Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

A members bill to stop loan sharks is up for its first reading tonight but the Labour MP behind it is fearful it will be voted down.

Carol Beaumont’s Consumer Credit (Responsible Lending) Bill was introduced to Parliament last August.

It would allow maximum interest rates to be set and would require a lender to reasonably believe a borrower would be able to repay a loan.

It also seeks to limit the ability of lenders to recover more than they initially lent in the event of a default.

Ms Beaumont said her bill was aimed at preventing loan sharks from charging excessive interest rates and lending irresponsibly.

“Many loan sharks lend out money at obscene rates, without checking to see whether the borrower will be able to meet the repayment requirements.”

This bill is well intentioned, but may have unforeseen consequences. A maximum level of interest rate you can charge could in fact lead to many lenders increasing their rates to the ceiling. Limits often become targets.

But having said that, I think Parliament should vote the bill through to a select committee. It is an honest attempt to deal with what is a real problem. It would be good to allow a select committee to hear submissions for and against what the bill proposes.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland doctor who has just months to live after being diagnosed with a terminal illness says it’s time for euthanasia to be legalised.

Dr John Pollock said it was unfair that if he lived in Holland, Belgium or some American states he would have the option of ending his life if his condition deteriorated to a point where he was suffering, but in New Zealand he faces a death he cannot control.

He believes it is time for a law change so people facing death have the comfort of knowing they can control the end.

I support a law change. I think people should have the right to decide to die, if they are terminal. You wants lots of safeguards, but the principle is easy.

Under the current law, some terminally ill patients were left in the “most appallingly wretched states, sometimes akin to those who died of starvation in Nazi concentration camps”, Dr Pollock said. “Ironically if we allowed a cat or a dog or a horse to reach such a condition we would be breaking the law and risking a prison sentence.”

When asked if he had ever helped a patient end their life he replied: “It’s against the law.” He said he did however know “a number” of doctors who had helped suffering patients.

“I don’t see how a merciful doctor could not. The difference between relieving pain and euthanasia can be really quite small.”

In NZ we already have passive euthanasia – where people are allowed to die, as their quality of life is so poor. The debate is about whether one can have active euthanasia – where medicine can be supplied that will painlessly kill someone.

“The law won’t be changed in time for me and the only way that I can legally end my life before it is due to end is suicide and that’s the cruelty of it – not only suicide but suicide alone because if I top myself with my family present then I put them at risk and I think that’s hideous. It’s very cruel.”

Rodney Hide talked eloquently about Martin Hames trying to kill himself alone, because of the euthanasia laws. Martin’s case is the one which convinced me to come off the fence on this issue, and support euthanasia.

John Key mentioned in his conference speech that a couple receiving superannuation will come October be receiving $70 a week more in the hand, than in 2008. I thought this can’t be right. Surely Grey Power could not be so grumpy, if this was right – but it is – I asked for the details.

1. 30 September 2008 – $439.80
2. 1 October 2008 tax cuts +$22.94 = $462.74
3. 1 April 2009 CPI adjust +$15.64 = $478.38
4. 1 April 2010 av wage adjust +$11.04 = $489.42
5. 1 October 2010 tax cuts +$21.64 = $511.06

So over two years, the level of married superannuation has gone up a whopping $71.26 a week.

Got 14/15 in 1:02. Quiz is here.

I dispute one of their answers about what was controversial. The answer is subjective and as they asked what was the most controversial issue “at” the conference, I stand by my answer of alcohol laws as that saw an actual debate with a 60/40 split. The Dom Post’s answer wasn’t controversial at the conference – it was massively supported by everyone.

From the Radio Sport Farming Show:

JAMIE MACKAY:     Phil, you and I will agree to disagree on that one.  What about cashing in some of your holidays for money?

PHIL GOFF:  Well, I don’t have huge objections to that, as long as the decision is freely arrived at by the worker, and the worker is not pressured to do it.  If you’ve got that safeguard in, then if somebody chooses to do that, then I’m quite relaxed about it.

Great to see Phil Goff embracing common sense policies.

I thought readers may enjoy this helpful newsletter form the NZEI on national standards.

NZEI and NS

The part that is of most significance is the statement that NZEI believes there are clear links between National Standards and the position the Ministry has taken in the primary teacher and principal bargaining.

What this means is that the NZEI is going to go on strike unless they get a massive pay increase as “compensation” for national standards.

It’s never really been about national standards. No one could seriously think they are a bad thing to do. It’s all about league tables and pay.

The Stuff version of the Andrew Little article didn’t have as much detail as the Daily News version. I love this response to a question on whether he seeks to become Labour Party Leader:

We’ve got a pretty good leader at the moment …

That quote is so good, I’m adding it to my quotes file. I’m not sure what I find more amusing the description of the current leader as “pretty good” or the “at the moment”.

Stuff reports:

* No areas will be removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

* The Government will continue with a proposal to add 14 areas, totalling 12,400 hectares of land, to Schedule 4.

* All areas given classifications equivalent to current Schedule 4 areas, such as national parks and marine reserves, will now automatically become part of Schedule 4.

* An aeromagnetic survey will be taken of Northland and the West Coast of the South Island to assess mineral wealth.

* Land holding Ministers (eg the Minister of Conservation in the case of in the case of public conservation land) and the Minister of Energy and Resources must now sign off on applications for access arrangements to Crown land for mineral developments.

This can only be seen as a total backdown. In fact envir0nmental protection of national parks has been increased, by having them automatically added to Section 4 in future.

Greenpeace Senior Climate Campaigner Simon Boxer said the decision was “a heartening example of people power in action”.

“This is a historic victory for the record number of New Zealanders who stood up to protect our most treasured places and for a vision of a truly sustainable and progressive 21st century economy for New Zealand,” Mr Boxer said.

It is a great victory for those who marched, signed petitions and put in submissions. I think it was the sheer number of individual submissions that probably had the biggest impact.

While The Government solves one problem with the decision, they now face the problem of whether they are serious about catching up with Australia, in light of the back down. They are fortunate that they have just announced employment law changes, as these will go some way towards mollifying sentiment that the Government is not doing enough.

There are some lessons for the Government in this, in my opinion. What were they?

1. The proposal was over-hyped. Even the PM himself did this, by stating there would definitely be change.
2. The discussion document was rather woeful. It didn’t make a good case for why the Government wanted to mine. It relied on merely the potential value of the minerals. I wanted to see projected jobs created, royalty increases, and tax take changes.
3. The inclusion of Great Barrier Island was a tactical mistake. It galvanised opposition in Auckland especially. And mining on the island would be impossible anyway under current regional and district plans.
4. This was one of those issues where it was not just about winning majority support from the public. It is about intensity of support. Even if 60% support mining, few supporters would have it decide their vote. However for many opponents of mining, this is an issue which would decide their vote – especially women (in my opinion)

The only real upside for the Government is that they can genuinely say, they do listen to the public, and that it is not a waste of time to response to discussion documents. But that is some minor face saving for what is an embarrassing u-turn.

The Dom Post reports:

Taxi price wars are erupting in Wellington as small companies try to stay afloat after being shunted out of the lucrative airport trade.

Two companies have cut their prices in the past two weeks and more are promising to follow suit.

The companies are angry about a Wellington Airport decision to allocate a priority taxi spot to market leader Wellington Combined, relegating competitors to an outer lane where business is scarce.

“This is a retaliation,” Kiwi Cabs spokesman Logan Pithyou said. “We’re fighting back by lowering our prices. If this doesn’t work out, the company will go bust and many other small companies will too.”

I always use Wellington Combined, unless I am in town and can’t find one. The reasons I do are:

1. Quality of cars is good
2. Drivers speak English and know where common locations are
3. They use an electronic payment system, so easy to pay with taxicard
4. They turn up fairly quickly when called

I will use Corporate Cabs also, but avoid almost all other firms.

Having said that, I can be price sensitive like most people. I would like to know how much I could save if I used another firm.

It would be a great public service if someone created a page showing all the firms in a city, and their tariffs. Ideally an average rating from users also – but just a price comparison would be really good.

First the Herald:

Most of the scrutiny of the Government’s planned changes to employment law has focused on the extension to all firms of the 90-day trial period for new workers. But for business, the most welcome aspect of the package will undoubtedly be the sensible reform of personal grievance dispute procedures. Too often, employers have looked askance at the way Employment Relations Authority processes and decisions have come to the aid of workers who have been dismissed for perfectly valid reasons. A rebalancing is long overdue.

The Government has made two particularly notable changes. First, the authority will be able to filter out vexatious or frivolous claims early on, thereby saving time and money. Secondly, and most importantly, the authority will have to pay more attention to the right outcome, rather than subject employer processes to “pedantic scrutiny”. This is intended to stop decisions going against employers because they failed to follow procedure to the exact letter in terms of warnings, areas for employee improvement and suchlike. No longer should loopholes undermine a justified dismissal, sometimes at a cost of thousands of dollars to an employer. …

At times businesses can find it nigh on impossible to dismiss even the most flagrant abuser of workplace standards or productivity requirements. The reform should not be interpreted, however, as the green light for loose or unfair practice. Although the detail of the change has yet to be announced, it will still fall to the authority to decide what is a minor oversight with no bearing on the core issue and what is a dire breach of procedure. This should swing the personal grievance process back into better balance rather than substantially in employers’ favour.

What is interesting is the Government is planning to put into statute, much of the case law on how to legally dismiss someone. This will reduce uncertainty – along with a proposed code of practice.

The most obviously problematic item on the Government agenda is, however, the plan to allow employers to force workers taking sick days to prove they are ill, after just one day. This is intended to allow firms to tackle employees who they suspect are routinely taking ‘sickies’. The Labour Minister says it would be used sparingly. So it will if this is a rare problem. But if used widely, it would create a significant burden for all concerned. If, as the minister suggests, this is not a major problem, there seems no good reason to amend the present law, which serves its purpose well enough.

I agree that at this stage I am not convinced this is a change where the pros outweigh the cons.

In sum, this is not the stuff of a strident assault on workers’ rights. It is more a measured process that, with a little select committee tweaking, will introduce a greater coherence and flexibility into employment law, especially that relating to personal grievances.

They really are quite modest changes – but changes that will be of considerable benefit.

The Dom Post:

In an ideal world there would be little need for employment law. Employers, unions and workers would be fair and reasonable at all times. No-one would take advantage of sick leave provisions to add to their leave entitlement. No-one would be capriciously sacked.

However, this is not an ideal world. Employers and workers do not always act as they should, and that is why a legal framework is needed to govern their relationships.

The Government’s role should be to make sure the balance of that framework is as fair as possible. The changes Prime Minister John Key announced at the weekend are a move towards that. …

It is undeniable that, under Labour, the pendulum swung towards the workers. The just-announced changes are an overdue and small correction – not the catastrophe their opponents believe.

This talk about a council of war is hysterical over-reaction.

Finally the ODT:

Planned changes to employment and holiday laws announced by Prime Minister John Key on Sunday are hardly the stuff of revolution. …

They represent the attitudes of a Government shading towards the right while still keeping within range of the centre.

They reflect policies of a National Party determined to be pragmatic rather then radical.

Nonetheless, the measures, if enacted after passing through parliamentary processes, will, in total, help employers as they try to do business.

They will, in small ways, help New Zealand’s competitiveness.

And that is the key. The changes will make NZ more competitive and will enhance economic growth.

Vernon Small reports:

Labour Party president Andrew Little has confirmed he will seek the party’s nomination for the marginal New Plymouth seat. …

If selected he would use accumulated leave and leave without pay to campaign one day a week initially,  stepping up to full time campaigning six weeks out from the election.

Goodness, one day a week until the final six weeks is at the light end. I guess Andrew knows he will have a high list spot also to fall back on.

Most candidates who actually win seats off incumbent MPs go full-time six to nine months out.

He would quit as party president as early as next May and leave his union job if he was elected.

I guess one of the Vice-Presidents will become Acting President?

Interesting that Andrew will remain in his EPMU job as the EPMU will no doubt be running an “independent” anti-National election campaign. So Andrew will be in charge of the EPMU’s independent campaign against National, and be campaigning for Labour as a candidate.

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.

The Herald reports:

Figures released to the Herald show that between July 2008 and June 2010, there were 23 murders in Counties-Manukau.

So far this calendar year, there have been only three murders. …

There have been other cuts in crime on the streets of Counties-Manukau, where 255 police officers have been added to the frontline:

* 80 per cent drop in bag snatching.

* 14 per cent drop in home burglaries.

* 18 per cent drop in other burglaries.

* 29 per cent drop in motor vehicle crime.

These are provisional figures from January 1 until last week, and are being compared with the same time period from the previous year.

That’s great news for Manukau residents. Still a long way to go, but it does show that extra policing can make a difference in key areas.

I’m a bit gutted to be away when Wordcamp NZ is on. Wordcamp is for users and fans of WordPress, which is what this blog uses.

I would have loved to attend (7 and 8 August in Auckland) as I know I’d pick up heaps of good ideas for plugins and features etc.

There is talk there may be one in Wellington later this year or early next year. I hope so.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s $1.5 billion Working for Families package has driven a net 1200 parents out of the paid workforce – achieving the opposite of its aim to “make work pay”.

An evaluation by Inland Revenue and Social Development Ministry researchers has found the $60 a week in-work tax credit lured 8100 sole parents into paid work.

And that is good. The Greens and some of the left have opposed the in-work tax credit, but I think it is a good thing that does encourage people to move from benefits into work. To give fair praise to Labour they even defended a human rights law suit against it.

But 9300 second-earners in two-parent families dropped out of work because higher tax credits let them stay home with the children.

This one is more difficult. It is good for the economy to have both parents working and earning, but it can be better for the family to have one parent not working. There is no universal right or wrong position – each family has to make up their own minds. What is most important is that at least one parent is working.

But Labour social development shadow minister Annette King said yesterday the contrasting results were “two good outcomes”.

“It enabled people [sole parents] on the benefit to go out and earn more and to reconnect with the workforce because it was worth their while,” she said. “And if people [in couples] who were doing part-time work are now able to stay home with their families, that’s a win too, because we have two groups that have different needs.”

Annette has a point here. But the money to pay WFF comes from those who are out working, and if you reduce the pool of those working, then a smaller number of workers are funding a larger number of non workers.

The most efficient tax and welfare system is one with the least churn. Taxing people more than you need, just so you can give some of it back to them as welfare is quite wasteful.

Ideally I want a system where people pay little or no tax until they are earning enough to pay for their own direct costs of living. But once they are earning enough to pay for themselves, they should receive little welfare – I don’t want people earning $100,000 receiving taxpayer handouts from those earning just $45,000.

I’ve been banned from blogging it myself as a caption contest, but Danyl at Dim Post has done so. Enjoy.

Kerre Woodham writes in the HoS how job trials offer a lucky break:

One of the best cameramen I know started off at TV3 working for nothing. As a young pup, he shared a poxy flat with five other trainees.

Terry was on a two week unpaid work experience. After that, he just stayed, still without a wage, and worked every hour God sent to scrape together enough money to survive while he learned the tools of the trade.

The company got an enthusiastic worker bee for nothing; the kid got the experience he needed to get him the first foothold on the ladder of a career that’s taken him all around the world and to the top of his game.

I suppose the unions would see it as exploitation but Terry was grateful for the opportunity and TV3 got a talented young camera assistant for nothing.

Surely a win/win situation. And isn’t that what the 90-day trial is all about? Workers being given an opportunity to show their worth to an employer who may be uneasy about taking on new staff?

And 40% of those hired with a trial period, would not have been hired if the trial period provision did not exist.

There are also those who are technically proficient at what they do but are monumental pains in the arse to work with and who can be terribly damaging to a small- or medium-sized business that requires its staff to work together co-operatively. If you can trial workers to see how they fit with the rest of the team, that must be a good thing.

Ask anyone who actually has been an employer, and “how they fit into the team” is a crucial element – and something that CVs and even interviews can not always ascertain.

And if they do not fit into the team, the cost can be horrific. Not only are they unproductive, but other staff become unproductive, and you sometimes even start losing your good staff.

Anyway what are the other changes announced by National.

The Employment Relations Authority will have the ability to filter out vexatious or frivolous claims early on.

This is common for almost all tribunals.

The Authority will promote mediation by giving priority to mediated cases.

Oh how evil, promoting mediated settlements.

Behaviour that delays the Authority will be penalised.

I suspect this will be called the Lynne Snowden clause. Her battle with Radio NZ is still ongoing five years later!

Employers’ processes will not be the subject of pedantic
scrutiny.

This one is pretty damn important. Unless you are a large corporate with in house lawyers and HR teams, you are unlikely to get he process perfect. The process should always be fair, but too often an employer dismisses an employee for exceptionally good reasons, but the employee gets a few thousand on the way out for minor procedural issues.

Having said that, one needs to be careful not to encourage employers to be lax about following a fair process, and the exact details of any law change will be crucial.

The Authority will be moving to a more judicial mode of operation, with the right to cross-examine witnesses.

My translation of this is that too many witnesses are lying and getting away with it.

Rules on union access to workplaces will change, so that any access will require the consent of the employer. That consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

I predict that this will be no big deal, despite the loud noise. All it is doing is saying a union should be polite enough not to turn up unannounced when entering private property. Like anyone else they make an appointment, so they may have to ring up and say we plan to come in tomorrow at 10 am to talk about “x”, and the employer will say yeah no probs unless it clashes with something else (maybe they have an important meeting of their own, or are on a deadline and the following day will be much easier).

Employees will be able to trade one of their four weeks’ annual leave for cash. This is only at the employee’s request and cannot be raised in salary negotiations.

Also election policy, and will be welcomed by many employees who will appreciate having a choice.

Holiday pay calculating entitlements will be simpler for employees who have variable hours and pay, using our new calculation known as “Average Daily Pay”. It’s based on the average of an employee’s pay over the past year.

Seems fair to me. Over a year, it should avoid the problem of calculating it just on a previous pay period, when hours may have been very low or high.

Employers and employees will be able to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day.

Not sure what problem this is solving, but generally flexibility is a good thing.

Maximum penalties will double for employers who don’t comply with the Holidays Act.

Good. Bad employers are the reasons unions push for labour laws that punish all employers. I’m all in favour of tougher penalties for employers who knowingly deprive their employees of their holiday rights.

Employers will be able to ask for proof of sickness or injury within three consecutive days of an employee taking sick leave – but they’ll have to cover the employee’s costs in obtaining proof.

I understand the sentiment behind this one, but am worried about practicality. If you wake up with a temperature, you often don’t go and see a doctor if it passes within a day. Same with food poisoning. So if an employer then requires you to see a doctor, there may be nothing to see by then.

Will be a good area for the select committee to consider how practical it is. The intent (less fake sickies) is good, but one can go overboard in this area.

Whale’s site is down, but the Herald reports:

WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater has quit the National Party after his campaign to remove incumbent party president Peter Goodfellow failed.

Mr Slater wrote yesterday, after the party’s annual conference concluded, that he was no longer affiliated to the National Party.

“After a day of insults, threats, opprobrium and malice, and after a vote which saw dullness, mediocrity and sloth rewarded, the National Party can no longer enjoy my full support,” Mr Slater said. “Make no mistake, I no longer belong to any party. I will never again be banned for speaking the truth. I will stand up for honesty and truth in politics and I will tell the story, not some spin-muppet.”

I’m not sure this will necessarily mean a big change in Whale’s style.  Even as a member, Whale happily harpooned Ministers and MPs when he thought they were wrong. His attacks on Nick Smith and the ETS were not exactly restrained, shall we say, by his party membership.

I don’t always agree with what Whale says, but I know he has always said what he believes in, and this is why he is such an effective blogger – he doesn’t hold back.

Paul Holmes makes a fascinating comparison in yesterday’s HoS column:

Well, how did it get to this? After decades and decades and billions and billions of dollars it turns out about a million New Zealanders don’t have the numeracy and literacy skills to make a living or make a go of life.

And the learned education experts, the principals, are doing their damnedest to undermine their minister who simply wants to introduce a national standards system so that a parent in Masterton knows how their child is doing in relation to a child in Kerikeri.

I can think of only one reason they want to fight it. They are alarmed that we may be on the point of finding out.

And then after talking about Mel Brooks’ The Producers, he goes back to 1986:

It is a lesson for broadcasting interviewers and I learnt it myself during those bitter months back in 1986 when the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was exciting the most extreme debate up and down the country.

The Happy Clappy churches and the awful, proscriptive Dutch Reformed Church were passionately, almost fascistically, opposed.

They put up for interview on radio and television programmes all kinds of preachers and visiting “experts” who spoke with hellfire authority about the evils and what men would start doing to one another if the bill passed into law, as if it were going to make homosexuality compulsory. They quoted great tracts of scripture to back it all up. It was insane.

But I realised one morning in 1986, when I was interviewing one of these frightened, hate-filled types, that there was no point arguing on his territory.

Holmes has wonderfully compared the teacher unions to the anti HLR forces in 1986. If they complain too much, I am sure he will artfully point out he never directly compared them. Instead he just allowed the readers to connect the dots.

The Herald reports:

They entered the hotel shouting slogans against the Government’s changes, which include making it easier to fire workers, extending the 90-day trial for new staff and tightening union access to workplaces.

Despite protesters repeatedly charging the police line, shift commander Wayne Kitcher said there were no arrests or injuries to officers.

Politicians including Prime Minister John Key were actually next door at the convention centre but Unite union general secretary Matt McCarten said he was pleased with the 300-strong turnout.

Matt needs to visit Sky City more often. The convention centre is not the same as the hotel.

Incidentally while I am a total supporter of the right to peacefully protest – charging Police lines is not a peaceful protest.  It is by definition a violent protest.

I’m not sure what they have in the walls, but in the convention centre one couldn’t hear any noise at all from outside. When the conference finished at midday or so, the only protester there was a men’s rights nutter (I understand he has been in court over possessing a knife in an MPs office).

“I think today was a declaration of war by John Key – a lot of workers voted for him because they thought he was moderate and would do what was best for the country. Well, the mask has come off.”

Umm these changes are incredibly moderate. They were mainly in the 2008 election manifesto.

Former Green MP Sue Bradford was one who broke through security with about 40 protesters. She said she had been “belted in the face” by police.

“I’m sure I will end up with a few bruises.”

You physically charge at the Police (which is actually an assault) and complain that they do their job and stop you getting through.

Sue should just be glad that the Police were not allowed to use tasers!

National had a candidates college on Friday. I am hoping we will have some significant new blood enter the ranks in 2011, both with a possible increased share of the vote but with some retirements. Rejuvenation is an ongoing process that you need to do at every election, not just the elections when you get booted out.

There are some real stars lining up to be candidates – several of them already well known in their own right. One of them even had a file crew following them about for a special feature on her. Won’t name them all here, as I may offend anyone I accidentally leave out, but I am quite excited by the calibre of those seeking to join the ranks of caucus.

And I do think Labour has made a big blunder by not rejuvenating more. Their only retirements are Lynne Pillay and Pete Hodgson. Maybe they can’t find people to stand? In Invercargill their candidate is Lesley Soper who has stood and lost more times than I have had hot dinners.

The 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!