The employment law changes
July 19th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarKerre 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.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:13 am
And these are the provisions which have provoked a Union war council.
God knows what they’d do if there was something which actually was bad for workers.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:19 am
GPs will be laughing all the way to the bank over the one day certificates. Talk about a way to blow the health budget.
However, if a person can’t get an appointment with a GP on the day the are sick (not that unlikely especially if they have no current GP) then they’ll have to take time off the next day to get the cert. Sounds kinda counter-productive.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:19 am
I also considered the practicality of a doctor’s certificate for one sick day. This really puts the onus on the doctor to decide whether the employee is being truthful about being sick, and I think the bulk of doctors are likely to just issue a certificate anyway. If I was the employee I’d be taking advantage of the free doctors visit to talk about my general health etc. At the end of the day this should be considered a positive for the employee – as long as you’re not clearly taking an unwarranted sickie then you’re going to get a free visit to the doctor!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The Unions should know they will lose this one. It’s obviously a pragmatic policy change that will have the bulk of NZ’s support behind it.
They should acknowledge the benefits of getting more people into work (and potentially becoming union members)! If there is rorting by some unethical employers then they should take interest at what needs to be changed and lobby for that when they have data to justify their position.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Is that all?
Vote:Eminently sensible most of them.
As you say about the sickies that will be hard to police. From recent experience with a dodgy prawn pad thai, food poisoning is a short term thing and getting a doctors certificate would be difficult.
The team thing is most important. I have just taken on a new employee who has survived the 90 period as while there were some issues with her at the start they have been ironed out and she is well on the way to becoming a valued staff member of my team.
If the 90 day period had not been available to me i wouldn’t have employed her. Simple as that.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:22 am
One aspect of this debate I’ve found interesting is the percentage of people hired and let go being seen as a downside to the legislation. This is an important benefit of the 90 day rule. The jobs market is all about matchmaking, for both the firm and the worker. If 20% of the time, either the worker or the firm decide the work is not for them, then separation is best.
That 20% can be thought of an an overhead that goes with legislation that forces the firm to keep a mismatched worker on, basically: a tax. The result is that firms are made more reluctant to hire in the first place.
What’s ridiculous in this debate is that government is even involved in this. It is not possible to write any law that properly accounts of all the variation and permutations in conditions that a labour market throws up. Bad employers can be brought to heal by unionisation or exit.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It worked for Terry the cameraman because he was the only one doing it. If every cameraman/women had to get a job this way then the system would be open to employer abuse on a major scale.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Hi David, I agree with you on the problems with needing a medical certificate when an illness has already passed and on the penalties for employers.
At the moment, employees who work on public holidays get higher pay for that day, *and* they get a holiday day in lieu. So now it becomes merely a transfer. Employees have very little say in what they ‘agree’ to because, especially when unemployment is high, employers are the big party with all the power. So this is a bad deal for employees and an effective pay cut.
When it comes to trading holidays, it depends on how effective the mechanisms to ensure employees aren’t forced to work more and go down to 3 weeks leave are. If the law doesn’t say they can’t be treated favourably for giving up a week, it essentially means National has dialed the country back to 3 weeks paid holiday.
In terms of not making employer’s process the subject of ‘pedantic scrutiny’, it really depends what the exact wording is, and what it means. If it means that employers can deprive employees of their right to natural justice, and fire them without a right of response, for example, or giving them a fair chance under the terms they agreed to in the employment contract, then that is not pedantic scrutiny, that is simply fairness.
I’m not satisfied that the tribunal process is really that broken – but even if it was, National can’t have it both ways. If they claim they have ‘fixed’ the tribunals, it is inconsistent to say that anyone needs 90 day trials, let alone big businesses with expert HR departments.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:24 am
The transfer of stat holidays to another working day is an attempt to address religious differences. Easter, for example, means little to a Sikh or a Buddhist so it would be possible for a Sikh or Buddhist to work Easter Monday and take a day of religious significance (say Buddah’s birthday) to him at another date. Seems to make sense to me.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:25 am
I think the unions are out of touch on this issue, however it is worth mentioning I think that when I was a kid I worked in printing and was a member of the printers union. After 1990 I dropped out of the union because I figured they did nothing for me. Now I work as a computer programmer, but I find it somewhat ironic that I had better working conditions (OT rates, etc) as a 19 year old printer than a 30-something IT professional.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:25 am
A sad aspect of this debate is watching unions lament (gush) over the plight of workers. With the exception of legislation like minimum wage, unions do more to harm the young and unskilled than anybody, while protecting their own older, more skilled members rabidly and at all costs.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:26 am
mpledger: what blinkered rubbish.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:27 am
It may well become practice that employers demand certificates for all Friday and Monday sick days. Sick pay is the single most abused benefit offered.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am
The only ones to fear the 90-day law are the slackers, the idlers, and their parasite union bosses, who are afraid of losing power. Bring it on.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am
The employer pays the cost of the GP vist, not the employee and not the government.
The employer can specify which doctor to visit, if the employer believes the empoyee’s doctor is dodgy, they can use another.
Food poisoning has very serious consequences in any food related business, doctors will also usually give out a certificate for unconfirmed cases.
If this causes workers to visit the doctor more regularly this is a good thing. My current frustration with the 3 day rule is that low wage staff hardly ever visit a doctor when they fall ill and end up carrying an illness for a couple of weeks and trying to work through it.
As an employer I believe I should have the right to ensure my staff take proper care of their health especially if it is at my cost.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Ben, you’ve nailed it, mate. If firms become more reluctant to hire “in the first place”, guess who benefits? The incumbent employees (i.e. union members)! Try asking the unions how many of their members have been employed less the 90 days.
The claim that unions represent workers seems nonsensical; the only people they represent are union members.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:29 am
I’m more upbeat about the one day certificates: if legislation creates a market for that sort of note, then GPs will step in to fill it, unless subsidy rules interfere (which they may).
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Sonny, you know better than your workers, eh? Heaven forbid, they make decisions for themselves!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
DPF said something like the trial period must be working because noone has cried foul to the media – which had a good impact because the media got off their chuffs and went looking.
However, when a government starts a new policy that appears to be based on little evidence then it should be part of good government to actually see if the policy works. But where is the report that evaluates the policy? All there is, is a small sample survey (according to the newspaper). So on thin air they are going to extend the policy – there’s great government for you!
Make stuff up, don’t look at the evidence, rush it through, never evaluate it. Hmmm, it’s getting repetitive.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yes, this is one of the most handy parts of requiring a medical certificate, it ensures the employee is still in town. But currently you can require a certificate for a Monday or Friday sick day without reason as the law is 3 consecutive days, not 3 working days.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am
mpledger, how much evidence do you want? If people are largely benefiting from a change then why should the Government wait before extending that benefit to others?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am
> One aspect of this debate I’ve found interesting is the percentage of people hired and let go being seen as a downside to the
> legislation. This is an important benefit of the 90 day rule. The jobs market is all about matchmaking, for both the firm and the
> worker. If 20% of the time, either the worker or the firm decide the work is not for them, then separation is best.
>
>
> That 20% can be thought of an an overhead that goes with legislation that forces the firm to keep a mismatched worker on,
> basically: a tax. The result is that firms are made more reluctant to hire in the first place.
Employment relationships are not equal. The firm is much bigger, and decides what the worker is supposed to be doing, when they get a payrise. The employmer won’t lose that much if they lose one employee for a few months, but the employee might not be able to make rent, might miss mortgage repayments and lose their house, might not be able to buy food for their family, etc…
If an employee agrees the job isn’t for them, they can quit – either under the contract or by mutual agreement with the employer.
If the employee wants to stay in the job, but the employer wants them out, then whether they can rightly depends on whether the dismissal is justified. If the employee is doing a good job under the terms of their contract, but the employer just doesn’t like them (perhaps because they aren’t yielding to the employer’s threats to do extra work for free, or the employer wants a sexual relationship but the employee says no), then I have no problem with the government protecting the employee. It is fair to protect the little guy against the player with all the influence.
If they genuinely aren’t doing a good job, then the employer should follow their process to give the employee a fair chance to improve, and if they still don’t measure up, follow proper process to dismiss them. It isn’t really that hard.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Low wage workers will screw their employer by working sick rather than paying to see a doctor. I don’t want staff coughing on my customers, especially when they could do something about it.
Any employer in the food industry that does not ask for medical certificates when staff have food posioning is being negligent.
If you contract salmonella you are legally not allowed to work with food for 6 weeks. As an employer this becomes my issue as well as the employees.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Expect this one to fester away untile the next Labour Government. The left will see this as the ultimate clash of idealogy and regardless of any success, additional employment generated or even increased number of union members it will be reversed in the same way as the ECA and the privately run prison.
Vote:The right on the other hand look at it more from an outcomes perspective so can’t see what the fuss is about. Rational argument has no place in this debate as far as Trades Hall is concerned and given that the origins of all significant LP policy is among the union movement and whatever is driving that repeal of these changes will become entrencehed almost immediately.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Sonny, perhaps I should have said “Monday OR Friday sick days”.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Sonny, why won’t low wage workers just take a sick day instead of working? Do I take it you don’t pay them for sick days?
In your comment at 10.28, you said, “As an employer I believe I should have the right to ensure my staff take proper care of their health especially if it is at my cost.”
Controlling your legal risk about food poisoning in one thing, attempting to control the general health of your staff is quite another!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:42 am
@Sonny Blount (866) Says:
“The employer pays the cost of the GP vist, not the employee and not the government.
The employer can specify which doctor to visit, if the employer believes the empoyee’s doctor is dodgy, they can use another.
…
As an employer I believe I should have the right to ensure my staff take proper care of their health especially if it is at my cost.”
I bet the employer doesn’t pay the unsubsidised cost.
And why should a doctor be any less dodgy when working on behalf of an employer than the employee’s own “dodgy” doctor. The employer has more financial power to buy dodgy doctors than employees.
If it is cost effective to have healthy staff than how about paying for it.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Davidp, if the Labour Party doesn’t form a Government in 2011 or 2014, do you think these legal changes might become so entrenched that the Party can’t change them?
Anyone know when was the last time we had a policy like this one? Maybe it was before the Great Depression.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Medical certificates are a really dodgy area. For a few limited situations, I need a certificate for students. The ones that really upset me are the ones that say: “I have seen Mr X, and he tells me that …”
Vote:With all due respect to the doctor, the student already told me that himself, and the medical certificate added precisely nothing. Unless the certificate reports on the findings of a medical examination, it’s a waste of time. And as DPF observes, by the time most of us can get in to our already overloaded GPs, the transient illness or food poisoning has long gone. Certificates for a one day absence are a nonsense. You either trust your employee or you don’t. As a manager I used to watch for illnesses that always happened on a Monday, or employees whose sick leave almost exactly used up their “entitlement”.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:45 am
A friday sick day is 3 consecutive days by Sunday.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Staff get 5 days per year. When they reach this limit they don’t get paid apart from special allowances I will make for staff with dependants.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:48 am
We do pay for it. How quickly you forget the 5 paid sick days you get per year.
Staff that are unable to manage their health without good reason can get the hell out of my business.
When staff have a slight cold then go drinking till 3 in the morning in winter, it is their workplace that gets screwed.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I agree with most of the changes, and frankly are surprised its taken this long to open up the 90 day probation period. Its about damn time!
I think the changes to sick leave will cause a few problems bedding in. At the moment I have a crook back, and some days it can be fine, and others its like some ones poking me with a red hot poker. My employer knows why I’m of work when I call in sick, but its going to get rapidly expensive for them if they regularly start asking me to go to the doctor to get a doctors certificate, when all I really need to do is go home pop some pain relief and lie down for a few hours. But equally I also know in my work place we have had problems with staff calling sick on the same day each week, that were just doing it because they didn’t want to work that day. So in this situation it would be handy.
What about people taking mental health days? Not something you usually go to the doctor for, after all its just stress, and a day to relax usually either fixes the problem or takes the edge off it.
I would prefer it for practicabilities sake that the wording was changed to something like, “a medical certificate can be requested by the employer, at their cost, if they suspect sick leave is being misused”.
I can’t see the need for allowing cross examinations in the ERA, the members aren’t idiots, they know when the wools being pulled over their eyes. So DPF I have to disagree with you when you say its because people lie. I believe the real reason is because the lawyers want a bigger slice of the pie. Which is really against what the ERA was meant to be.
This is just being done to keep the lawyer friends of National happy.
Really like that public holidays can be transferred, I’m not really one to celebrate Labour Day, would prefer to be able to take the day off in June for my birthday, or take a day off and go skiing. Also will be good for regional anniversaries.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:58 am
“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.”
I love the way the union scum are turning themselves inside out trying to find a negative angle for this.
The reality is that many people will want to trade their fourth week for cash, In my working life there have been times when I have had as much as six months annual leave accrued simply because I have never worked on a set salary or set annual wage, a large portion of my income has always been commission based.
For unions and Labour to suggest that I should not have that right is fucking near criminal.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Sonny, if your workers do get paid for sick days and you require medical certificates to ensure you’re not breaching food poisoning regulations, then what’s your point? If people want to work through sickness then that’s their choice, right? If they’re not causing others to get sick, I don’t understand what your issue is.
If they are getting others sick, then why don’t you just say, I think you need a few more days at home? I just don’t get what you’re complaining about re:our current three day rule.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:00 am
I think the doctor certificate will be good to deter the person calling in sick on the Friday before a long weekend to get out of town Thursday night and avoid the trafffic. The employer can now request a certificate on the Friday which means the employye would have to be in town on the Friday. As an employer it is pretty galling when you know someone is taking the piss but have no way to hold them accountable.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:06 am
mjwilknz at 10:43 am
Vote:Definitely, this is a blind spot for the unionistas. Doesn’t matter if it takes 50 years, it will be gone as one of the first acts of a Labour Government. Second act will be a new envy tax on rich pricks just to teach them a lesson.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
This one has me puzzled. How is “Average Daily Pay” different to the current “Average Weekly Earnings” (over 12 months) that is calculated to a daily average to pay for a day of annual leave.
The current calculation is the greater of current pay rate or 12 month average, so are they just dropping the current rate provision? That sounds backward.
Calculating holiday pay rates for those on variable hours and pay is a major headache now, but I don’t see how proposal will fix it. Need more specifics.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Both sides of this argument will be able to come up with anecdotal evidence to support their respective arguments. I am supportive in principle of probationary periods however as an employer and have some reservations about withdrawing employees rights to be treated fairly in such a comprehensive way.
I have to say I have a healthy degree of scepticism about the governments statistics put forward to support their case. “40% of those hired with a trial period, would not have been hired if the trial period provision did not exist”. A statistic I suspect that would not stand much scrutiny if probed beyond some leading survey question.
I would prefer that the government addressed the employment legislation to make it fair, less intimidating for small business owners and less costly rather than completely remove the rights of employees for this period
As for the sick leave requirement. Laudable concept but impractical. Same day appointments at my doctor are pretty much reserved for serious or urgent cases. I suppose the threat of the requirement may be of some limited use but it would appear some of our politicians live in a different world to the real one we occupy.
I would prefer that the government addressed the employment legislation to make it fair, less intimidating for small business owners and less costly
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
A1kmm
If the employee wants to stay in the job, but the employer wants them out, then whether they can rightly depends on whether the dismissal is justified. If the employee is doing a good job under the terms of their contract, but the employer just doesn’t like them (perhaps because they aren’t yielding to the employer’s threats to do extra work for free, or the employer wants a sexual relationship but the employee says no), then I have no problem with the government protecting the employee. It is fair to protect the little guy against the player with all the influence.
There’s no point focusing on the extreme case of the nasty employer trying to do in an unfortunate employee. The more general case is when a decent employer hires someone who turns out to be not competent but short of the outright and repeated negligence required to get rid of somebody.
As I said, laws that force an employer to stick with a below average employee who is short of the depths required to sack them in the current environment adds a tax on hiring. That is true whether the employer follows a ridiculously in depth sacking process or not. That tax on hiring makes the employer more reluctant to hire. Econ 101.
Your example of the person losing their job and then starving is ludicrous for two reasons. First, there is an overpowering welfare state in this country. Second, the legislation you are arguing in favour of probably a major driver of unemployment!
You may well be right about the imbalance between employer and employee, which is precisely why institutions have been developed to protect the employee: unions, most obviously, and legislation which requires even the biggest firms to honour their written commitments. Making employment a one-shot deal adds no benefits on top of this machinery, but adds tremendous cost in the form of higher labour costs and, therefore, unemployment – the usual case of the legislation achieving the opposite of that intended.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:16 am
So it is their choice if they want to sniff and cough around customers or work at 1/2 speed? Because this is what happens when people are sick. If there are no symptoms and they are working at full capacity then they are not sick or are medicated (ie seen a doctor or taken care of it themselves).
If a staff member turns up to work and expects to get paid full rates for half speed work then they can go home.
Because any employee should be needed in their work place, a day without them is a problem otherwise there would be no need to employ them in the first place.
I need sick staff back on deck as soon as possible, so if they have symptoms and I know from previous history that they might take weeks to recover from illness, it is sometimes needed to get them to go to a doctor on the first day rather than 3 days later.
The other advantage will be to ensure those who are suspected of cynical use of sick leave are actually sick.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Re transient illnesses my experience, certainly from student days, was that if you went along and described feeling like pies the day before then a medical certificate would be given to the effect that on the symptoms described would have been unfit for work. Still, it provides a process for employers who are concerned about malingerers – although I would have thought the fact that only 5 days sick leave available per 12 months more or less sorted that anyway.
I am very interested in the beefing up of the ERA. My experience is that too many use it as a dry run and then appeal to the Employment Court which hears appeals, generally, de novo. As there is no transcript from the ERA it is hard to impeach witnesses who are either lying to the EC or were lying to the ERA (or both). Do you know if transcripts of ERA proceedings will be kept?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Here’s a hypothesis re: union behaviour. All legislation which increases competition for union services is opposed. All legislation which reduces it, is supported. I’ll guess 100% correlation on any test.
Minimum wage increase? Support. Youth minimum wage = adult? Big support.
90 day probation? Oppose.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:21 am
davidp, I’d be slightly more positive than that. The Labour Party couldn’t overturn the 1991 Employment Contracts Act when it next formed a Government. Instead, it passed the Employment Relations Act. Did the latter even get close to creating the same labour market conditions that existed prior to 1991? We live in a democracy so the union domination of the Labour Party does not mean it can ignore the views of the political majority.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Someone seems confused or is using vague terminology. From Key’s address:
So the change isn’t for Holiday Pay for annual leave, it is for payments for Public Holidays and Sick and Bereavement Leave. Currently there is a provision for a 4 week average calculation, and the proposal is to change this to 12 months. Is it to be an option? At the moment the average can only be used if you can’t determine what they would have worked.
This could lead to anomalies – if an employee is rostered to work a half day and takes that day as Sick Leave, their twelve month daily average could be much different eg equivalent to a full day, so the employee could be much better paid by being sick. Still need to see specific wording to be sure what is intended.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Sonny, when you hire someone, do you lend them a superman or wonderwoman outfit or are they expected to have their own?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Ben, well said! It’s a pity labour practices are exempted from the Commerce Act. Be a definite case or three of anti-competitive behaviour there!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am
The majority of employees are fine.
But if you employed low wage workers in significant numbers you would realise there are many that basically don’t have proper respect for their workplace or understand the basics of keeping down a job.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:42 am
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?
I have to give it to Kerre she can read the line’s and not between the line’s when she wont’s to.
It’s a win/win/lose a win for the government a win for employers and a lose for workers rights.
A workers right that was holding employers back from employing them.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 11:57 am
You’re hanging your defence on the authority of … Kerre Woodham? Awesome.
I won’t attempt to persuade you otherwise, but it seems relevant to point out that:
- The “evidence” the PM has been touting from the DOL survey is nothing of the kind and simply isn’t fit for the purpose for which it’s been touted. Feedback was obtained from 1391 employers — and 13 employees. No attempt was made to assess the impact on the employment market as a whole, and it looks to me like the survey was never designed for the purpose for which it’s been used. You’d have been having a blue fit if Labour justified a policy on the back of this sort of research.
- The CTU being refused any information on the methodology when the whole thing was being handed around hours later at the National Party conference is simply outrageous. I’m sure you’d have done your nana about that if the shoe was on the other foot too.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
No problem with the trial period.
But LOL at the Kerre Woodham story of a young guy willing to work unpaid for weeks as exhibit A. TV/film people, allow me to introduce you to the real world, where there’s no mommy/daddy funding, and people need to eat…
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Russell: For unrelated reasons, the words Nana, ‘shoddy’, and ‘methodology’ goes together like peas and carrots. So good call.
I don’t think DPF is making an argument from authority, so not sure what the point of your first line is.
If you are right about the survey, then I agree it sounds dodgy. BERL-like, even.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
# mjwilknz (338) Says:
“mpledger, how much evidence do you want? If people are largely benefiting from a change then why should the Government wait before extending that benefit to others?”
How do you know people are benefiting from a change? Because the government says so … based on a survey with 13 employees (apparently)?
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
mpledger – Yes, there was terrible ‘exploitation’ of extras by Three Foot Six Ltd (the company at the ‘sharp end’ of Lord of the Rings) according to an American visitor to NZ. Yet the’ victims’ loved it and came back for more. The ‘worst’ aspects were extras doing work which would be done by highly paid stunt people in Hollywood and horses and riders getting $200 a day and expected to sleep in their horse trucks (as they normally do when on the road).
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
@RightNow 10:19 am
Yes, that one could indeed turn round and bite employers on the bum.
Go to the doctor for my regular visit, feign a bad headache, get the doctor to write out a medical certificate for it, and take the whole day off, with both the day off and the doctor’s visit paid for by my employer.
I would never have thought of that one, and I suspect John Key and Kate Wilkinson didn’t either.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
# peterwn (946) Says:
“mpledger – Yes, there was terrible ‘exploitation’ of extras by Three Foot Six Ltd (the company at the ‘sharp end’ of Lord of the Rings) according to an American visitor to NZ. Yet the’ victims’ loved it and came back for more. The ‘worst’ aspects were extras doing work which would be done by highly paid stunt people in Hollywood and horses and riders getting $200 a day and expected to sleep in their horse trucks (as they normally do when on the road).”
O.K. let’s run a government by anecdotal evidence.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
“Staff get 5 days per year. When they reach this limit they don’t get paid apart from special allowances I will make for staff with dependants.”
Bastard! discriminating against people like me! whats next? Targeted allowances and tax breaks for people with “families”.
nah just giving ya shit, i do the same
and theres nothing worse than someone coming to work who’s half dead, in order to save a sick day.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“The CTU being refused any information on the methodology”
Yeah, because the union scum really do have a long history of dealing in facts don’t they Russell.
I can only hope that this is the beginning of an all out war on unions.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
toad, it actually happened to me about 4 years ago. I had a rather immature manager who told me to bring in a certificate for my one day off sick, so I went to the doc, got a good check-up, a prescription for sudafed, and a certificate which I think would have covered me for the whole week if I’d wanted to stay home sick. I went back to work the next day and claimed the doctor’s visit as expenses. The office manager questioned why they should pay my doctor bill, and when I explained why she went off at the manager who requested it.
Vote:Free doctor’s visits – what more could you ask for?
Mind you – the employer has to play along by asking you to get the certificate.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
As an employer this doesn’t bother me. So long as they have gone to an honest doctor.
We do budget to pay out the 5 days for all staff every year.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Exactly. Just why are the lefties complaining about this?
Because they want to protect the right to go skiing when the weather suits.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Mind you – the employer has to play along by asking you to get the certificate.
Thats the bit others here forget… the employer has to first ask you to get a doctors certicate… and if you already have one why should he have to pay… date time etc of the certificate would also be a factor of payment.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
The Unions are ultra conservative organisations that operate out of stirring up fear and loathing against employers who have to risk their money to employ anyone. The Unions simply do not understand that. The Government is trying to de-risk the hiring decision so that more people get jobs. If there was a way to prevent management abuse I think there would be a case to make Unions illegal. I like your comment that Tribunal are moving to a more adversarial approach to cut back on the lying. No-one should be permitted to give evidence without the ability to have that evidence tested under cross examination. Some lawyers are better at it than others. It is an art, but so is lying successfully.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
mpledger, the small amount of evidence we have is consistent with what people think of employers’ employment decisions and with comments from employers, themselves. Of course, we can continue to collect evidence, but we have no reason to suspect that evidence will be any different from what’s already been collected. This is NZ: we’re small as, bro! If we always waited to collect sufficient information, before enacting a public policy change, we’d never get anything done!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
It struck me with the protests at the conference, that unions need employers in order to survive.
Good employers, on the other hand, do not need unions for their survival.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Well it’s about time they interviewed someone who’d been fired under the 90 day law. Appears to have been handled badly/strangely, and now someone has gone from a good job, to a uh ‘exciting’ job to no job:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3930797/Fired-after-two-weeks
Fair enough he doesn’t want to discuss it with the media, but it doesn’t look like they even told her why. While helping people get jobs, this is not going to make some people keen to switch jobs.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Perhaps you rightists don’t know how mediation works. You gotta supply hard evidence of discrimination and harrasment. That means signed affadavits from witnesses – if you haven’t got that your boss can give you the flick ‘cos you refused to have sex with him, and just say that you were under-performing.
Does that really sound fair to you?
This legislation is only good for sex offenders and other people that like to abuse power. No wonder rightists like it!
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I do find it a bit disturbing when employers do not give reasons as is alleged in a few cases. Reading between the lines in the ‘Dunbar Sloane’ case it seems there were problems on both sides. It seems that the employer could have done a bit more investigation first, such as giving her a few sample valuation reports then asking her to prepare valuations for a few art works. On her part it seems she did not have a clue as to the reality of the job and could not put together a valuation in which a customer had confidence. It seems too she should have checked the job out more thoroughly.
Two things an employee should do upon receiving a job offer is to insist on receiving a draft contract and secondly to identify and discuss any matters of concern whether a contract item or just general questions about the job. The employer must give the applicant a reasonable period to check out the contract with a solicitor, etc. If things do not stack up the applicant can withdraw rather risking accepting a job that does not work out. If the employer has gone through an exhaustive selection process eg multiple interviews, psychological testing, checking references etc the applicant is in a powerful position at that point and could ask for more favourable terms.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I’m left wondering if Alison Murray would welcome the other side of the story coming out? My feeling is Dunbar Sloane are right not to discuss it in public.
Honest John – really? As I recall on another thread a couple of weeks ago we had Luc Hansen, a devout leftist, proclaiming that men should be entitled to one free grope before it’s considered sexual harassment. You just sound like a unionist trying to shut non gang members out of jobs.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
You are a dick HJ.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Honest John
Are you confusing mediation with adjudication? Very rare to have affidavit evidence in mediation.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I’m left wondering if Alison Murray would welcome the other side of the story coming out?
It would seem she doesn’t even know herself! If she’s hiding the reason – and it would be pretty easy for DS to say ‘actually,’ we told her’ – such a lie would really hurt her future job prospects and presumably most people would be smart enough to realise that before lying.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
“Perhaps you rightists don’t know how mediation works. You gotta supply hard evidence of discrimination and harrasment. That means signed affadavits from witnesses if you haven’t got that your boss can give you the flick ‘cos you refused to have sex with him, and just say that you were under-performing.”
Are you serious Honest John?? Is this your last argument that the 90 period is pure evil, the boss says you wouldn’t have sex with him??. FFS! That would be a hard argument to run with a straight boss sending a male on his way wouldn’t you think? If that is the best the left can come up with it is little wonder the left is fucked up.
As some one who spends pretty much every day in mediation, I can assure you there is absolutely no requirement for deposed statements nor “signed affidavits”. A mediation is an informal voluntary alternative dispute resolution forum.
Vote:July 19th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Over at The Standard we have a winner in the rational debate on employment law:
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 12:20 am
i sued a bizness
Vote:once, they were lying bastards
and i got them good
July 20th, 2010 at 12:35 am
So if an employer then requires you to see a doctor, there may be nothing to see by then
And if you have a dodgy employer and you work in a small company for less than 90 days, and that employer takes offence at you having a sick day – as well as a Dr having nothing to see, you may have nothing to do, apart from looking for work.
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 8:15 am
That assumes employers like looking for new people.
Vote:July 20th, 2010 at 8:46 am
The ERA would seem to contradict itself with regards to telling employees why they were fired:
Vote:http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/07/19/pm-tells-more-porkies-on-fire-at-will-law/