the idea, we get to call the shots, and what’s more, it is a bloody good idea.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Can anybody give us a report about the protest?, from what I have heard there was only three or four hundred in attendance.
I guess that just goes to show that the union movement is just as irrelevant as many of us thought it was, it also shows how out of touch the left are with the feelings of the general public.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
toad
The left had 9 years of running employment legislation and we ended up, like previously in 1990, with stagnated productivity, bloated state run monopolies, a failing economy that is in recession and rising unemployment. Might be time to let someone else have a turn with the rules eh.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
The 90-day trial will only take a small number of bad employers to phuck it up and for it to be exposed by a rampant media chasing a sensational story… With sum dodgy small employers that sensational story shouldn’t be hard to find.
Vote:We can only hope those few employers want take advantage and phuck it up for themselves National and other good employers who are giving employees a chance… or everyone loses.
July 18th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
National and representatives of employers said the 90-day trial will advantage Maori Pacific Islanders those that have been out of the workforce for a while and the young coming into the workforce for the first time..
If future stats show employers are not employing more Maori Pacific Islanders those that have been out of the workforce for a while and the young coming into the workforce for the first time… then it was just a political stunt to advantage only the employer.. John key ( who is also banning workers union representation ) will then be labeled a employers lacky.. won’t be trusted and National will be out on its own with Act.
In no way do I believe JK would be that stupid to take such a political risk to himself and his party.. if he didn’t believe or think the 90-day trial was indeed to help these groups gain employment.
And yet their coalition partner the Maori Party are already against it… saying it does not help Maori.. so the 90-day trial could turn out to be Nationals akiles heel.
As I have said before the people are not with National they are with John Key and if JK loses the peoples trust.. National are gone… MMP remender not FPP.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Hey Bruv, your favorite ex MP was there leading the charge, literally as she was one of a few that managed to get past the police.
Seems to be a habit for greens and ex green MP’s.
Ain’t she a great kiwi Battler.
Vote:Would someone tell Gareth to make her a donation.
July 18th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
And the best the EPMU stooge at the Standard (aka Rob Egan) can do is roll out this BS
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/keys-desperate-spin/
hmmmmmm Florence cohen eh ………. any relation.
http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen
Now we just need the felcher Mickeysavage to roll out some of his young labour chums with similar spurious piffle.
Gawd we need some proper opposition in this country.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
The new law has been great for me.
prior to the new law i would not have hired someone without two years salary of the employee in the bank, to cover loss of my income if they end up being useless (and i have to do her job and mine) or being dragged through the courts.
I hired a PA late last year and she got through the 90 days ok, and only really started to be useless about 6 months into as a relationship broke up. thankfully she left before we would have had to start discplinary action. She was mid twenties, very smart, and had an honours degree, overall completely qualified for the job.
we then advertised again, and saw some ok people, but had an inkling about an early 20′s girl, with no experience, no qualifications and possibly not as smart as the last one. but she really wanted the job and saw the vision we have for the role.
we are 60 days into her 90. it started a bit shaky with her taking a booze sicky in week 2, but after 8 weeks she is showing us how great she will be, she is 6 months ahead of predecessor, and has already referred us more clients in 8 weeks than the other PAs have in up to 5 years. she wants this to work and is hungry for it.
i see no reason we will not keep her past the 90 days. but we would not have given her the chance without the it, as while she seemed keen, nothing on paper told us she was going to work out.
So there you have it, a new job created because of this new law, and a person hired becuase i was able to give them an opportunity without risking myself too much.
AL
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I’ll pose the same queston here to you guys (yes, even you bruv) that I posed over at frogblog to those who think this is a good idea:
Keen to see why you guys supporting this proposal here think the employer-employee relationship is so different from other relationships in contract or tort that people (just employees, mind you – not employers) should be denied the fundamental right to challenge in court a decision that affects them adveresly and they consider to be unlawful.
An employer is likely to be running to the courts seeking reparation if they consider an employee has misappropriated the employer’s property. And rightly so.
But why, if an employer wrongly denies an employee his or her livelihood, should that employee not be able to judicially challenge the decision if he or she considers it is wrong in law?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Toad.
The point here is that before the introduction of the 90-day trial, an employer had to be very careful about hiring. They could NOT take a chance on someone who MIGHT be marginal, hoping they worked out, because then they could NOT fire them. I have known more than one case where the employer fired someone for incompetence or worse, only to be fined because they hadn’t followed some really small detail in the law. Not every employer can know the ins-and-outs of employment law, and even if they CAN afford such legal advice, often the advice is to suck it up or to pay the outrageous sums needed to close the case file. I have known such a case in my workplace (a LARGE employer), where we wanted to get rid of someone, and those in charge did all the documentation, the steps they were told were needed, only to be told to suck it up because the employee would win in the Employment Court.
It also allows the employer to take a chance on someone without the usual experience or qualifications, but who says they are willing to work hard and learn and succeed. 78 % of those in such a trial have been given full positions. So look at it as successful. AND this does nothing to concern the many incompetent people currently in full time employment.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
@David in Chch 5:58 pm
Why not? A successful employer needs to be competent in marketing, competent in accounting, competent in technology, competent in production etc. What is so different about employment law that means an employer should be able to be completely ignorant and incompetent in that respect, but still be able to be successful because the law gives them an out if they make a mistake.
Your argument could also excuse employers from tax fraud, because, um, “not every employer can know the ins-and-outs of” tax law.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
toad the real point is, why do you guys pretend to believe the fantasy that EVERY SINGLE employer is a bad employer?
It’s quite insane.
It’s a tautological nightmare maze of biblical proportions.
The wise avoidance of which is evident to all it seems but you few.
Why is that?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
If anyone needed an indication of the naked, unreasoned ideological hatred that the socialists have towards anyone who is not in their political camp, they only needed to view the 6pm news. The usual suspects (and, inevitably the young and vacuous) were there of course – with Kamerad Bradford to the fore, and McCarten stuttering his indignation. Noticeably they were all older and sadly don’t improve with age (especially Bradford)
It was interesting though, to see a certain John Minto finally come out in all his hate-filled ‘glory’ – especially as he has not previously been known as a ‘union’ stirrer, and the protest wasn’t about either Israel or America. Birds of a feather and fellow-travellers all I suppose.
Didn’t see Wuthell (or flag) or Locke, but no doubt, where there’s Punch, Judy will always follow – especially if there is a chance to plant one on a Copper (who’d be a Policeman?).
The usual suspects, all has-beens, nothing to see, move along, ho hum -
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
so toad shows he clearly has no idea how a contract works.
If you and i enter into a contract where i agree to take you on as an employee but reserve the right within the first 90 days to end that contract if i decide you are not a fit for my company, or the economics no longer work, then its not an unlawlful dismissal.
you don;t have to sign the contract, you can ask to alter it, but once you freely and willingly signed it, it is what it is.
this is not just employment law, if i decide to buy a house from you sign a contract but i give myself 5 days to determine if the house is not leaky or whatever, and if so i can cancel the contract. whats the difference? nothing, in both cases we have signed a contract but i have allowed myself an out in the contract and you have signed accepting it.
maybe you need to go and look at what a contract actually is. your straw man of libel or theft has nothing to do with a contract between consenting adults.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
So Toad – do you read and UNDERSTAND each and every word of EVERY contract you sign? Or do you instead engage the services of a lawyer? Each and every time?
Can each and every employer engage a lawyer for each and every contract with each and every employee? Each and every time?
Sure, they can get a “standard” contract drawn up, BUT, just as in EVERY discipline, there are changes with time, and “wrinkles” that escape notice. You are also incredibly naive if you really think that once a contract form has been drawn up that it will work from then on.
But then, I suppose you pay cash for everything you buy, never use credit or buy on instalment, own your home outright and don’t have a mortgage or rent. And you have enough money in the bank that you don’t need to bother with insurance. Must be nice. If that is NOT the case, then I suggest you go and get every one of your fine-print, multi-page contracts and READ them ALL. No? Then do NOT make the bald statements you make.
I work in an academic environment, and at one point we found out that we could effectively not ever dismiss someone for lack of performance because, so long as they fronted up and gave their lectures, the quality was irrelevant, AND the Employment Court at one point ruled that reading journals in bed amounted to “scholarship” (defined as keep abreast of the leading edge of one’s discipline). And publishing only one paper in a decade was sufficient. That simply does not cut the mustard, yet the employer’s hands are tied.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Bradford was born a militant scrunt, she operated like a militant scrunt, in parliament she acted like a militant scrunt and today she behaved like a militant scrunt. I’m so glad she’s no longer making legislation in parliament and is now in a position where she can realistically receive the contents of a water cannon to her withered, dour face.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
‘No, no, not the water cannon’ – I wish!! Perhaps one day, but then, if it ever DID happen that the ‘Great Unwashed’ actually were, I suspect that, being good socialists who know how to ‘use’ the law to their advantage, it would be a very short walk to the nearest court to bleat that their ‘Rights’ and ‘Liberties’ under UN protocol XX were being infringed and that they NZ ‘Bill of Rights’ guaranteed ‘whatever’.
Give the socialists their due, they are very, good at manipulating the law to their (always) advantage. No doubt the ‘usual suspects (plus one – Minto) will be bleating and threatening – as always.
Nothing new, been there before. If only the MSM didn’t give them oxygen.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Oh, and a follow-up: Let’s suppose an employer actually does know and understand every single aspect and detail of employment law. It STILL does not stop a disgruntled undeserving ex-employee from getting a lawyer and taking the employer to court. Even if the employer _wins_, the costs involved (and let’s not forget the costs in _time_ as well), are enormous.
That’s why so many of my students have trouble getting their first jobs, why every advertisement mentions “XX years of experience”, etc., etc., etc.
And yet we STILL get caught out. Why? Because some people interview well, and some previous employers are so grateful to be rid of a terrible employee that they will give them a good reference. I have seen that happen more than once as well.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
@Grendel 7:05 pm
Problem is, when someone is unemployed, the employer can demand almost any provision in an employment agreement because the unemployed person is desperate for work. So, effectively, they sign the agreement under duress, because if they don’t sign it Work and Income will cut off their benefit and they will likely lose their home.
This is a situation where one contracting party has all the power, and the other has none at all.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
So the whole three of the call a crowd of misfits were there… Minto Maccarten and Bradford.
All National would need to do is imprison the whole three on a 90 day trial.. a week before a National party conference.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
But Toad … that in essence is true in EVERY contract situation – from buying or selling a house, to you name it. One party will always have more power in the given situation. You cannot eliminate that. What was happening before was that if and when someone got a job they could not be fired except in extreme circumstances, and thus employers had become “gun shy”.
That said, I am saying all of this from the point of view of someone who tries to do the best job he can, puts in the extra work if it’s needed, etc., and not someone who will sit back and work to rule once they have the job. I suppose if you are a work-to-rule sort of person, then you want every possible protection under the law you can, because otherwise who would want to hire you.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Toad.. you’re trying to ague a left wing mentality.. on a right wing blog.. they just don’t care..
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
“Toad.. you’re trying to ague a left wing mentality.. on a right wing blog.. they just don’t care..”
Yes we fucking do, RK. We really do care. I’d put my humanity up against yours any day.
We just don’t believe it happens as often as you seem to think it does.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
And you cannot _legislate_ humanity.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
One aspect is that, as someone who considers himself centre left, I believe in equality of _opportunity_, but I do NOT believe that equality of _outcome_ is possible at all. People _are_ different in ability and outlook and attitude. So some people succeed and achieve, whereas others do not. I sometimes fear that many on the left (to my left) want equality of _outcome_, and that is a recipe for disaster.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
@RKBee 8:14 pm
Yeah, some poor bugger has to do it, but this blog has a high readership which doesn’t necessarily reflect the attitude of those who most frequently comment that I think it is worthwhile.
I don’t even bother over in the loopy la-la land of Slater’s or Creswell’s blogs though.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Nor against bleeding socialists and worse. Mores the pity.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
This is getting a bit wishy washy..
And you cannot _legislate_ humanity.
But you can legislate employee contracts… and phuck it around some what.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“you’re trying to ague a left wing mentality.. on a right wing blog.. they just don’t care.”
Speak for yourself RK.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I think it’s inhumane to keep someone in a job that they’re not suited to and/or not performing in.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“Ain’t she (Bradford) a great kiwi Battler.”
Since when battler is a synonym of political whore?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
National is only extending the 90 day trial to get some apposition… It’s not good for them to go into the next election unopposed.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
toad, if an employee feels he has less power in a contract situation, so what?
You are asking someone to hand over some of their money, to take a risk that you will not lose their business money.
While a win/win is always the most desirable option, you have to look at who has the most to lose, and its not the employee, they can go get any other job anywhere else. the employer is stuck in the business and likely has thier house up as well.
you may start out in a non equal win/win, but if the employee is as good as they are claiming they are in the interview, it will equate out. all the employer wants is an opt out if the sales pitch does not deliver the goods.
and as about caring? i care a hell of a lot, but not just about the person wanting a job, i care about the others in the company and their families that are at risk if the person i hire fucks up big enough . all the person wanting a job has to care about is themselves and their family.
where i work now, there are 20 families at risk if the wrong person is hired and the directors had to switch focus to deal with them, thats less revenue for the company, risk of having clients go elsewhere and the flow on of that. and yet you have the audacity to claim we don;t care and to bemoan 90 days to ensure that the person who wants our money for their time is the right person!
Ask my PA if she feels at risk because of the 90 day law if you think its so bad for employees; becuase without it she would not have the job she loves and is thriving at, and at which at 22yrs old (now) will have her on 100K in 3 years the way she is driving the business. all becuase i was able to take a chance on someone with no relevant skills, experience or qualifications but the desire to work.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Did Frogboy go with his girlfriend Sue on the protest today? It must have been so sweet.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
“Ain’t she (Bradford) a great kiwi Battler.”
She sure as gosh-durn-golly-heck is.
Personally, I’m still awaiting the tsunami of value to eventuate from the hundreds of thousands indeed millions in cash we paid and continue to, in order to ensure the few are able to continue to exercise their extraordinarily beneficial influence. I’m feeling the same love for Nandoor as well, which increases each year I pay for his contribution.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
bahahaha still waiting for some horror stories from you toad. you PROMISED me there would be when the “fire at will” bill first came in.
you were hysterical then too.
bruv – i read on stuff that bardford got hit in the face by a cop and she expects bruises HAHAHA
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
@Grendel 8:47 pm
You are asking someone to hand over some of their labour, to take a risk that they will not lose their livelihood.
What difference? It should be a level playing field, and under the Nats’ proposed law, it will be heavily weighted in favour of employers.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Toad, are you or have you been an employer in a private business?
Life is rarely a level playing field.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“under the Nats’ proposed law, it will be heavily weighted in favour of employers”
Why is that a problem?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
You are asking someone to hand over some of their money,
Who’s money is it… NZ is borrowing $340.000.000 a week… and each NZ man woman and child owe thousands now to overseas money lenders…
JK has good reason to cuddle up to China.. were all working for them now.. so we mo as well go the whole hog..
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
why are the left always so negative??
why do they always want to govern to the few that might end up having a bad experience?
is it because they are all victims and and trying to save people from the big bad world?
or just trying to keep them poor and dependant on the state and/or unions?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
“JK has good reason to cuddle up to China”
As did Hulun which is why her govt signed the FTA. Meanwhile, back in reality…
…suggest you be quiet for awhile, RK. Normally, I don’t have to say that, but this is a special time…
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
@Pete George 8:59 pm
Only in a SME that employed 2 or 3 staff, and occasionally some casuals. But I made the effort to learn something about employment law to make sure I didn’t cock up, and I didn’t.
Why can’t all employers make the same effort? The vast majority of them are better resourced than I was then to do so.
Interestingly, the employment law I learned as an employer stood me in good stead when I became a union organiser some years later.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“Why can’t all employers make the same effort?”
Why cant all employees be good honest hard working people?
anyway, horror stories toad. where are they.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
dime, IrishBill at The Standard cites three of them here.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
id prefer not to have to visit there.
but what youre saying is the labour party and its blog have come up with 3 examples after how long????? 3!!!!!!!!
ok, had a quick look. one of the examples is some chick who didnt wear shoes to work? wtf haha
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
reid @ 9:06 pm
“JK has good reason to cuddle up to China”
And only a National Government could get away with it… could you imagine the uproar from the right if Helen did it.
It’s alway’s been the way in NZ .. left wing government to bring in right wing policies and a right wing governments to bring in left wing policies… that the other couldn’t do… politics is about playing the people.. darr… if your left or right.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
When was it ever a right anywhere for anyone to be entitled to a job – let alone entitled to positions where the holders were rewarded for performing to their own concepts of what was and wasn’t required on an arbitrary measure of what they deemed acceptable? Worse, that they could legally prevent their dismissal and seek remunerative damages on top?
Patently, the union protest was complete and utter nonsense and the brainless cretins of the diehard hard-Left who demonstrated only reinforced the many-times-proven state of their non-existent credibility, and the lack of any gap between them and Cloud Cuckoo Land.
It’s a shame the police weren’t brandishing batons as would have been the case in so many other civilised countries. It’d have been great to see reality impacted forcefully on the willfully dense skulls of Bradford, Minto, McCarten and their ilk.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Actually there’re only two, toad.
Two.
How many employers are there in NZ? What’s the @ percent ratio of bad vs not bad, based ON YOUR OWN FIGURES?
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
-OR-
0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
reid – but the standard says its only the tip of the ice berg haha
fuck i hate unionists
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
How many stories could employers come up with of employees who risk businesses and other jobs through not measuring up. Gotta look at the balance.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
dime it’s their job that makes them evil not the person. this is what the lefties say.
so you have to hate their job, not themselves.
which means unions are evil not the people who work in them.
how the people who work in them, justify that to themselves day after day, Lord only knows.
poor bastards.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
@dime 9:21 pm
Just for spite, I might initiate the unionisation of sex workers as a priority.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Flawed logic.
Notwithstanding the fact we don’t know how many of those 40% were new jobs (probably none) why would you hire someone dodgy when you can hire someone non-dodgy?
If you are hiring someone to work for your company, you will want the best person for the job? No? If you are hiring someone to work at a petrol station and two people walk in, one has a criminal record and the other one hasn’t, trial period or no trial period, I’d say that 99% of the time the ex-crim would be passed over regardless.
Hiring people is still a pain in the arse trial or no trial.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Talking of level playing fields, if there was no 90-day trial option (and after it has finished) the employee can give one week notice and leave, the employer has nothing like that flexibility.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
reid, theres plenty of cnut bosses out there, you just never hear about them because they are protected by that other great pro-employer rort, the casualisation of labour.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
@Pete George 9:32 pm
Only if that is what is in the employment agreement. Any employer who negotiates that, other than for unskilled jobs in a time of low unemployment, is a mug. Negotiate 4 weeks’ notice, and if the employee doesn’t serve it out, the employer has a legitimate claim against the employee for the difference.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Toad, two things.
First, your “evidence” says most of those who got rid of employees at the end of the 90-days did so because of performance. The very simple solution is for employees who are given a chance to take that chance with two hands; work hard; be loyal; show initiative and perform, and they’ll keep their job. It’s called incentives.
Second, what’s this got to do with the environment?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
“theres plenty of cnut bosses out there”
Point really is, boredboy, what proportion are large employers and what proportion are small and which of those two sectors do the enforcement authorities and the unions spend most of their time and energy with?
Mismatch?
You bet.
Deliberate?
Well, if the unions spend most of their time with the sector that most offended then they’d never get any money because each site never has more than a few potential members.
Notwithstanding the clear fact that IF the unions ACTUALLY did give a shit then they could sure as hell make one hell of a difference to those workers it PRETENDS to give a shit about.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Well I thought this debate was more about workers’ rights than unions.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Protests are getting poorer as the years go by. Many years ago the crazies would be lined up on the first day, Friday afternoon, and often stay through out the weekend. Now they arrive late (I hope the Unions have their rent a mob on a trial period so they don’t have to face a PG for dismissing them for being late) and fluff off as soon as they get on the news. Apparently therewere about 100 there at one point, I saw one dude on a megaphone, a free Tibet person and an angry woman shouting about something when the conference finished around midday. Although according to the media conference was on “lock down” after Sue Bradford and some of her mates tried to “storm” the conference. It certainly wasn’t obvious. When I and two mates rocked up (one with a handwritten name badge) a Sky City staffer reminded us to wear our name tags and we wondered past a couple of bored looking cops and all was happy and well.
At one of the main entrances to the convention centre I actually thought it was a police protest with more cops than protesters.
As for 90 days I note the unions keep claiming “whaf ifs” about employers but never address the issue as to why employers should take a risk with their business and capital employing someone who turns out to be a muppet and then goes to the ERA.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Look if you were an employee under the 90 day trial.. and got sacked fore on good reason with in the 90 day period.. you can still protest outside the business with a placard… if you felt so strongly about it.. employers hate negative publicity.
You still have that right.. and the employer still has the right to call the police..
He or she can also tell you to fuck off… but he can’t make you.. unless your on their private property..
I’m just stiring the pot because NZ is still a free country.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“I thought this debate was more about workers’ rights than unions”
What about em?
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Agree GPT1 pussy protestors… someone only needed to say fuck off go home… and they would.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Toad,
It doesn’t matter if the employer is an expert in employment law or not. The employee can still make a claim, whether the law is followed or not. The claim will cost the employer many thousands to defend, right or wrong. Therefore the employer will usually settle, and sign anything they have to in order to make the problem go away.
We tried to fire an accountant who must have falsified their references (from another country – we even did a verbal reference check) because they knew nothing about accounting. We knew immediately after employing them and then proceeded with “due process”, during which time they engaged an employment lawyer (who claimed 50% of whatever he could extract from us). We paid to get rid of him. As part of our “settlement” we had to sign a document that we would change his dismissal from “incompetence” to “resigned” along with a confidentiality clause. The lawyer acted immorally. The stupid thing was, we were prepared to keep the guy on until he got another job that he could do. But the lawyer pulled the rug from under him and he walked away with much less than if he had simply talked to us like humans.
What is perhaps not well known is that any settlement the employee can get is tax free. Therefore they are better off in trying to extract a settlement than accepting a company cheque (which is taxed). High level employees know this. Regardless if you follow procedure or not, engage a lawyer or not, they can still claim “constructive dismissal” or whatever. We engaged a specialist law firm for one senior executive and still ended up paying him $25,000 to make him go away along with having to sign a confidentiality clause over the reasons for his dismissal (sexual harassment). (He took a claim against us emboldened by some news reader having won a 5 million settlement and figured he have a try too. His exact words to us were “I’m going to take you guys for 1 million dollars”.)
It is almost impossible to fire someone for poor performance or incompetence. And as a result our education system is filled with bad teachers that have to be fostered on some unsuspecting class.
Don’t think it is a one way street with every employer taking advantage of staff. I don’t know any employers like that, and if they were, I doubt they’d be in business very long.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Well, its fantastic that National are pushing ahead with this. We had a malingerer on staff who had 88 “sick” days in the last 12 months, finally got rid of him but had to pay redundancy, he was the only person in the firm who got a “bonus” this year.
How did that make others feel, quite angry actually. If we had had the chance to give him the flick just as soon as his “sicknesses” manifested themselves his redundancy package could have been bonuses paid to far more productive and hard-working staff.
Given the union protests over this, I can only imagine they would argue we should not have the right to dismiss said malingerer and keep him on even if it meant other staff have to pick up the slack for no extra pay when he is off “sick” and not have to ultimately divert their bonuses to pay for his redundancy pay out. OK, I get unions now.
Vote:July 18th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
FatCat
This is why small businesses can’t afford to take on High level employees…
1 million dollars”… he must of thought he was Austin Powers…
poor performing incompetent civil servants protected by the PSA in general not only teachers…
Rich Prick
There’s alway’s one.. and your right workers hate malingering scum as much as anyone… they let the team down.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:08 am
I find the DoL’s survey very hard to believe, because only a minority of employers responded, and those that did respond could well have been keen to manipulate the results.
What the right wingers expect us to believe: Someone has a business opportunity to make money, but they need an employee to provide the labour. They would have hired an employee, but because they can’t just fire them without telling them the reason, they decided to just to go home and give up on trying to make money – and no other business person was willing to take up the same opportunity to make money and create the job. And apparently this applies even to big businesses with expert HR departments.
If the NACT government was really sincere about making a change that is useful to all New Zealanders, they would invest in creating better online resources to help employees and small businesses manage their employment relations in a constructive and fair manner. Instead, it chose a dog whistle to those who see employees as a resource to be exploited to the maximum. Unfortunately for NACT, that ‘resource’ is the majority of the population – and National needs them to be re-elected. On the bright side, perhaps National’s decision to extend the fire-at-will regime might be enough to get them out of government and get the regime repealed entirely.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Nothing wrong with National’s plan to end Unionised labour in perpetuity. Sounds like a step in the right direction for New Zealand.
One question, where is Labour going to get its party funding from now?
Ha ha ha
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:10 am
I imagine they’ll give Venezuela a shout.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:08 am
There’s no mention, David, as to how many workers affected by the 90 day rule have been unfairly dismissed. What do you propose should happen to employers who dismiss workers unfairly? John Key seems to think nothing…
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:14 am
RKBee wrote “…Look if you were an employee under the 90 day trial.. and got sacked for no good reason with in the 90 day period.. you can still protest outside the business with a placard”.
I’d rather protest outside the home of the employer…late at night….with a vuvuzela
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:19 am
Unfair dismissal? Sacked? Either employer or employee can terminate a 90-day trial if it isn’t what they want to continue with. Both know from the start the terms of the trial. So I don’t see how it can be called an unfair dismissal or a sacking.
Employment isn’t a lifetime right. It’s a privilege, with mutual benefits.
90-day trials will no doubt be abused, but I suspect only by a very small proportion of employers or employees. Making it less risky trialling new employees will benefit far more than not.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:29 am
> I don’t see how it can be called an unfair dismissal or a sacking.
So if you’re doing your job as required and you’re told not to come to work ever again, you wouldn’t say that was unfair or a sacking? Surely the question is not about it happening, but what to do about it when it does happen. National thinks that nothing should happen.
What’s interestting is that when the 90 day policy was introduced, John Key said that no employer would invest time and money in an employee only to sack that worker. So how does he explain that 22% of employees have been “let go”? Maybe it’s the case that some employers are not investing any time or money on new employees, which would explain why they’re quite happy to sack them.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:32 am
How many of the 22% thought they were doing a good job and that the termination of the trial was unfair?
How many of the employers thought that the lack of effort and application of the employee on trial was unfair on them and other employees?
Maybe, in some cases, but most employees invest time and money into ensuring employees do the job required.
How many on-trial employees are happy to be let go?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:49 am
This provision is a double edged sword for employers. It may well make it more difficult to attract quality staff who have secure positions with a competitor or other employer as why would you move into a position with such uncertainty around it. I expect many employees will be seeking to negotiate this provision out of new contracts. As an employer I see some merit in the provision but equally I expect it will make engaging top flight employees a more challenging.
In terms of National policies that will drive the economy Key and his team are somewhat missing the point. this sort of policy is merely tinkering and a bit of a sop to their constituency. They need to be looking at policy with more substance. New Zealand is bereft of investment capital and they are doing little to address that issue. Small business is swamped by compliance issues that frustrate those who run a large section of the economy. The Tax moves were encouraging but fall short of a step change needed to move this economy forward in a meaningful way. Australia is addressing these issues and will leave us further in their wake.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Surely the question is not about it happening, but what to do about it when it does happen. National thinks that nothing should happen
So this “unlucky” employee now has a few months worth of grey area on their CV. What do they do about it come next interview? Easy enough to cover up, once. But after a while a candidate would have to pass up any offer on a 90 day trial – too risky to have periods of good, but unprovable, work history. Safer to stay on benefit. And that negates the whole point of the 90 day trial does it not? Getting long term unemployed into jobs?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:00 am
a bit of a sop to their constituency.
Constituency would be generous term. A fraction of total employers have used this law so far. National are attempting to protect unskilled recruiters from themselves – much like Labour looks after a small and vocal group of unions. Kate Wilkinson has said it’s about control issues; shifting the balance of control back to employers: An (obviously influencial) employer is afraid, they want reassurance, the government legislates reassurance.
Hell, I barely believe that myself. It’s just too stupid, even for politicians. If they want to realistically bolster business confidence, lower tax rates! Why are National bothering with law changes for a tiny percentage of employers?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Well, JG, this is what the Department of Labour has reported:
“[Some workers] felt they would agree [to a trial period] again only reluctantly, if they had no choice, and if they really wanted the job. Others said they would not agree again to a trial period because they wanted to have job security or because they objected to being in a position where they could be dismissed without reason. Employees who felt they would not have been dismissed were it not for the trial period were annoyed by the dismissal. They felt they had been disadvantaged by being on the trial period and treated unfairly by the employer, either because they had not been given a reason or explanation for the dismissal, or because they had been dismissed even though, in their opinion, they were performing better than other employees who were not on a trial period and thus could not be dismissed so easily”.
Interestingly, only 24% of employees who were on trial had been unemployed or had been out of the workforce. A further 10% were new to the workforce. That indicates that two-thirds of workers had a previous work history, which begs the question of why they were put on trial. John Key stated when the policy was introduced that the trial period would affect those who had been out of the workforce for a period of time or who were new to the workforce. There was no suggestion it would affect those who were already in the workforce.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:11 am
@ross 7:08 am, Pete George 7:32 am
That is almost impossible to determine, because the way the trial period legislation is set up, there is no mechanism to determine whether a dismissal under a trial period is unfair. But the DoL’s research didn’t even include a quantitative evaluation of whether employees who were dismissed under a trial period considered their dismissal to be unjustifiable.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Toad
No worker who is fired under the 90 day rule is unfairly dismissed, the law quite clearly states that the employer does not have to give a reason therefore the claim of unfair dismissal cannot be upheld.
Why are the Greens so keen to see thousands of Kiwis on the dole Toad?, you guys have opposed every single initiative that would help toward lowering the number of unemployed Kiwis.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Wheres the name and shame unite?
Shame you forgot to name by the look of it.
As always they don’t give a crap about the reality, just getting their way based on their failed socialist ideology of taking money off people who have earned and giving it to those who haven’t
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 8:29 am
To see if they are suitable for the position. Having a work history doesn’t guarantee suitability for every job or employer.
I’d willingly volunteer for a 90-day trial – if I was going for a job I’d back myself to be successful at it, I’d be happy to do something to give me a potential advantage in selection, and if the trial was “unfairly” terminated it’s unlikely I’d want to work for that sort of employer.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 9:02 am
“…and if the trial was “unfairly” terminated it’s unlikely I’d want to work for that sort of employer…”
Exactly, you’d only do it once. So 90 day bill isn’t a long term strategy for raising employment rates.
The next question is why would National negotiate union site access after attempting to restrict it? Either you reduce Union influence in the workplace or you don’t – shift the balance of power to employer, or you don’t. First they annoy the unions with a 90 day bill, then annoy them even further with reduced site access, then by negotiating access they’ll set them back on the employers they claim to want to protect. Only now the unions will be twice as agro as before and more likely to cause a stir at every employer misstep they can get their hands on. National will have shifted the balance to employers by one degree, then back to unions by two degrees. Overall result: environment for industrial relations worse than when they started. Poor employers, they just can’t get a break. Even their friends are screwing them!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Well its so obviously safe and good for productivity to have some union organising wanker in his brand new BMW just walk into to you place of business whenever he fucking feels like it isn’t jibber.
They have different ideas when its their property though.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 9:34 am
@Murray 9:05 am
There are already restrictions on union right of entry – section 21 Employment Relations Act:
Under national’s proposal, an anti-union employer will be able to frustrate the union’s organising efforts by making up excuses for particular times being inconvenient.
[DPF: If they do, then publicise them. But I can't see Matt McCarten being deterred by having to delay a day or so]
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Toad, you’re very good at quoting verbatim, legislation that can be found in 30 seconds on the interweb.
I’ll ask again: What’s this got to do with the environment?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Toad, are you suggesting the union representative should be able to determine the convenience of the time but not the employer? It is just as possible for a union representative to frustrate the employer trying to carry out his business as vice versa.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Get the State out of employment matters …amoungst others, and the problems disappear….simple.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I was just told why The Maori Party is against the 90 day trial… When an employer sacks a Maori they can no longer use racial discrimination as a case… they were sacked because he/she was Maori.
Pakeha employers just don’t understand Maori culture and don’t take on Maori because they know that they are going to take half the year off going to tangi’s.
Bloody National… where’s their humanity..
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Toad
Why should I as an employer allow a union rep to come into my business at any time?
If the staff want to see a union rep then they can do so in their own time and on their own property.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Right on BB… but what if the employee had a grievance with you that he wanted the union rep to take up on their behalf.
Do you meet with the union rep and where.. your place his place a coffee shop or not at all.
Because if you say not at all…. then you are not willing to work things through as a good employer.. and the reason workers need to have union representation in the first place.
But hay you’re the Boss.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
RKBee
“but what if the employee had a grievance with you that he wanted the union rep to take up on their behalf.”
Then I would agree to meet the union rep before 8am or after 5.30pm.
I wonder how many of these union reps would be available at those times?.
By the way, why the hell should I be forced to meet some union parasite?, they employee knows what they are in for when they start work, if things change and they do not like it then tough bloody luck, they can always leave.
Incidentally, the 90 day trial is an excellent way of weeding out the union activists, the pleasure I would take from letting a them go without reason is immeasurable.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Ha Ha … BB I believe people like you work for yourself by yourself… even close friends and family wouldn’t work for you.
Vote:July 21st, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I support this bill, but, can we introduce it for MP’s as well?
Why not have a 90 day trial period for all MP’s.
Vote: