Countries with trial period laws

July 20th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David Farrar
  1. Argentina (3 – 12 months)
  2. Armenia (3 – 6 months)
  3. Australia (3 – 6 months)
  4. Austria (1 month)
  5. Belgium (up to 6 months)
  6. Brazil (90 days)
  7. Canada (3 months renewable)
  8. Cyprus (6 months)
  9. Czech Republic (3 months)
  10. Finland (4 – 6 months)
  11. France (1 – 3 months)
  12. Germany (6 months)
  13. Ireland (12 months)
  14. Italy
  15. Japan
  16. Jordan (90 days)
  17. Korea (3 months)
  18. Latvia
  19. Luxemburg
  20. Republic of Moldova
  21. Pakistan
  22. Portugal
  23. Russia (3 – 6 months)
  24. Serbia
  25. Slovenia
  26. South Africa
  27. Spain
  28. Sweden
  29. Switzerland (1 – 3 months)
  30. Thailand
  31. Turkey
  32. Ukraine
  33. UAE (6 months)
  34. UK
  35. US (6 – 12 months)

This change is bringing NZ into the mainstream. We are catching up to Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, France and Germany.

Tags:

114 Responses to “Countries with trial period laws”

  1. mjwilknz (605 comments) says:

    Interesting post, DPF, during your research for it, did you see anything on which countries use sunset clauses in their legislation? I know Canada habitually do, at least in their finance industry legislation.

    [DPF: I didn’t research this myself but asked the Minister’s office if they had a list, which they provided. I understand it comes from the Department of Labour. The DOL list includes more countries than I have listed – I whittled it down to mainly OECD countries]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Very hard to make much of a response when you do not source the information, DPF.

    In how many of these countries does the trial period deny the employee any opportunity to challenge the dismissal under any circumstances, and in how many does it exempt the employer from telling the employee the reasons he or she was dismissed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lucia Maria (2,606 comments) says:

    We used to have trial periods in the past as well. I remember them from when I first started working. Though, the first most obvious place where the trial period was taken account of was in my job in government. It wasn’t mentioned in the private sector.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. cabbage (457 comments) says:

    @Lucia

    I remember trial periods when I left school. Usually it was 3 months and the generally accepted practice was a token pay rise at the completion of the trial.

    Well, at least thats what my hazy memory is digging up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Billy (121 comments) says:

    No. You’re wrong. It makes us a fascist state:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/key-unions-and-pinochet/

    Apparently, comparisons of the Clark government to fascist dictators when restricting free speech are vile and disgusting. But linking Key to an imaginary global fascist cabal when we move closer to the labour laws of Sweden is just common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tvb (4,493 comments) says:

    None of this will influence the Labour Party. They want to go to ILO conferences saying they have managed to stop this from happening. The vanity of Labour politicians at International conferences has no limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nick R (508 comments) says:

    And Armenia, Pakistan and the Ukraine. Boy, you are spinning this hard. It looks a wee bit desparate to be honest. Are you worried about this? Is the polling detecting some disquiet? Did someone suggest that you run a few blogs on this over the weekend?

    I have a few suggestions. Maybe you can blog about how 90 day trial periods reduce the risk of cancer, increase charitable donations and result in fewer crimes against helpless old people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    I see that the left wing MSM is having it’s say today, the Herald, Dominion and ODT editorials all supporting the changes. It’s not a difficult call to make except for those with a vested interest in an employee’s “entitlement” to a permanent secure job no matter how they perform or behave.

    The sickie question is the most difficult, very hard to deal with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Nick R,

    There is only one claim for the legislation. That is that employers will take a risk on employing someone who they would not otherwise have employed.

    Spurious claims for the purpose of the legislation are the sole preserve of the left. For example:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/this-isnt-about-growth-its-class-war/

    In which, aside from being steeped in the language of a good old 1930’s brown ale and whippet racing class warrior, the author says the legislation will do nothing for growth. Only the promoters of the legislation never said it would do anything but give more people a better chance at employment.

    But, when you are so heavily invested in proving that capitalism must fail, that is a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    The cheerleading continues. I think there is a case to answer, given the shallowness of posting a list and saying, “we’re entering the mainstream”. Detractors are right, if Labour did this they’d be no end to the uproar.

    “It’s not a difficult call to make except for those with a vested interest in an employee’s “entitlement” to a permanent secure job no matter how they perform or behave.”

    and this sort of comment would be called pure spin. Because it is. Come on people, turn brains on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Do you disagree that there is a growing sense of entitlement to permanent no-risk employment? This isn’t spinning, I think it’s a valid question to ask.

    We have various options including:
    – subsistence living
    – living on a publicly funded benefit
    – getting employment
    – running our own business

    Benefits and employment are not entitlements, they are a privilege provided by others, with risks attached.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Only the promoters of the legislation never said it would do anything but give more people a better chance at employment.

    Does it make people less willing to change jobs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    Had to laugh last night at the “Immigrant Pizza Guy meets John Key” article. Christ, that was weak.

    They stroy tried to tell us that immigrant (indian) qualifications stopped a highly trained man from getting any other job than delivering pizza. Putting him on 90 day trial doesn’t change his quals.

    Can you imagine an immigrant doctor being hired under 90 day trial? “Yeah sure, we’ll give you go. If anyone dies you’ll get the sack.” Would you go to that doctor? Will the fact his quals are in question, and that he’s on trial be announced somewhere, for the patient to chose whether to take his adivce or not? So the 90 day bill now relieves the employer of good hiring practice to. If it turns to custard, blame the employee. Not really a plan for growth is it. Just casting off responsibility.

    Anyway, back to Pizza guy. How do you get a man to stand outside his workplace on national TV and say it’s crap and to still have his job in the morning? Only if his employer gave the go ahead; if the employer supported the 90 day trial law. But ignore that, go back to sleep. It’s come from Blue camp so it’s not propaganda. Only the Red team create propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Billy (121 comments) says:

    “Does it make people less willing to change jobs?”

    Undoubtedly, it comes with some downsides. I was simply making the point that the promoters say: “this will give people a better chance of getting a job” and the detractors say (amongst other things) “but it will do nothing to fix growth”. Well, of course, it won’t but only because it’s not designed to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    “Does it make people less willing to change jobs?”

    That’s a valid question too. Recessions and rising unemployment also figure in job changing decisions. Life is not a formality, it involves many choices and risks. Some things we can control, some things are beyond our control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    “growing sense of entitlement to permanent no-risk employment?”

    Are you kidding me? Never in the history of employment has more emphasis been placed on non-permanent roles than now. Temping, casual, short term contracts, organised contracting/labour gangs: it’s all arranged around shor-tterm “just in time” theory. These solutions are increasing. Every week there’s a new company asking to manage people’s work and careers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Of course it will make people less willing to change jobs. And taht has serious macro-economic implications.

    A growing economy relies on employees moving into new jobs. If employees stay in jobs for which they are overqualified, they both both block others from moving into higher skilled jobs and create and under-supply of labour for work that requires higher skill levels. Businesses will struggle to find workers because people are incentivised to stay in their current job because of the risk of geting a bad employer and getting fired with no comeback if they move on.

    That has negative implications for productivity, and consequently for wage growth – the exact opposite of what the Government says it wants.

    Take your blue-tinted sunglasses off and you might see it – this is about delivering employers a bigger share of the pie and workers a smaller share, not about increasing the size of the pie for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    What a pile of unadulterated bullshit.
    How about some stats on the unemployment levels before and after those countries enacted that legislation?
    How about stats on employment churn in those countries?

    How about anything that makes this more than just a list of countries which have a particular piece of legislation?

    Very very poor spin David. If anything was needed to tell us there is no real benefit here it’s the inability of this post of yours to communicate anything remotely sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Businesses will struggle to find workers because people are incentivised to stay in their current job because of the risk of geting a bad employer and getting fired with no comeback if they move on

    Hmm. Then if so, won’t they start to consider what they could do to attract more/better workers to a position?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    If anything was needed to tell us there is no real benefit here it’s the inability of this post of yours to communicate anything remotely sensible.

    What about that these countries thought such a measure was at least remotely sensible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Take your blue-tinted sunglasses off and you might see it – this is about delivering employers a bigger share of the pie and workers a smaller share

    That just sounds like a different tint.

    Employing people costs money. For the vast majority of employees it doesn’t make economic sense to keep dismissing and re-employing within a 90-day period.

    JG – yes, I know there is a large casual/temp/contract job market now, it’s a different issue. Workers have been manipulated by some employers for yonks – and the businesses keep getting employees. That should not be affected by 90-day trials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (14,124 comments) says:

    “Take your blue-tinted sunglasses off and you might see it – this is about delivering employers a bigger share of the pie and workers a smaller share, not about increasing the size of the pie for everyone.”

    Bullshit!

    How about you take your red tinted glasses off and tell us why the Greens have opposed EVERY attempt this government has made to increase wealth and lower unemployment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    There was a small group chanting and waving banners on Willis St last night. From the Worker’s Party apparently. It was all a bit retro, like they’d just arrived from the 1970s and hadn’t realised that the only countries that still have worker’s parties are Cuba and North Korea. Why are lefties always so conservative? Why are they so scared of change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    The National Party repeals the Foreshore and Seabed legislation to give Maori their day in court.

    Then they propose legislation changes to ensure working people DON’T get their day in court.

    Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    What about that these countries thought such a measure was at least remotely sensible?

    Take Argentina. Do you reckon Argentines think that the Menem government was a good idea? Should they now be recommended to make other good ideas? What about Korea, that centre of human rights, equality and ease of living? Given the history of most of those places on the list, I’d say the connection to good political ideas is thin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    I’ve been asking the people on various left leaning blogs why it is okay for other countries to have a variation of this law and not for us and get no answer everytime. They are simply opposing this on idelogical grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Gosman: “They are simply opposing this on idelogical grounds.”

    Like this?

    toad: “this is about delivering employers a bigger share of the pie and workers a smaller share”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    Maggie
    Why is it that you just want to sue people? Havent you got anything better to do. Maori had the right to go to court. It was taken away. The 90 day rule does not take away any rights at all. It introduces a new term of employment allowing for termination without repercussion. The good faith provisions substantially remain. Other rights also remain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nick R (508 comments) says:

    Ah, I’ve just seen the NZ Herald article on this – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10659953

    Now I understand the need for spin. There seems to be a bit of gap between the tone of the news reporting and the editorial line going on at the Herald…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    So has the various similar laws in other countries had the negative outcomes predicted by the doomsayers of the left?

    I remember getting a job in the UK where I was on a three month probationary period. I don’t believe that had serious macroeconomic consequences for the the UK economy but then again perhaps it caused the global financial crisis and I just didn’t notice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Yeah it is a bit disappointing that the list has no context whatsoever.

    How many of those countries have centralised collective bargaining?
    What percentage of those countries workforce is covered by a union-negotiated collective agreement?
    How many of those counties are above lowly New Zealand on the Employment Protection Legislation Index?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPL_index_for_OECD_countries.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    @ Nick R.

    You have got to admit that a lot of people on the left have gone a tad overboard on the criticism of these proposed changes. Linking them in with fascist regimes and trying to suggest they will be the end of workers right’s as we know it is just silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    @ questlove.

    So do you agree then that the proposed 90 Day law isn’t necessarily bad as it depends on other aspects of the employment situation as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ stephen 9:50 am

    Hmm. Then if so, won’t they start to consider what they could do to attract more/better workers to a position?

    Yeah, advertise in India or South Africa, because if they can’t get New Zealanders to take the jobs at what they are offering, Immigration will permit them to employ migrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Toad,

    I worked for a company, (in the UK), that employed Indian and South African’s on a short term contract basis. It didn’t work out for them as the skill level wasn’t great. It also didn’t ave a major impact on the employment conditions of the other workers in the firm. So what is your problem with this again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (14,124 comments) says:

    Toad

    Why have the Greens opposed every move the Nat’s have made to increase wealth and lower unemployment?

    Why do the Greens continue to tell lies about wanting full employment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Andrew Stevenson (2 comments) says:

    It would be interesting to see some more statistics on this, especially around employment. Also, to hear any anecdotes from people who have lived overseas and been affected by the laws there.

    About ten years ago I was employed by a telecommunications company in NZ (let’s say the name begins with V) in a moderately senior role. My boss came to me after I’d been there three months and said: “Congratulations – you’re now officially employed by V. Your trial period is over.” I thanked her but thought “gee, I don’t remember seeing that in my contract – is that legal?” I guess it wasn’t.

    As a small business owner, this law will be good for me (I agree with the sentiment that employers don’t just hire and fire because they can) but remembering back to the bad-old-days when I was a wage-slave, it would make me less likely to change jobs. Not hugely, but it would be in the back of my mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @ Gosman

    I agree that the probation isn’t necessarily bad in the context of a worker being able to claim if they think they have been discriminated against and/or if the country has strong unions that act as a disincentive for bad employers to abuse the probationary period.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    But DPF, Key said to Fed Farmers last week that this govt will not be making policy on the basis of what other countries policies are.

    So your post is totally useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    I’m a contractor and as such I have minimal employment protection. Recently I wanted to leave my contract a few weeks before the end so I could take a better paid role with another firm. The manager at the company I was working at took the hump and let me go straight away rather than let me work out the notice. This caused a bit of an issue for me as my new place of work wasn’t in a position to employ me for a few weeks.

    I’m not psychologically damaged by this experience and neither would I expect either my ex-employer to cough up for my lost earnings. I also don’t expect the government to protect me from such a situation. I’m an adult and should be able to handle this sort of stuff. Apparently many on the left of the political spectrum would prefer that we are all treated like helpless little children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. trout (944 comments) says:

    The idealogues have come out to play. Give them an excuse to promote the left wing mantra in the guise of protecting the weak and away they go.
    My son, a recent graduate, with little work experience in his field, has, thanks to the 90 day trial option been given the opportunity to work with a team in his specialism. Jobs in this area are scarce and any opportunity to upgrade his skills has to be grabbed with both hands. If he proves his worth, and if the work flow is sustainable, he will be employed. This is the way it should be – what is the point in an enterprise being forced to retain unproductive staff or have to keep them on when there is no work? Perhaps the left expects private enterprise to be an extension of the welfare system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    It was previously possible to offer a three month (or any term) fixed contract, with the possibility of a permanent position or longer contract being offered at the end of the contract.

    It was (and is) also common to offer variable shift or casual employment, and just stop putting employees on the roster or give them to few hours to make it wortwhile continuing if they didn’t want them to work any more.

    So the 90-day trial period is not actually necessary, it just simplifies things. With or without it there will always be some arsehole employers who work around the law, and most employers and employees will keep understanding that it is in both their interests to work together to make money. Employment is mutually beneficial, not a class battle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Grendel (1,003 comments) says:

    funny how the people most opposed to this say its becuase we don;t have strong enough unions. almost like they have an agenda regarding unions?

    while it might make it less likely people will change jobs, you don;t have to sign the contract with the trial period in it. you can negotiate it out of the contract. i would be interested to hear from those who have changed jobs and asked for the clause to be removed.

    i would also be interested to see what percentage of employment contracts have the clause in it to those that don’t. may ask a friend whos at EMA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    “Perhaps the left expects private enterprise to be an extension of the welfare system.”

    That is exactly the problem here. The left has always had a problem distinguishing bewteen private and public aspects of society. As far as many of them are concerned private businesses have a moral obligation to employ people regardless of the impact on that business owner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Yes it does help businesses which are not very good at managing their hiring and firing process, but unfortunately it has been structured in such a way that leaves a loophole for dodgy employers to abuse employees without accountability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    The left are opposing this because unless they are opposing something they have no meaning in their lives. Look at Minto on TV the other day – or Bradford or McCarten. If they were happy they would get depressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    The mantra from the left is all about making it easier to sack people. What they do not seem to realise is that there are people who actually deserve to be sacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Clint Heine (1,571 comments) says:

    Oh FFS, work trials are all over the world, we have them in the UK and they are brilliant. Unions don’t fight it here as even they know its good for business. I don’t get all you anti 90 days people, I presume none of you have ever owned a business.

    How bad is it that countries that some of you idiots have mocked, have better employment laws than we do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    that leaves a loophole for dodgy employers to abuse employees without accountability.

    That type of employer finds loopholes anyway, there are always loopholes for those that want to operate that way. Why restrict good employers and employees because of those that will abuse things regardless?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    What they also forget is that it is also making it easier to employ people as well. I can’t stand this black and white view of reality that many on the left, (and admittedly some on the Right as well), display.

    Yes it is likely that there will be an increase in bad employers abusing this 90 Day trial. However these bad employers are not likely to benefit in the long run and the vast majority of good employers will be able to have a greater confidence they can employ someone without being stuck with a lemon of an employee.

    All the left is coming up with is tired old stereotypes of exploitation of workers. It kind of makes you wonder if they missed the last 50 oddd years of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @ Pete

    If someone was a good worker than previously bad employers could make their life difficult but not sack them for no reason.

    Previously if a good employer had a bad employee then the law allowed for them to get rid of them through setting a contact/review process.

    It’s not the good employers that are being restricted. It’s the bad employers being pandered at the expense of the right of a worker to claim against an unjustifiable sacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Gosman said: “What they also forget is that it is also making it easier to employ people as well.”

    It’s making it easier for employers that don’t bother to screen employees properly nor minimise their risk through putting in place a process to remove bad workers. This is the difference between businesses that don’t have a problem with the bad eggs and the businesses that do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    You seem to have little experience of the employment process questlove. I know of numerous people who went through the standard HR screening process for employees and were employed but subsequently were found not to be a good fit for the organisation in question. Most HR selection techniques are a joke if you ask me.

    What is so wrong with a three month trial period to find out if both the employee and employer are suited to each other? A huge number of countries, as shown by DPF, have a similar law. You seem to want to make it more difficult for the majority just because of a few bad employers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    It’s not an “unjustifiable sacking”. The process to remove a permanent employee is difficult, and easy to inadvertently stuff up, and time consuming while the business may be suffering (that can impact on employer and other employees).

    Most employers will still want to screen potential employees as they don’t want to waste time and expense getting new employees up to speed who are stuck in first gear or have loose wheels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rick Rowling (815 comments) says:

    Wow, what a pack of idle complainers here

    “What about this”
    “What about that”
    “Why didn’t you include this data”
    “You should have compared it with some other data”

    If you want to make a point, why not get off your lazy butt and find the stats yourself – then your thread posts would actually add something to the discussion – and if the stats support your point you might actually come across as persuasive rather than whingey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Pete you said yourself that the 90-day trial period is not actually necessary. The option of probation was available in the previous legislation.
    Also some sackings will be unjustifiable if they’re based on discrimination. If you’re a good worker but your employee doesn’t like that fact that you’re gay, they can fire you (but give you no reason).

    Gosaman I said earlier I don’t have a problem with a probation period which allows the worker to claim on grounds of discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Rick my link showed data that we have about the fourth weakest employment protection level out of 28 OECD countries.

    And it’s about to get weaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Viking2 (11,550 comments) says:

    didn’t see Singapore on that list. GDP growth this quarter approaching 15-16%.
    They must know something Key doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    “If you want to make a point, why not get off your lazy butt and find the stats yourself – then your thread posts would actually add something to the discussion – and if the stats support your point you might actually come across as persuasive rather than whingey.”

    Those opposed are not the ones advocating legislation change on dodgy stats and spin so to challenge them is perfectly acceptable.

    Example: If one of my staff comes to me suggesting I should change one of our IT policies for some perceived benefit then I expect them to come with a well thought out plan and data to back up any claims they may have. I DO NOT expect them to say “hey, here’s what we should do, tell me why we shouldn’t” Which is what you are advocating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. trout (944 comments) says:

    Worth noting that most of the workers that were laid of within the 90 day probation period (25% of the 100% employed) were laid off within 2 weeks. So much for the argument that promotes the idea that workers are being exploited for 3 months. Having a person employed for two weeks is an unrecoverable cost to the employer but better to resolve an unsatisfactory situation early rather than let it fester.
    Even those on the left will know that the job market for their kids is shrinking relative to the numbers looking for appropriate employment (appropriate to their qualifications). The last ten years have seen a rapid expansion in Government jobs but a strangling of productive industry (dairy industry excluded) due to currency valuation, regulations, chinese goods, lack of capital etc,etc. The situation is not far off where we will be begging private enterprise to take our kids on; a 90 day probation period will be the least of our worries. We may have to buy a job or at least subsidize the wages until the kid proves himself (just like the old apprenticeships where the kids were supported by their parents).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    (just like the old apprenticeships where the kids were supported by their parents).

    It’s called a Boon, and it’s not just old, it’s medieval! Leaping ahead to the ancient past!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    Jobs in this area are scarce and any opportunity to upgrade his skills has to be grabbed with both hands.

    This like the Kerre Woodham argument. If it’s a specialised area and jobs are scarce, why would an employer waste time with trials? Are you saying the 90 day bill is a good way for the desperate to subsidise businesses? The business is closing and the employer thinks that taking the labour/expertise of an entry level candidate will save them? Why would the candidate waste time with this employer? This is exactly what the left/unions are wailing about. It’s not a positive support of the 90 day bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Also some sackings will be unjustifiable if they’re based on discrimination. If you’re a good worker but your employee doesn’t like that fact that you’re gay, they can fire you (but give you no reason).

    No they can’t. Read the legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    (just like the old apprenticeships where the kids were supported by their parents).

    It’s called a Boon, and it’s not just old, it’s medieval! Leaping ahead to the ancient past!

    We are not actually entitled to be able to live independently from 16 onwards. If our society is not productive it will fall further and further out of reach of people. For tens of thousands of years parents have looked after their children until they are able to feed themselves, and unless they live in prosperity this might be their whole lives.

    There’s nothing ‘medieval’ about it, it is the natural way of things that recently capitalism has given us the option to choose not to follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jibbering Gibbon (198 comments) says:

    That’s an interesting history lesson that bears no resemblence to 95% of the World’s population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Is that your post count or your IQ next to your name Gibbon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Sonny Blount said: “No they can’t. Read the legislation.:

    I know that the employee can still bring a grievance on the basis of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage.

    But the reality of an employer being able to let you go within 90 days without telling you why you were let go means that this type of grievance will be nearly impossible to bring.

    Like I said, no matter how good of a worker you are, if an employer has a problem with your lifestyle, religious beliefs, interest in union membership etc, they can just fire you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. calendar girl (1,261 comments) says:

    Nick R @ 9:16

    I suggest you don’t give up your day job just yet. You’re not going to make it as a comedian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    In every job I have had in New Zealand, no matter the size of the company, I have had a trial period. Why? I am a professional person. My personality might not fit the company ethos. They might have Labour or Green voters working there. (I can’t stand working with stupid, ignorant people)

    Either way – I want the option to say goodbye to my employer if we do not mesh well.

    And I’m certainly not about to deny them the same right. If I am a disruptive, shitty presence in their organisation they should damn well have to be able to get rid of me without resorting to the types of “Unfair dismissal” claims we’ve all seen.

    The current system as favoured by Labour / Greens are focussed on pushing the employee above the employer in terms of rights. The system should be balanced.

    This system goes a bit towards making it a fairer system for both parties engaging in that employment contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    I know that the employee can still bring a grievance on the basis of discrimination, harassment, or unjustifiable disadvantage.

    There you go. You said it, was it really that hard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. trout (944 comments) says:

    How is it that the left believes that private enterprise is a given; a cow to be milked for whatever ‘worthy’ purpose they dream up. Business is best compared with plants; ‘ seed capital, enterprise and growth, and flowering – financial rewards shared between employees and proprietors. Yes, it is mutual exploitation in the most constructive sense; employees earn by selling their time and skills, and exploit the opportunity given them by dint of someone else putting up capital and taking a risk. And yes. greed is good if it creates jobs. Business cannot sustain a sheltered workshop. Productivity in NZ industry is abysmal; if things stay the way they are we are going to fall further and further behind Australia. And we certainly will not to be able to continue to borrow $250mill. a week to support Government services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount

    Wow. The guys here on the periphery only capable of ‘National good, Labour bad’ are just as ridiculous as those ‘Labour good, National bad’ guys at the standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    No, those at The Standard are far more ridiculous. It would be very difficult for anyone to compete with them. They are the All Blacks of ridiculousness.

    Your closed mind would be right at home over there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Closed minded? I’m not against a mandatory probation period to make things easier for businesses. I’m concerned here about the implications for the right of an employee to bring a personal grievance. You’re the one dodging this and only willing to consider the employers position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Really?

    My employees like this law alot, as new staff come up to speed faster, and they less often have to carry the load of poorer staff.

    What is your experience of employing people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Of course they would like this law in that context. Sadly people tend to not give a toss unless it’s affecting them directly. Do you think a worker on probation would like this law if they got fired for no reason?

    It’s great that this law makes it easier for legitimate dismissals but it’s not good enough that it undermines a workers right not to be discriminated against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    it’s not good enough that it undermines a workers right not to be discriminated against.

    Your memory is failing you. It doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. questlove (242 comments) says:

    An employer which doesn’t like the fact you’re interested in union membership, or affiliated with a certain political party, or gay, or a muslin etc etc etc can fire you and get away with it because he’s not accountable to his decision.

    How is this not undermining a workers right not to be discriminated against?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. The Wanderer (6 comments) says:

    Try a 100 day trial period in Kuwait and a six month trial period in Qatar. But, in Kuwait, even if you pass the trial period, you can still have your employment terminated on a “no reason given” basis at any time. The new Kuwait Labour Law (February 2010) has extended the notice period from two weeks to three months at least though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    An employer which doesn’t like the fact you’re interested in union membership, or affiliated with a certain political party, or gay, or a muslin etc etc etc can fire you and get away with it because he’s not accountable to his decision.
    How is this not undermining a workers right not to be discriminated against?

    What does it have to do with the 90 day law?

    Discrimination is still illegal under the 90 day law. You know this yet you are reasoning like a child.

    What you describe is extreme. Firstly, why would this person hire you in the first place? Secondly, what happens between people that would like to fire them on the spot and gays, muslims, etc at the moment. Do you think this kind of extreme hate dissipates as soon as a meeting is held?

    There are only two reasons an employer ever lets a worker go. Either because in their opinion, the employee is unable to perform the work to the required standard, or otherwise, the employer is unable to pay them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. questlove (242 comments) says:

    -“What does it have to do with the 90 day law?
    Discrimination is still illegal under the 90 day law.”
    .
    *Sigh* How simple do you need me to put it? The REALITY of the APPLICATION of the bill is that discrimination is protected. An employer doesn’t like your religion, he can fire you. Yes it’s illegal, but because he can fire you WITHOUT STATING WHY, he can’t be made accountable to the law. Before the legislation he couldn’t do this, he had to give a reasonable reason. If you were a good worker you wouldn’t be fired unfairly.

    -“Why would this person hire you in the first place?”-
    .
    Why wouldn’t they? They were hiring a worker and it’s not as if your beliefs and lifestyle choices are in your cv. An employer can hate someones beliefs or lifestyle as much as they want, it is not a legitimate reason to fire someone.

    -“There are only two reasons an employer ever lets a worker go. Either because in their opinion, the employee is unable to perform the work to the required standard, or otherwise, the employer is unable to pay them.”-
    .
    If this were true then there would be no cases of employers being found guilty of unfair dismissal. This is far from reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    *Sigh* How simple do you need me to put it? The REALITY of the APPLICATION of the bill is that discrimination is protected

    BULLSHIT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Does an employer that is discriminating under the after 90 day rules sit an employee down and tell them ‘I am firing you because you are gay/muslim/ etc’?

    Is that how you think this sort of situation unfolds?

    You realise if that occured under the 90 day bill the employer would be liable for discrimination.

    The employee can record actions and statements anytime over the 90 days that show discriminatio by their employer. If the employer saying ‘i’m letting you gay because you are gay/muslim’ is the only thing they have to show discrimination and that doesn’t occur then there was no discrimiation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Haiku Dave (265 comments) says:

    a boss may let you
    gay during work but it’s still
    inappropriate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Most discrimination has already occurred during the selection process. Ok, it’s not officially called discrimination, it’s called choosing who you want to employ, but get real.

    Everyone knows how to do it, they simply pick who they prefer and just tell the rest they missed out. They try to use this meaning:

    discriminate
    2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

    and just don’t let on if they use a bit of this one:

    1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit;

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Theres no if about it Pete, people do, everytime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    I’m going to try and be as ridiculous as questlove for a moment. Bear with me please.

    I run a Halaal butchery in Mt Roskill. All my employees are devout Muslims. Last week somebody that was clearly a skinhead applied for a job. He had the tattoos, was wearing a Nazi symbol earring and had no hair. I could see he was going to be trouble but of the three candidates before me his experience and skill level places him above the rest.

    questlove, should I employ him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @ Pete Of course discrimination goes on during the selection process before the employee signs a contract. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about in the workplace.

    @ Pascal – Don’t be daft. Obviously you can’t necessarily see a persons sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation etc through their appearance.

    “Does an employer that is discriminating under the after 90 day rules sit an employee down and tell them ‘I am firing you because you are gay/muslim/ etc’?”
    .
    Of course not. If an employer was stupid enough to do that then you could make a case of discrimination. My point is that with the previous legislation the employer couldn’t hide behind not being accountable. Employers had to justify their dismissal. If someone was a good worker but the employer didn’t like their personal beliefs or lifestyle, they couldn’t just get rid of them. Now, if an employer didn’t like that their male employee got picked up from work by your boyfriend he can let you go claiming you were lazy. I don’t get why you can’t see how not being held accountable for dismissals means employers can abuse this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. questlove (242 comments) says:

    Now, if an employer didn’t like that their male employee got picked up from work by his boyfriend they can let him go claiming he was lazy.

    (Fixed for grammar)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Now, if an employer didn’t like that their male employee got picked up from work by your boyfriend he can let you go claiming you were lazy. I don’t get why you can’t see how not being held accountable for dismissals means employers can abuse this?

    Because they only want to dismiss people who either cannot perform the job or cannot afford to pay.

    Now, if an employer didn’t like that their male employee got picked up from work by his boyfriend they can let him go claiming he was lazy.

    And after 90 days that employer could still visit that employees house at night and spray paint abuse on their driveway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Questlove:

    @ Pascal – Don’t be daft. Obviously you can’t necessarily see a persons sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation etc through their appearance.

    Great! So, I hire this very well qualified individual. But after three weeks he is causing trouble in my workplace. Despite my initial misgivings he has proven to be a skinhead and his attitude towards my Muslim workers is causing difficulties.

    Under the 90 day trial period legislation I can fire him and have my workplace better off. But he had the opportunity and the chance to actually step into employment, because I was able to take the risk.

    Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “Because they only want to dismiss people who either cannot perform the job or cannot afford to pay.”
    .
    Now you’re just being plain dishonest. Each year there are multiple instances of employers successfully bringing cases of unjustifiable dismissal. Claiming this doesn’t happen is not true.

    “Great! So, I hire this very well qualified individual. But after three weeks he is causing trouble in my workplace. Despite my initial misgivings he has proven to be a skinhead and his attitude towards my Muslim workers is causing difficulties.”
    .
    You’re changing the scenario to one which we’re not talking about. Obviously if someone is causing trouble you can fire them. I’m talking about a bad employee hiring someone, finding out they were gay or religious etc, and then being able to get rid of them even if they were good workers causing no problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    Now you’re just being plain dishonest. Each year there are multiple instances of employers successfully bringing cases of unjustifiable dismissal. Claiming this doesn’t happen is not true.

    Successfully bringing cases. What is the problem there?

    If it happens, bring a case, if you win and there are repercussions for the guilty party then the system works. And this system is still in place under the 90 day period.

    Can you please provide details of these cases (multiple please) and give an indication of the incidence of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “Successfully bringing cases. What is the problem there?”
    .
    That’s my point, there’s no problem where an employer is accountable to their dismissal. The problem is that under the new bill employers are not accountable.

    “If it happens, bring a case, if you win and there are repercussions for the guilty party then the system works. And this system is still in place under the 90 day period.”
    .
    As I’ve pointed out, with this new bill where the employer is not accountable for dismissals, it is extremely difficult to bring a case unless the employer is blatant. The previous firing process meant that good workers could not be fired unfairly because the employer had to have grounds for dismissal. Discriminative grounds wouldn’t fly then. Discriminative grounds for dismissal can be used by bad employers under this new bill, because employers can fire whilst withholding their reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    questlove:

    You’re changing the scenario to one which we’re not talking about. Obviously if someone is causing trouble you can fire them. I’m talking about a bad employee hiring someone, finding out they were gay or religious etc, and then being able to get rid of them even if they were good workers causing no problems.

    Employers hire people. Not employees. But I’m starting to get the impression that you’ve got one narrow case you think is a problem and because of that you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    So if there is hypothetically this employer who finds out somebody is gay or religious and gets rid of them we should not have a trial period matching what other countries are doing because of this very small, select subset of perfectly good and honest employers?

    It is better to NOT give people the chance than to take the risk that one or two cases might be fucked up?

    Actually. No. It’s just you that’s a bit fucked up. Too much indoctrination, not enough thought eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    We have a paradigm problem. Critics says that freedom to negotiate a trial period will bring out the worst in employers and therefore employers need to have the bejesus regulated out of them. On that basis, some teens are boyracers and drink and drive. Therefore no teens may have licences. We keep legislating for the lowest common denominator. Thats why we keep getting mediocrity. The message that the critics are giving to employers is “we do not want a trial period. We want to be able to sue you.” Helluva mindset for an employment relationship to start on. Need to have a paradigm shift — “lets make a go it it. If it doesn’t work then we both walk away, no harm done.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    As I’ve pointed out, with this new bill where the employer is not accountable for dismissals, it is extremely difficult to bring a case unless the employer is blatant. The previous firing process meant that good workers could not be fired unfairly because the employer had to have grounds for dismissal. Discriminative grounds wouldn’t fly then. Discriminative grounds for dismissal can be used by bad employers under this new bill, because employers can fire whilst withholding their reasons.

    How many of these multiple successful cases brought which you have so far been unable to provide examples of, won their case primarily because the employer gave a discriminatory reason for their dismissal?

    I’ll bet you these people didn’t win their cases because the employer told them ‘I’m firing you because you are gay/muslim etc”

    Therefore the lack of a documented reason under the 90 day law will not prevent discrimination cases being brought, as these cases hinge (or should) on actual evidence of discrimination in the workplace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    There are two possibilities in the situation you are describing questlove.

    1st. The employee is fired and told “I’m firing you because you are gay”. This would be discrimination under the 90 day legislation.

    2nd. The employee is let go but not told that it is because they are gay. For them to have brought a successful case under this scenario, there must have been some other evidence of discrimination. This evidence would still exist under the 90 day law and therefore a discrimination case won under this situation would be won with or without the 90 day legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    The one difference however being that if the 90 day trial rule does not apply, the employer is required to provide a written explanation for the reasons for the dismissal (section 120).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    A Christchurch school’s Board of Trustees have been told to attend a human rights awareness course after sacking a netball coach because he was gay

    Coincidentally it’s just happened. It doesn’t say if he was on a 90-day trial or not, but it wouldn’t make any difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @ Pascal – We’re not matching other countries as NZ has one of the weakest employment protection levels in the OECD. They have probation yes, but their workers are protected. Eg. only 20% of our workforce is covered by a union-negotiated collective agreement. Australia is 60%, bad employees in Australia think twice about screwing over their employees.

    Also I’m not suggesting scrapping this bill at all. How about a few provisions for example that the scheme is made unavailable to any employer that has suffered any substantive adverse findings at the ERA/EC, committed any offence against the Holidays Act, and/or any offense against the Health and Safety in Employment Act in the last 2 years?

    The ‘bill how it is’ and ‘no bill’ are not the only two alternatives if one is actually thinking about solutions.

    @ Sonny Blount – If by now you still can’t understand the argument that an employer withholding reasons for dismissal makes it difficult for an employee to take a personal grievance claim, then your bias has you stuck.
    And if you’re that interested there’s plenty of information on personal grievance determinations by the ERA to be found on the Department of Labour website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. questlove (242 comments) says:

    @ Pete George – Under the 90-day trial the Principal could have just let him go & not even brought up the fact that him being gay was a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    @ Sonny Blount – If by now you still can’t understand the argument that an employer withholding reasons for dismissal makes it difficult for an employee to take a personal grievance claim

    It makes it difficult to make a personal grievance claim based on procedural errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    @ Pete George – Under the 90-day trial the Principal could have just let him go & not even brought up the fact that him being gay was a problem.

    If the employer had done the exact same thing under the 90 day law the person could make a claim of discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “If the employer had done the exact same thing under the 90 day law the person could make a claim of discrimination.”
    .
    No one is denying that. However you can’t honestly deny that had this been under the 90-day trial, the Principal would of had gained the option of just letting him go without even bringing up that it was because him being gay was a problem. And whats more, the guy who was fired would have been able to do nothing as the Principals withholding of a reason would give him no evidence to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    Chunk this up a bit. The philosophy behind the “anti” argument is that someone taking a particular course of action must assert the legitimacy of that action failing which an action for damages may follow. NZ law is based on the notion that somebody wanting somebody else’s money must establish the wrongdoing by bringing evidence to that effect. We are getting to the point where the argument seems to be that because of the difficulties of proof, unless an employer establishes that the employer is acting bona fide and for good reason, the employee has a right of action for damages. This is starting to get into dangerous territory. It is based on the premise that employers (anyone in fact) is guilty of wrongful conduct unless proven otherwise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    the Principals withholding of a reason would give him no evidence to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.

    If there is no evidence then no discrimination occurred.

    Or do you believe that every time a gay person fires a straight person it is discrimination even if there was no discernable differentiation in they way they were treated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “If there is no evidence then no discrimination occurred.”
    .
    This morally dubious line of thinking where ‘it ain’t a crime if ya don’t get caught’ and ‘what employees don’t know won’t hurt them’, is exactly the type of mentality workers need protection from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    And your line of thinking is ‘You may have done nothing wrong but you’re guilty anyway, bugger the lack of evidence’

    Read Nookins post above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “Or do you believe that every time a gay person fires a straight person it is discrimination even if there was no discernable differentiation in they way they were treated?”
    .
    No, it’s discrimination if they were fired because of their sexuality. As this law allows for withholding a reason, there will often be no discernible differentiation in the way they were treated. This is the very loop-hole I’ve been talking about which allows employers to get away with discrimination where they wouldn’t have under the previous legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “And your line of thinking is ‘You may have done nothing wrong but you’re guilty anyway, bugger the lack of evidence’”
    .
    Not at all.

    Read post above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Sonny Blount (1,794 comments) says:

    How do you think the rascists and homophobes get rid of the staff they don’t like at the moment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. questlove (242 comments) says:

    In the first 90 days probably much the same as any employer that doesn’t like an employee for personal reasons.

    Some will suck it in. Some won’t.

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