The boy who cried wolf
July 16th, 2010 at 9:12 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The Government is planning to allow all companies to have 90-day trials for new workers and wants to give employers the power to keep unions out of the workplace.
Unions say the proposals are outrageous and an attack on workers’ rights.
The present scheme – restricted to firms with 20 staff or fewer – lets bosses take on workers on trial for up to 90 days.
The unions of course predicted all sorts of massive abuses when the scheme came in for smaller employers. Since then, a total silence. Where are the scores and scores of examples of terrible abuses? Sure the scheme has been used (that is why it was introduced), but have there been any cases of bosses sacking new workers because they wouldn’t sleep with the boss etc – as predicted by the unions?
Grievance free trial periods are common in OECD countries, and they encourage employment – especially of employees whose backgrounds may make it harder to be given a go.
One News reported last night that the Government plans to extend the scheme to all companies. It is also looking to let employers deny unions access to the workplace on reasonable grounds – a plan that appals Labour and the unions.
Union leaders vowed to fight the changes and Labour leader Phil Goff promised to scrap the 90-day scheme altogether if Labour regained power.
What the Herald doesn’t mention regarding the access to workplaces, is it was explicit 2008 election policy for National.
UPDATE: My bad. The Herald did in fact state that in the article. I just didn’t see it.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:21 am
90-day trials are a no-brainer, the benefits for workers far outweigh the possible occasional abuse. Workers with good attitudes will be happy to prove themselves over 90 days.
I’m not so sure about excluding unions from workplaces – is this an attention seeking distraction proposal?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:23 am
The 90 day scheme works and I’ll tell you why. Just this morning a CV was in my email box and it is a young graduate applying for a role I’m looking to fill. In the past I would have been hesitant to interview or even consider him for the role in case things didn’t work out. However now he has moved to the short list. It doesn’t guarantee him the role but he now has a shot at it.
Another reason is that I saw Max Whitehead (of the Whitehead Group) on TV being interviewed by Paul Henry who was moaning that the 90 day scheme isn’t fair. Let me guess Max, a drop off in personal grievances against employers?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:25 am
This move is to be applauded by the Government, anything that offers the unemployed the chance of a job has to be a good thing.
Well done John Key.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:27 am
I’m not so sure about excluding unions from workplaces – is this an attention seeking distraction proposal?
Seems very strange. Why would you seek to make enemies of union members? It’s very ‘us versus them’ for this government. On the face of it the tangible benefits seem neglible, but I await correction.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Where are the scores of abuses?
It was designed to be a process giving a fairly free hand to employers without risk of recourse. So it was always going to be a bit hard to find them if there is no grievance process…
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Why should unions have the right to walk into a work place and disrupt the business?
If union members want to have a meeting they should arrange it on their own time.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Employers who want to get the best from their employees are going to not worry too much about Union access as long as it is reasonable. I just get PO’d at the Union officials who put up their newsletters on the office noticeboard and never take them down (I think there is one about the pay round in Nov 2008 still up.)
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:35 am
If I wanted my bargaining agent to be patched gang member then said patched member can enter my workplace and my employer cannot stop them ??? Oh no, it’s just special friends of the Labour party who have laws passed to allow them to access any place they want in the interest of collecting money to donate for election advertising.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:44 am
I have zero experience with unions, but anway: I don’t think they do have a ‘right’ to time in a workplace, but neither do i think they’re necessarily disrupting things as you say. Unions have been a part of the employment landscape for decades and this simply seems like it will aggravate a lot of potential voters for not much if any gain. National better have some pretty good examples of union access to workplaces weighing down NZ’s employers and employees if they don’t want this to get messy IMHO.
The 90 day thing has a clear potential benefit to employees and employers – not so much this other measure.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:49 am
It can only be good if the unions oppose it without a solid argument. The initiative is welcome.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:58 am
It’s pretty plain why the unions are against this. It’s not because they care about the workers who get an opportunity they otherwise wouldn’t have got without the 90 day bill, it’s for the exact opposite reason. They don’t want those new workers muscling in on potential jobs that might otherwise go to union faithful. It’s simply protectionism.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
The head of the EPMU is also the head of the Labour Party. Allowing the EPMU access to workplaces is essentially the same as allowing the Labour Party access to workplaces. This isn’t tolerable unless all other political parties are guaranteed free access to shops, offices, and factories.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:27 am
There is, sadly, another reason why the unions are against this – money!!
Unfortunately, the Union ‘clique’ still need to be paid, they still need to run around in outrageously-marked cars (anyone seen the EPMU vehicles advertising – not cheap), they still need to have their snouts in a trough (who puts the swill in doesn’t matter) – and support the labour party as well.
Sorry folks, it’s nothing about ‘Workers ‘rights’ but it is absolutely everything about making sure that the union and its officials still have the best seats in the house, since only then can they truly represent the ‘downtrodden members of the prolotariat’.
And you all thought it was about equality didn’t you? (Cue ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’)
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:27 am
It’s worth pondering whether the government is trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer though. Is a 90 day trial period the correct way to help potential employees gain opportunities or should we be looking at the reasonableness of personal grievance laws and the impact they are having on employers?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Given the way that the CTU and its member unions vehemently opposed the passage of the 90-day legislation (the Fire-at-Will Bill as they called it), you’d think that since it became law, they’d have been regularly trotting out the “victims” of unscrupulous employers to illustrate their point. But the silence from the CTU has been deafening.
As an employer of around 25 staff, I will be welcoming the opportunity to join this scheme. Our recruitment processes are pretty robust as a result of the time and effort we’ve put into them, but we still get the occasional bad hire. Terminating employment, or even imposing a performance management process is a costly and time-consuming exercise.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:34 am
So, Labour is appalled that an employer with reasonable grounds to do so, would deny a union access. What exactly does reasonable mean? If that means that I’m a construction site, and I don’t want the union to visit whilst we’re in the middle of a pour – but happy for you to come a couple hours later, then that is reasonable. If it means I’m a supermarket, and I don’t want you to come in the busiest period of the day, but happy at 10am, then that is reasonable. If it means that I don’t want you to ever visit, so I just deny out of hand, well that probably isn’t reasonable.
As I understand it, the problem with the rules at the moment is that they let a union representative turn up at any time and go anywhere. I can think of all sorts of examples where that would be inappropriate. The union rep may be an employee of a competitor of mine. The union rep may be deliberately disrupting my workplace by choosing to come at times where it will impact my business.
I’m not sure what there is to complain about here.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The proposal is not to ‘exclude Unions from the workplace’ (more exaggeration). The proposal is to to give employers more say as to where and when – access should be negotiated and reasonable requests not refused. Union delegates seem to want the access rights that OSH or the Labour dept. have; they want to be able to walk on to the site unhindered and call a stop work or solicit subscriptions or somesuch. Most employers have no problem with Union involvement but they are bound to protect their employees from intimidation.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Good points up there Paul – a hell of a lot more illuminating than the others. Still it is a bit up in the air until we hear some more details from the conference I suppose!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:55 am
As usual a thread on industrial relations lets loose the predictable anti-union right wing diatribes, which are only worth ignoring.
Clearly many posters giving strong opinions on workplace access haven’t even bothered to read the current law. There are strict controls over when a union can access a workplace.
For anyone interested in the facts, they can be read here:
http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/nz/articles/508.html
As regards the 90-day rule, the CTU has supported a number of workers who were treated badly under this law, but there is little that can be done when the law has stripped away from a sacked worker the right of access to the legal system to obtain redress. It’s ironic that while restoring Maori rights to go to court over the seabed and foreshore, this government happily removes the right of access to the courts for a far larger group of people.
Anyone who believes a worker should be treated fairly would oppose this policy. That apparently leaves out the National and ACT parties and all their followers.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Maggie
Why should a crap employee have any rights to obtain redress?
I guess you would rather see them on the dole.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:04 am
They had the two sides on Morning Report this morning. Shortly after that, the 8am news quoted only the union side (the business side pointed out that under the proposals we’d still have a more pro-union stance than many eurpoean countries).
That could be forgiven due to the quick turnaround, but they repeated the one sided reporting at 9.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Maggie, where is the list of horror stories from the 90 day bill. No evidence has been presented that this has been bad. Show us the facts please.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:07 am
And of course the unions are such ethical employers themselves. What was the name of that guy who wanted to stand for Act at the last election and got shafted by his (unon) employer? Do as we say of course, not as we do.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Yes, if there’s some sort of grievous case of the law being abused, let’s have it. The unions complained so hard, why are they so silent now if it’s happening like they said?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:10 am
I think, Maggie, you are showing your true colours (even without the vitriol); the paper you quote does not in fact describe strict controls over Union access to the workplace. It describes the extraordinary powers of access the the Unions demanded and got from the labour government. Employers have virtually no right of refusal; I quote:
Vote:‘There are three situations in which the union may be denied access to a workplace:
1. if entry to the premises might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand;
2. if entry to the premises might prejudice the investigation or detection of offences; and
3. on religious grounds.’
Nothing about preventing intimidation of workers.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Maggie, you must be one of the newer people in the movement if you charactrerise this thread as a diatribe. Watch your back girl but then if you survive a year or 3 and toe the line there might be a List seat in the offering.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Trout, you beat me to it.
That link lists a union “bill of rights” with pro-union loopholes you could drive a truck through. The restrictions are so limited it boggles the mind.
If this is the law, it urgently needs to be balanced.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Maggie said
Which, on present polling, totals about 60% of New Zealanders
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:21 am
90-day trials are great for job applicants that have no work history or piss poor CVs a bad work or criminal history but are willing to give it a go or another go in the workforce… And it gives employers the incentive to give them a go.
Vote:I can’t see the point of excluding workers union representation to workers… this just gives a platform for discontentment that is not necessary.. but it will give Andrew Little more leverage and a point of difference for his campaign for Leader of the opposition… as we all know Labour needs something.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:22 am
What rights were removed? The legislation was not retrospective. No pre-existing entitlements were taken away. The existence of a trial period must be contained in an employment agreement. Fundamentally, the parties agree to a trial period at the end of which employment may be terminated if things do not pan out. An employee does not necessarily have to agree to a trial period. Of course, the corollary to that is that an employer may not be altogether convinced firstly that there is a position available and secondly that the employee is the right person for the job in which case the employee does not get past the starting gate. What rights is Maggie talking about?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
The more I hear about this bill the more I like it.
Being able to sack a worker because they voted Green or Labour is always a great thing.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:23 am
OMG, the law might be changed so that the Labour party can’t campaign in every workplace whenever they want… How will Labour ever get elected without the ability to fund raise on the private enterprise dime….
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Inventory2 – you only need 12% of the country for a majority. Did you see the results of the smacking referendum?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“I can’t see the point of excluding workers union representation to workers… ”
Who’s proposing that? No one – just the employers can do so when reasonable.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Trout quotes selectively, ignoring this:
Conditions relating to access to workplace
The right of entry is restricted to reasonable times during the period when any employee is working. The union representative must exercise his or her right of entry in a reasonable way, having regard to normal business operations in the workplace. The representative must comply with any safety or health procedures or requirements and any security concerns of the employer.
At the time of entering the workplace the representative must advise the employer of the purpose of the entry and produce evidence of his or her identity and authority to represent the union concerned. This information must also be supplied at any time after entering the workplace if requested by the employer.
If the representative is unable to find the employer or an employer’s representative, the representative must leave in the workplace a written statement of the identity of the person who entered the premises, the union and the employee(s) represented, the date and time of entry and the purpose of the entry.
Nookin the 90-day rule isn’t a trial period. It is a period during which the worker can be sacked at any time for any reason and there is no right of appeal.
The rights I refer to are very simple ones. The right to challenge a dismissal through the legal process. The right to be treated fairly.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:28 am
There’s nothing like industrial relations to bring out the rightwing nutters from their holes.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Maggie
Can you answer this; If my bargaining agent was a patched gang member should he have the same access to my workplace as unions?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Maggie, how exactly does any of that restrict a union?
Do tell.
Oh, and while you’re at it, perhaps you could explain the penalties a union might suffer if they breach the rules? I see only fines for employers in your link.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am
scrubone
There is no restriction in that, but Maggie makes a valid point that unions are special. Special friends of Labour and therefore “good”.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Anyone who believes a worker should be treated fairly would oppose this policy. That apparently leaves out the National and ACT parties and all their followers.
Which right now constitutes in excess of 50% of the population according to the latest polls – as its a democracy, so sucks to be you.
There’s nothing like industrial relations to bring out the rightwing nutters from their holes.
As well as the smelly left wing numbskulls it seems.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Bevan, there’s no need for abuse. You can’t transmit smell over the internet – only stupidity.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:36 am
It is not that difficult to dismiss someone under current law as long as an employer or manager is prepared to get off their bum and do the necessary paperwork and follow it up. I’ve seen this process work well and there was no come back for the employer because he strictly followed the process and checked what he needed to document. The troublesome employee was gone in 5 weeks, faster than the current 90 day trial period. All the 90 day trial period will mean is new opportunities for that former employee to screw up some other workplace for a while.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:38 am
“It is not that difficult to dismiss someone under current law as long as an employer or manager is prepared to get off their bum and do the necessary paperwork and follow it up.”
Yet make one mistake, and you’re in trouble.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Burt, there is no such thing as a bargaining agent any more. They were in the ECA, try to keep up, there’s a good lad.
Scrubone, the restrictions are contained in the legislation. You will note the word restiction is contained in the Gibson Sheat link. As for the penalties, do your own research.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Yes, scrubone if you dismiss someone unfairly you can be in trouble. So you should be. As with mst debates on IR this quickly becomes ideological for the right. They just hate unionism and everything flows on from there. It’s mindless and pathetic.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Maggie
It is a trial period. The Act says that it is a trial provision. Look:
“Trial provision means a written provision in an employment agreement that states, or is to the effect, that—
(a) for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days), starting at the beginning of the employee’s employment, the employee is to serve a trial period; and
(b) during that period the employer may dismiss the employee; and
(c) if the employer does so, the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.”
What is it about the use of the term “trial” that seems to slip past you?
Parties are encouraged to enter in to a relationship on the basis that there will be no repercussion if it does not work out. That is the means by which the Act recognises the “trial” purpose. An employee who agrees that the employee is on trial cannot assert that it is not a trial. If the employee wants something more then negotiate a probationary period instead. Then the employee has rights. Of course there may not have been a job in the first place
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:49 am
That is not faster than the 90 day period. You can fire someone after one day on the 90 day trial.
All the 90 day trial period will mean is new opportunities for that former employee to screw up some other workplace for a while.
You clearly know nothing about the 90 day law and are commenting based on your ideology rather than facts.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:50 am
“You will note the word restiction is contained in the Gibson Sheat link. As for the penalties, do your own research.”
Actually, it doesn’t – you misspelled it
But you’ve proved my point – you can’t defend your position.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Maggie – do you seriously think your contributions in this thread are helpful to your cause in any way? How do you think you are furthering the interests of the workers by name-calling and stereotyping the people who are discussing this matter. If you want to make any progress you have to work at changing people’s beliefs and making them see your position as a reasonable one. The demeaning way you are going about it is only damaging the credibility of your own political view.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Funny how a google search for “Employment Relations Act “unions obligations”" produces only one NZ hit on the first page of results…
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Incorrect. The employee has the same rights of protection against discrimination (ie sexual harrassment, racism) whilst on the 90 day period.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Maggie
So you would rather not answer the intent of the question. Typical, too scared to acknowledge that unions have special privileges simply because they are strongly affiliated with the Labour party, but you still argue that their special status is valid even when you can’t justify it outside the context of political interests.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Maggie said
And there’s nothing like a bit of perceived union-bashing to make lefties get abusive. Argue the issues Maggie, not the personalities; you’re not at The Standard now!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
First, the denying union reps from getting access to workplace comes down to property rights. If the owner of the business doesn’t want any union rep to enter his premises, then it is entirely his right to bar them from entering.
Second, the so called workers’ rights is a misconception because workers don’t have rights to a job. The owner of the business who employs the workers is the one who has legitimate rights and his/her rights are being violated if he is forbidden to do what he likes with his business, even firing staffs if they’re incompetents.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Maggie, I understand the law to be an allowance of the measure not writing it in concrete.
If your union is worth a pinch of shit it will negotiate limited access that will suit everyone.
Having done that it can also police the 90-day thing.
Of course if your union is simply a revenue gatherer for the commynists that turns into a propganda vehicle for same every three years you may be in trouble.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Maggie, I can clearly see one person commenting ideological diatribes with little actual rationale.
Tell me exactly why you have a problem with a rule that allows an employer to deny access on reasonable grounds. There are two possibilities here:
1. As you say, this is already provided in the law. So no problem introduced, this is what you think is already happening
2. You believe that an employer with reasonable grounds shouldn’t be able to deny access to a union
Which is it?
Richard, the 90 day trial period I believe allows a worker to be terminated at any time. Which would be a lot faster than 5 weeks. I’ve gone through the processes to terminate people. It is incredibly hard. Yes, it is entirely possible to follow every step in a methodical way, making sure you have all the paperwork at every point, and never once stepping over the line. But it is quite time consuming and difficult. If you are a small businessperson with 5 employees and working 60 hours a week, it is a quite substantial impost. And if you get any small step in the paperwork wrong, you’re likely to have to pay compensation, irrespective of the substance of the issue you’re dealing with.
The argument here isn’t really about whether or not it is possible to terminate people under existing provisions. That isn’t actually the alternative that most employers choose. The choice is between hiring someone with the ability to easily terminate them if they turn out to be a misfit, or not hiring them at all. For many businesses, there was no option to take a risk on an employee who was less than perfect. You’re using a false comparison to try to show the law change delivers nothing. And again, most OECD countries have laws like this – is it really that big a problem?
It seems to me that some on the left are ideologically opposed to anything that might be perceived as changing worker’s rights, irrespective of what the benefits might be. Once again, they are focused on the thought that all employers are evil, and therefore the laws must be set up so as to attempt to guarantee that nobody ever gets a bad outcome, irrespective of how much cost that imposes on the economy and the employment opportunities of the workers. It is a peculiar position. Would I be correct in suggesting this shows that those on the left hate capitalism/businesses and everything that flows on from there. And that it is mindless and pathetic?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
You can read the legislation here (and following pages)
Vote:http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM58644.html
July 16th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
@ Falafulu Fisi – no; employers used to have rights. Nine years of a union-friendly Labour government eroded many of those, and gave unions powers far beyond their sphere of influence. It’s time for the balance to be redressed.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems the 90-day bill is a good thing. Expand it!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I2
If balanced is redressed then union membership might decline and that results in something that is completely unacceptable to unions – less money to donate to the Labour party. That’s it, no more no less. Unions are special and Maggie said so. They must have rights that no other organisation or individual can have because…. becasue…. becasue…. That’s it; becase they donate money to the labour party in tricky ways that needs not be declared for party advertising.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Hmph, don’t forget that in 2005 the education unions out-Exclusive Brethren’ed the Exclusive Brethren 3 years before the Exclusive Brethren even came on the scene.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Quite so Burt. That’s why the unions are fighting this tooth and nail. In reality, it has very little at all to do with “Workers’ Rights”, whatever they may or may not be.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The troublesome employee was gone in 5 weeks, faster than the current 90 day trial period.
That is not faster than the 90 day period. You can fire someone after one day on the 90 day trial.
(You can also fire someone after one day NOT under the 90 day trial period and for the same reasons- theft, assault, drug use, deliberate property damage etc etc. Also the Human Rights act still applies under the 90 day rule as it does under current law for larger employers.)
All the 90 day trial period will mean is new opportunities for that former employee to screw up some other workplace for a while.
You clearly know nothing about the 90 day law and are commenting based on your ideology rather than facts.
(Sigh. The purpose as stated above by DPF of the 90 day trial period is to give a second, third or fourth chance to “employees whose backgrounds may make it harder to be given a go.” Now I’m not supporting punishing people forever for their mistakes but there are people out there who will take full advantage of naive employers, especially first time employers who ordinarily wouldn’t take a risk on more risky people who can do a lot of damage in a very short space of time to a business. Often the costs resulting from this are impossible to recover. Current employment legislation makes employers more cautious on hiring people and therefore makes them more inclined to hire more responsible, experienced people even if that means paying a bit more in wages/salary for it. That’s not a bad thing for employers or employees.
Vote:P.S: I see some posting here are referring to employees as ‘workers’ but not calling employers the same. In my experience all employers are also workers.)
July 16th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
If it were possible to successfully legislate against bad management then I would move to outlaw Unions altogether. Infortunately there are enough abuses of management to keep Unions relevant – just.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I think R.Hurst is getting close to one of the issues in this debate:
Now I’m not supporting punishing people forever for their mistakes but there are people out there who will take full advantage of naive employers,
Naive employers have been at the mercy of american management theory for a very long time. From one point of view, the 90 day bill further encourages them into destructive territory. When disputes break out in workplaces, the absolute final course should be to fire – not the first. Otherwise the error the employer made in hiring the person in the first place is rapidly repeated in their next hire. Most likely they’ll reinforce their controlling position, thinking they are protecting themselves, only to find that people can’t be controlled and be efficient, innovative and profitable over the long term. Get enough of these examples together and soon you have an industry-wide problem. It may be costly, but legislation that forces people to slow down and at least discuss their problems isn’t all bad. Despite the sexy attraction of absolute systems, the employer/employee relationship is a difficult and dynamic one. Ideally, it would make no difference which legisaltive option was in force; employers would understand themselves and their employees better and disputes would naturally be few. In practice it’s not so neat and tidy. I think the 90 bill should come with a warning – may cause serious commercial damage if over applied.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I’ll be much more impressed when the Nats. vote for the return of youth rates and rates for Handicapped people that will allow the community to rebuild all the institutions that were successful and assited those that cannot help themselves and which we had before the slimy union pricks and the Labor Govt. destroyed them.
I’ll be even more impressed when they fire that bastard at the top of MSWD who ably assited the arseholes to do the destruction.
But a more pertinent question is why do we allow unions rights over others and others property rights?
If there product and services are not wanted by a free market then let the buggers die. Justmake employment law part of law and let people sort their own shit just like anything else.
Indeed return us to the Contracts Act as all the rest of the safe guards are already enacted into our voluminous legistlation.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
The 90 day trail is fair and reasonable and protects the interests of both goups party to an employment agreement. Additionally if the trail is an incentive to employers then it is a positive.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I’ll be much more impressed when the Nats. vote for the return of youth rates
Wages of below minimum are perfectly legal if the employee is engaged in approved (NZQA/industry) training schemes. This would apply mainly to youths and is more constructive than telling a young person that they’re young, they’re crap at the job (but not so crap their contribution can’t be sold on), and because they’re crap they get paid less and it’s their problem to solve. So someting close to youth rates does still exist. Not sure about Handicapped rules.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Maggie>there is no such thing as a bargaining agent any more. They were in the ECA, try to keep up, there’s a good lad
So you’re saying Labour took away my right to be represented by the person or organisation of my choice, and gave their union mates a monopoly on representing me? Doesn’t that violate the UNDHR clause on free association? I’m surprised that the last Labour government weren’t hauled up in front of the UN and charged with human rights violations.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Richard Hurst @ 12:15 pm
There are people out there who will take full advantage of naive employers, especially first time employers.
naive employers… that’s a new one.. employers don’t have to employ people under the 90-day trial … and they won’t employ just anyone they don’t think have the credentials anyway… this just gives employers peace of mind if they get it wrong…. and now with the 90-day trial they can also now take a chance on some applicants that they would not otherwise taken the risk to employ but willing to give a go… Now people out there can take full advantage… employers and applicants alike.
Now all prostitutes will be on a 90-day trial… and employers now only need to employ people they like…
Vote:I bet some employers would wish they could put all their employees on a 90-day trial every 90 days..
July 16th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Aren’t we all looking at the wrong issue ? The survey by the EMA (Northern), that out of over 400 of their members only 48 had used the 90 day legislation to fire someone within the 90 days. That’s just over 10%. Surely this is proof that what is needed is for the EMA to train that 10% of their members how to successfully choose new employees and to understand what a fair procedure is and how to use it if ever necessary to dispense with an employees services. What would also be helpful is if they could teach those employers how to use the probationary provisions of sect 67 0f the Act. If this 10% of employers learnt this (how to be managers) they would have no need for the trial period provision of the Act. We definitely do not need it extended. A manager worthy of the title and knows his job will have no fear of personal grievances being taken against him if he acts as a fair and reasonable employer.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
RKBee
“I bet some employers would wish they could put all their employees on a 90-day trial every 90 days..”
That is exactly what they should be able to do.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I detest unions.
Essential in the 19th century.
Tolerated in the 20th century.
Outdated, militant encumbrances in the 21st century.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Ian McG , why don’t the 10% of employees who didn’t pass muster get trained up so they can become productive reliable employees?
Actually, what the figures don’t tell us is how many of the 10% of employers/employees parted company amicably. It’s often obvious to both when things aren’t working out.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
One of our major employment related problems is that very few employers — particularly small businesses — receive any training on how to be employers, how to negotiate and how to problem solve. Much the same applies with employees. Most of them take the view that negotiation involves dividing a finite resource which immediately creates a “them against us” mentality. This is why it is very difficult to get any form of agreement based on productivity except on a one-to-one basis. Unfortunately, this is now deeply embedded in the industrial psyche and there will need to be a complete paradigm shift to overcome it. It does not help that some people are naturally assholes on top of everything else
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
An enterprising entrepeneur… now could have an up to 90-day workers for hire business.. no contracts required.
A bit like selling fridges to the Eskimos.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
no contracts required.
Interesting concept, but 90 day bill doesn’t negate all other legislation concerning employment. You couldn’t, for instance, employ people to dig in an open salt mine for $2/day and when anyone complained, just fire them.
But you should be able to. And when that day comes, I’ll there…clip board in hand, over-seeing them all! Dig Slaves! Dig unworthy Scum! ahhhhhahahaha!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
BB & JG i’m taken the piss… you tyrant’s.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I see the unions are getting a little edgy over losing their indoctrination, sorry, education funding too.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
DPF:
“Where are the scores and scores of examples of terrible abuses?”
Circular argument. If there’s no affordable and enforcable means of redressing grievances you’re not going to have the media’s attention drawn to such abuse.
This extension of the 90-day legislation is essentially National looking to re-introduce the unpopular Employment Contracts Act under a different name – “brand Key”. What both pieces of legislation share in common is the removal of rights for vulnerable workers. Under the ECA lower income workers were priced out of legal redress with the average Employment Court case costing around $10,000 for employees. Under the proposed legislation, these workers will simply have all work-rights removed – so the end result is the same. Increased job insecurity, more churn at the bottom end of the labour market, increased competition for low-wage work, all of which will drive wages down for John Key’s “underclass”.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
RKBee duggests:
Which is precisely why I, as someone who is often in the position of trying to help a person with a criminal record find employment, wish the Australian states would catch up to NZ and introduce a similar provision.
Yes, there will be those employers who abuse it to put workers on a 90 day revolving door. But provided the law retains sanctions to penalise those people – and penalise them according to size (a fine of a few thousand dollars teaches a small business a lesson, to a multinational it’s a joke) – then the benefits outweigh the negatives by an exponential factor.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Honest John – the proposed legislation does not remove all rights. Employees can still get redress for discrimination related dismissal. What they can’t get is redress if their employer decides within 90 days that they are not suitable for the job they hired them for, and doesn’t want to employ them any more.
Frankly, I’m not entirely clear why any employer, at any time, shouldn’t be able to decide that they no longer want an employee, and terminate them with normal notice provisions. Similar to the way that an employee can, at any time, decide they no longer want to work for an employer, and choose to end the employment relationship given normal notice provisions.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Aww noes, the unions honey pot is running out, who’s going to spring for the KFC in 2011/2014/2017 ?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
“Unions say the proposals are outrageous and an attack on workers’ rights.”
I guess the unions might be supporting workers rights (the few of course that they represent). But it also shows they don’t give a flying f*** about the unemployed and how to best give them an opportunity for work.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The economic left regard private businesses as a lingering reminder of their failure to implement pure Marxism.
So the purpose of these private business has been delicately morphed from provider of service to customers and a return to shareholders.. into a provider of secure income for employees.
The result is soft, protected employees whose collective productivity has decreased while their sense of entitlement has increased.
Businesses do not exist to provide employment. Employment opportunities should be by-product of their raison d’être. The sooner we reframe this discussion along those lines the better for everyone… except the union hierarchies.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Good 90-day job trial opportunities for those wanting to become a union official.. now all the old union leaders with UK foreign accents have died off.
But not a lot of work under National or a lot of work depending how you look at it.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“the unpopular Employment Contracts Act”
Taking charge of the language are we? Claire Curren would be pleased. It may have been unpopular with the unions and their members, but personally I really, really liked it.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Employees can leave by giving due notice as per their contract. Why shouldn’t employers have the same privilege???
Up to them then to decide who fits the workplace. If that’s insecure and it may be then the employee needs to decide to stay or go and the rules that determine their attachment to the employment.
Why would you want to work for a company or a person who doesn’t value your contribution or whom you just don’t get along with.
Stuffed if I know why anyone would. Too much stress. Move on.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Paul:
“Employees can still get redress for discrimination related dismissal.”
oh really? and how can they go about doing that?
Prick:
Surveys taken throughout the 1990s show it was unpopular. I think fascism was fairly popular with the capital-owning class in the countries the ideology was taken up in
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
PaulL: “Frankly, I’m not entirely clear why any employer, at any time, shouldn’t be able to decide that they no longer want an employee, and terminate them with normal notice provisions. Similar to the way that an employee can, at any time, decide they no longer want to work for an employer, and choose to end the employment relationship given normal notice provisions.”
This is exactly what the unions and the left always overlook: employees can up and leave any time they want (subject to a notice period as defined in their contract) for whatever reason they want, and the poor old employer gets stuck with having to find a replacement ASAP. The employer on the other hand, has to do everything by the book in a long drawn out process if they want to get rid of someone. And even if they do everything by the book and right by the employee, they can still get stung for a personal grievance. I’ve seen it happen at least a couple of times, and the employment courts almost always side with the employee.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Paul, ch123:
“employees can up and leave any time they want for whatever reason they want”
um – yeah if an employer loses an employee it generally doesn’t mean the end of the employer’s income. Get it? duh!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
krazykiwi:
“The economic left regard private businesses as a lingering reminder of their failure to implement pure Marxism.”
That’s rediculously paranoid. Redbaiter would be proud.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Yes it does.
Unless of course the job the employee was doing had no value to the company.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
A lefty proclaiming paranoia on a thread about the 90 day bill. Rather ironic.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
SB:
That’s plain nutty. Most New Zealanders work in workplaces with over 100 co-workers. How the hell is losing less than 1% of your workforce going to end an employer’s income?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
SB:
You obviously haven’t read any of the academic studies regarding abuses of low-income workers under the employment contracts act. Paranoid nothing.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Honest John: “um – yeah if an employer loses an employee it generally doesn’t mean the end of the employer’s income.”
It certainly can do – at least some of its income. And there’s additional overhead required in finding a suitable replacement (which may not be possible to find before the employee actually leaves) and then less productivity while the new employee gets up to speed etc. But of course, this is all part of running a business and is one of the risks businesses have when employing people. And the smaller the company the more risk it has. I’ve been an employer before. I would *never* be an employer again.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The same way as any other employee. Perhaps you should read the law before commenting on it.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Wrong again.
Most NZers are employeed by small business.
Every single employee costs the employer more income than they are paid, otherwise they would not be employed in the first place.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
As an aside:
Has anyone-else noticed that ‘Maggie’ has mysteriously vanished: large as life earlier this morning, but after 11.42 – a deafening silence, and no response to any of the questions that she provoked.
Most odd – some answers would have been nice.
Maggie, Oooh Maggie, where are you. . . . ?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
SB:
“Most NZers are employeed by small business. ”
That’s plain bullshit. You can’t find any statistics to support that claim.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Honest John claims:
IIRC the majority of businesses (by number) employ five people or less. Businesses of that size accounts for around 85% of the total. And businesses with fewer than 50 employees account for something like 99 percent.
All of which makes the hysteria about the extension of 90 day provisions to “big” businesses seem a little hyperbolic, really.
Quick edit: Sorry, better stats are here.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Honest John: “Most New Zealanders work in workplaces with over 100 co-workers.”
“At February 2009, most enterprises in New Zealand (97 percent) had fewer than 20 employees.”
- http://www.statistics.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/BusinessDemographyStatistics/HOTPFeb09/BusinessDemographyStatisticsFeb09HOTP.ashx
Your comment I have quoted above is probably also accurate because that 97% accounts for only 31% of all employers. However, it shows that most *employers* only employ a few people.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Anyway, I don’t really care what whiney unions and the rest of the left think of it, sounds like its going to happen. Lets hope it is just the beginning.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
If we were a free society then we would be able to do this.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Rex, cha – maths not a strong point i see. The fact that most businesses employ a small number of people doesn’t mean that most people work for small business owners. Get so sick of the retardation in the right wing blogsphere.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
RKBee – you’re wrong. As far as I’m aware if you want to hire someone for a 90 day trial period then that has to actually be stipulated in an actual clause in the employee’s employment contract.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Your figures please HJ?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@Honest John I didn’t say that because most businesses employ a small number of people then most people work for small business owners. In fact, did you not read me agreeing with you that your “Most New Zealanders work in workplaces with over 100 co-workers.” comment may *also* be correct?
However, given that most businesses in New Zealand employee a very small number of people, the affect of a single employee leaving can have quite a negative affect on most businesses in New Zealand. There obviously has to be a fair balance between the rights of an employer and employee but the dice are incredibly loaded towards the employee.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Honest John:
If you stop trying to make undergraduate debating “points” and read my comment again you’ll see that nowhere did I call your comment incorrect. And ch123 went so far as to say that you were correct. Retardation is demonstrated nowhere more clearly than by an inability to read in context.
The point is that 85 – 99% of employers are already free to fire at will during the 90 period yet I don’t see any Dickensian scenes of the poor being sent to the workhouse, suggesting that it’s being applied fairly by the vast majority of employers. An extension to a further 15% or so is thus unlikely to bring about the eating of workers’ children by fat monocoled employers wearing top hats, as some on the left would suggest is about to be the case.
However, I refer you to my 2.30pm comment in which I note that strong sanctions need to be included against the few employers who will abuse any process, simply because they’re ratbags and not specifically because they’re employers.
See? Once you get in the real world, things take on nuances that can’t be countered by calling others “retards”.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Just re-reading my 3:27 comment and I put “employers” where I meant “employees”.
It should have read “because that 97% accounts for only 31% of all employees”
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Honest John said…
You obviously haven’t read any of the academic studies regarding abuses of low-income workers under the employment contracts act. Paranoid nothing.
John, just try to get this fundamental philosophical fact into your head first. Property rights belong to the owner/s. If the worker feels that he/she is being abused by the owner, then the worker should find employment somewhere else since the owner is not preventing that worker from leaving or not holding a gun to the workers head. If I invite you to my house for dinner and I abuse you during your time at my house, then what you do? Can you stomach sticking around so I can abuse you more or perhaps leaving is the better option?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
SB:
“At February 2009, most enterprises in New Zealand (97 percent) had fewer than 20
employees. However, these enterprises accounted for only 31 percent of all employees.
Conversely, enterprises with 100 or more employees made up 0.4 percent of the total
number of enterprises in New Zealand but employed 47 percent of the total number of
employees.”
See the top right pdf at the following link:
http://www.statistics.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/businesses/business_characteristics/BusinessDemographyStatistics_HOTPFeb09.aspx
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Falafulu Fisi:
Your analogy presupposes that someone else is offering your abused guest a meal… and that the meals on offer are of broadly comparable quality. In an economy with relatively high unemployment, that’s often not the case… or at least there’s sufficient uncertainty that that will be the case that it frightens the dinner guest into remaining at the table.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Rex: does the NZ economy have relatively high unemployment? Does the abuse by the employer come into the assessment of whether a job is of “broadly comparable quality”?
Let’s interpret Honest John’s original “abuse of low income workers” to mean that I underpaid them, I worked them too hard, or I provided unpalatable working conditions, rather than the alternative meaning that I beat them with sticks at lunch time for fun (I’m presuming there aren’t too many employers doing this). Then surely it is a fallacy to argue on the one hand that I’m providing very poor working conditions, and on the other hand that the worker is unlikely to find another job of comparable quality. Because by definition this job is of low quality. If this job remains of high quality, then clearly I’m giving the employee something else of worth to make up for my low pay and hard work – maybe I specialise in a trendy lefty cause that makes people get social value from working for me, maybe I have an attractive daughter who brings lunch every day for the staff, I don’t know, some non-financial benefit.
Realistically, I think we’re again getting tied up in the exceptions, and we’re continuing to infantalise a large proportion of the population by treating them as if they have no other choices. The reality is that most NZers actually do have other choices, as a group we are relatively self reliant and capable of making decisions.
It is a hallmark of the left to start from the assumption that the population are too stupid/lazy/incompetent to take care of themselves, and to then start attempting to legislate to make things better. The problems with this viewpoint are firstly that it is wrong, secondly that treating people in this way become self fulfilling (over time they do become stupid/lazy/incompetent), and thirdly that it really pisses people off (and people are voters). I know you’re not typically on the left (other than by redbaiters definition), I’m surprised to see you giving support to this viewpoint.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
A few minutes thought would also have one recognise that there is a significant proportion of employees who will not ever be subject to the 90 day rule. Here I am referring to professional firms (accountants/lawyers/engineers) Health Boards (Doctors/nurses/radiographers/physiotherapists/etc/etc/etc) and so on.
In these cases, and most other skill based jobs where qualification is recognised as proof of competence I think empoyers will be unlikely to insist on trial periods. If you take these groups out of the equation I think you will find that there will be far far less that 69% of the workforce added to the pot under this proposal.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
It’s called a job market for a reason. As an employee all I have to sell is my labour. It is my only product. As an employer if that product becomes too expensive or doesn’t work anymore I reserve the right to go and buy some more product. The union movement is nothing more than an impediment to an employers right to go source better or cheaper product.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
PaulL … have you stopped beating workers at lunch for fun?
Things must have changed since I worked there
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
There are two categories of workers in particular who have limited options for employment, they have to queue and hope amongst many competing job seekers:
- young people finding their first job
- middle aged people who have had their careers “disestablished” and have to lower their work status and often their standard of living
It’s not just a matter of choice for them. It can be bloody hard and soul destroying, as anyone who has been in that sort of situation will know. All the more reason that when given a chance they should prove to their employer that they are worth keeping on.
The 90-day trial period isn’t essential anyway, new employees can be offered limited term contracts that can be rolled into permanent positions if things work out, the only difference is they cannot be easily dismissed before the fixed term is up.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
virtualmark: we’re all about efficiency and industrialisation these days. Since I built the automated whipping machine ™ I no longer have to do it by hand. It does wonders for productivity.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Paul
Why go to all that expense?
I just stand over them with a shotgun full of rice, as soon as the bastards slack off I let them have it.
Productivity has never been better.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
PaulL says:
Compared to “full employment” (which is never of course 100% employment) then yes, 6.0% is high. Of course if you’re in a particular group (and it’s those groups likely to ne most affected by employment laws) then your chances are worse – 17.2% youth unemployment for instance.
Being underpaid and beaten each lunchtime (I could digress and say some might find this… especially if carried out by your sandwich-bearing attractive daughter… a postive attraction
) may still be better than the alternative – being treated like s**t down at WINZ and living on even less of a pittance than you pay.
You’re dead right there, and I think that’s the point (as I said above). Being flogged (willingly or unwillingly) by you (presumably whilst you twirl the ends of your waxed moustache and cackling evilly
) are the miniscule exceptions to the rule and ones which can be dealt with by building in sanctions.
I was really just making the point that Falafulu Fisi’s somewhat rose-tinted view of a free labour market isn’t quite true for many.
Big Bruv:
I hope you take it out of the bastards’ rice rations at then end of the day.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“I just stand over them with a shotgun full of rice, as soon as the bastards slack off I let them have it.”
This from the biggest coward on the internet and big fat blouse had the cheek to call others nutbars. Get some help you deranged spineless blowhard jerk. You wouldn’t know what fucking end to point a shotgun you pathetic creep.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Courage Wolf @ 3:54 pm
RKBee – you’re wrong. As far as I’m aware if you want to hire someone for a 90 day trial period then that has to actually be stipulated in an actual clause in the employee’s employment contract.
Why… surly everyone who now starts a job will be on a 90 day trial period.
I thought you matter of fact types would be more concerned that I said Eskimos instead of the Inuit people.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Must be a non-access weekend.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Rex
I don’t feed them for goodness sake, by the end of three months they are pretty well knackered, at that stage I just call them in and fire them for no reason at all.
Then I just hire more staff for three months.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Yeah right blouse.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I hear that PhilU is looking for a job BB.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Calm down there Dad.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Johnboy
Is that true?
I would hire him and keep him employed if I could, stick the bastard in an office doing the most mundane tasks possible.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
But who will fulfil our yearning for up-to-the-minute “news aggregation” then?!
Won’t someone think of the… err… aggregationless?!
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
bruv – hahaha
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Paula’s people got round to the “U’s” on Wednesday BB.
Mundane is good but office is not. He isn’t house trained and shits everywhere all the time.
If you have a vacancy for a Garbage Bag Sorter/News Aggregater, Phil’s your Magpie.
Best part is you can sack the turd after ninety days and take great pleasure shiting on him.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Back to subject… Why are the Maori Party against the 90 day trial period don’t they want to give maori a chance to work.
They should then ask National to exempt Maori from the scheme..
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“I would hire him”
big cowardly blouse should hire a weight loss programmer.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
“don’t they want to give maori a chance to work.”
You have just answered your own question RKB. Why work when the honky coloniser owes you a living eh?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Johnboy
That is great news about Phool, let’s hope WINZ have cut him off at the knee’s.
I do think an office is the best place to have Phool, remember, for some reason he thinks he is above menial work, I think it has something to do with the degree he claims to have but has yet to prove, I would have him stuffing envelopes all day with no access to a radio or the internet.
And why would you sack him?, leave him on the minimum wage and torment the bastard day after day after day, just think of the fun you could have.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
@bruv – Phil does have a degree. He received a BA in 1996, and then an MA with Second Class Honours Second Division in Political Studies in 2009. He did claim to have his MA back in 2005
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
You do realize you’re a coward when you kick a man when he’s down… and more of a coward if you condemn a man while he is banned from the site unable to defend himself… no old boys here… but then Phil is not a man.
Subject.. An enterprising entrepeneur… could start up a blog site to name and shame employers and their businesses that abuse emplyees and the 90 day trial period… Ouch..
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
I heard someone from the MP saying thet the 90-day trial hadn’t worked for Maori because unemployment has gone up since it was introduced. I wonder if they considered there could be other factors at play, and it’s possible it could be worse still without it.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
The 90-day trial has since been introduced… since when and for how long… was this another Maori only scheme employors have yet to hear about.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Wherever did Maggie get to? I guess her shift finished, and that was it. You can’t smear the right in your OWN time now, can you
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Take it somewhere else ay Dad?
All those leftys who think that any logical, sane employer would just keep a revolving 90-day hire-and-fire policy is retarded and has obviously never experienced life outside academia/union jobs.
Why would you go to the expense of taking a punt on a completely new employer, and then fire them for any other reason than them being terrible? Then you have to just repeat the cycle again.
This Bill will give thousands of kiwis jobs who wouldn’t otherwise have them. Yet socialist fucktards who know nothing of the real world will oppose it out of ideology. Nothing new there.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
You get the Joseph Goebbels censorship treatment by Irish bruv?
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Sure did nickb
“Vee haff vays of silencing you”
No big deal, I had a truck load of fun for a while there.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Haha.
Anything even remotely deviating from their sycophantic back-slapping left wing circle jerking gets ruthlessly punished.
Its not even worth commenting there, who would want to talk to a bunch of unionists, beneficiaries, academics, and washed up old lawyers (mickysavage ect) in real life? Not me.
Vote:July 16th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Actually, I’ve just realised why the unionists and the left are in a tiz over this. It has nothing to do with those in private employment at all, probably never has been, healthy business don’t just get rid of staff.
Its about the latest intake of 1,000′s of shiny arses in the public sector (you know, the ones in sneakers and suits trudging grudgingly from Wellington’s railway station every morning at 9.00 to shuffle their bits of paper and trudge off again at 4.30) who will get the boot for being useless seat-warmers when the cuts are made. These are the ones the unions are most worried about, they have no other place in the workforce.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 12:42 am
nickb: you do realise that your aggressive tone makes you appear less objective? I’m a lefty buisiness owner – am i allowed to exist? All you have is your abstract theory, that is only two dimesional, in a complex world where many concerns have to be weighed against each other on order for us to collectively decide what is morally right and what is not. It’s called democracy remember? So you and your narrow-minded, pious market theory can give us a break thanks.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 12:49 am
When the cuts are made!
Vote:Rich prick will buy labour cheaper!
Rich prick want more money!
Money = power!
Power = I live up to my over-inflated ego!
rich prock in blissssss!
July 17th, 2010 at 9:07 am
And the many ordinary pricks will keep on trying to make a decent living, employing more people when the financial risk isn’t too great.
I really don’t believe that many businesses would want to deliberately turn over staff every 90 days.
Vote:July 17th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Could be that the ‘union access’ angle is a throw-away to be dropped so that the expansion of the 90 day coverage goes through.
Vote:I certainly hope so becuase I believe union and management should be working together rather than at loggerheads ove questions of access. The sensible union rep doesn’t disrupt business, just as sensible management doesn’t object to the occassional union meeting or recruitment visit.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Sometimes it would be good to have the Old Redbaiter back. (sigh)
Vote: