Kiwiblog

The Dominion Post reports:

Many employers say the present rules are too heavily weighted in favour of workers, and make it too easy for frivolous complaints. Business New Zealand has also raised concerns about employers being penalised for not following correct processes when sacking workers, even though the dismissal was proved justified.

But unions are alarmed by some of the options, which include:

Increasing the length of the 90-day period for workers in small firms, which stops them taking unjustified dismissal cases.

On this issue, I tend to side with the unions. I am a big supporter of the current 90 day grievance free period, but I do not support it being extended to say 180 days.

In my experience 90 days is long enough to work out if someone is going to work out. Hell, 30 days will often do that.

Six months is, in my opinion, too long to keep someone on what is effectively a trial period.

Extending the 90-day rule, presently restricted to companies employing fewer that 20 staff, to those with up to 49.

This I do not have a problem with. In fact I am comfortable with a 90 day period for all employers.

Changing the “justifiable dismissal” test to what a reasonable employer `might’ have done, rather than what they `would’ have done.

My view is that there is too much focus on form over substance.

Removing reinstatement as a primary remedy in cases.

This one I have some concerns over also. If reinstatement is not a primary remedy, it may encourage unjustified dismissals. However a workplace can be very unsettled when an employee is reinstated to a job against the employer’s wishes – it is almost impossible to ever regain the trust needed for an employment relationship to work.

My gut reaction is reinstatement should be the primary remedy, but one has to recognise that often this will not be sensible.

The NZ Herald editorial does not appear to be online.

The Press looks at the furore over the forged passports by Mossad:

British police officers have arrived in Israel in an attempt to find out who or what stole the identities of six British-Israeli nationals and used them in the assassination in Dubai last month of a leader of the Palestinian Hamas organisation. The chances that the police will find anything worthwhile is exceedingly remote. If the murder was carried out by the Israeli foreign intelligence agency Mossad, as Dubai alleges and many others suspect, the Israeli Government will see to it that the truth never emerges. If it was perpetrated by some other actor – and the possibility that the killing was carried out by Arab agents from Hamas or elsewhere as part of some internecine feud has not been entirely ruled out – there is no chance that any plodding Western investigation is going to get to the bottom of it.

Maybe iPredict should do a market on who was it. My money will be on Mossad!

The victim was Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, co-founder of the military wing of Hamas, the radical Islamic organisation that controls the Gaza Strip. What Mabhouh was doing in Dubai without security protection is not known. As someone well aware that he was a target for assassination from a variety of quarters, Mabhouh seldom ventured far from Damascus where he was heavily protected. It appears likely he was involved in arranging a further illicit shipment of weapons from Iran for Hamas’s continuing attacks on Israel and for some reason felt secure travelling without guards. If this is the case, it is likely that Israeli intelligence seized the chance to carry out a strike that had probably been planned for some time.

Hamas is at war with Israel. Their policy is to destroy Israel. It is hard to argue that the co-founder of the military wing is not a legitimate military target.

The Dom Post welcomes a review of employment law:

Four years ago, a Tauranga company concerned about the theft of company property installed motion-sensitive cameras on its premises.

The cameras filmed a worker placing a cardboard box containing cakes of soap under a bench. Another worker, who subsequently admitted stealing company property, was filmed taking a box from under the bench and putting it in his car. The company believed it was a clear case of theft. It asked the worker who had placed the box under the bench to explain his actions. He refused. The company sacked him.

End of story? No. The worker took his case to the Employment Relations Authority. The authority found in favour of the employer. The worker appealed to the Employment Court. It took a different view.

It found the worker had been unjustifiably dismissed because his employer had not followed proper procedures. It had given him only selected portions of the surveillance tape, it had not put in writing the misdeeds of which he was accused, and it had wrongly concluded that the worker’s representative was stalling when he put off meetings because of other commitments. The company was ordered to pay the employee $12,000 for lost wages and $7000 for distress.

A good example of the case for change.

The ODT looks at home insulation:

Large-scale taxpayer subsiding of home insulation would seem an unlikely policy for a right-of-centre political party.

But that is what pragmatic National did and, by and large, Prime Minister John Key and his colleagues will be pleased with the outcome.

As are the Greens!

Vernon Small writes in the Dom Post:

The Government is considering a revamp of personal grievance laws.

The moves include a crackdown on frivolous claims and new rules to control “no win, no fee” advocates who have been seen as ramping up claims against employers.

But unions are concerned that the Government is using the review to reduce employees’ rights when they are sacked, including claims based on unfair process.

Getting the process largely right is important, but it is very difficult for small businesses to get it perfect. They do not have inhouse lawyers. They do not have HR departments. And they are the ones who can least afford losing a claim.

Prime Minister John Key has said the Government “shares concern from many quarters about the fairness and consistency of personal grievance claims”.

Ms Wilkinson said she wanted to ensure the regime was fair to both sides. “You hear stories anecdotally from employers who say, `Oh well, it’s just too hard we will just pay some money to make it go away.’ And that’s not justice.”

She had also heard that some of the “no win, no fee” industrial law advocates “know their way around the procedures so well that, whatever the merits of the case, the employer might pay out”.

In the public sector, three months salary is quite normal to settle claims, regardless of their merits.

CTU president Helen Kelly said “no win, no fee” advocates tended to operate among non-unionised workers and moves to regulate them would not concern the CTU.

I love how the CTU doesn’t mind the Government clamping down on their competitors

But it had major concerns about other elements of the document. She said the Government saw procedural fairness and natural justice as an impediment when an employee was dismissed.

The remedies won through personal grievances were too low, she said. Surveys had found the average cost to employers was $5000, of which compensation paid to workers averaged $2800.

I wonder if that takes into account the cases settled out of court?

Thousands of employment relationships ended unfairly and employees did nothing about it, so a lot of employers got off lightly. The number of grievance cases was low, considering that about 600,000 people left their jobs each year.

Most people go from one job to another better job, so obviously no grievances tend to occur there. What I would like to know is how many employees get dismissed each year, and what proportion of those result in a settlement or a court case.

The Herald reports:

A small business has been ordered to pay an employee $12,000 – including $6000 compensation for distress – after he was sacked for supplying cannabis to a workmate. …

The ERA ruled Saxons had not given Mr Wilkinson notice of the allegation and its likely consequences, or the opportunity to seek support, advice and representation.

It also criticised Saxons for not giving notes from the meetings to Mr Wilkinson’s lawyer, and for its view that Mr Wilkinson had sold drugs in the workplace.

Evidence had shown the transaction between Mr Wilkinson and the other worker took place outside work hours, away from Saxons’ premises.

Saxons had no policy on employees’ use of illegal drugs outside work and – although not deliberately – it had unjustifiably dismissed Mr Wilkinson.

So you discover that one employee has been selling drugs to other employees, but as you don’t have a written policy against it, it is okay so long as done outside the workplace.

Expecting small business owners to be able to have employment policies that cover every contingency such as drug dealing outside work is impractical, and why small business owners often lose. They can’t afford to have expensive in house lawyers to advise them on every aspect on employment practices.

The Herald reports:

A Crown research institute was justified in firing top climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger, the Employment Relations Authority has found. …

However, in his determination, authority member Leon Robinson said the dismissal was warranted because Dr Salinger had been given clear instructions at numerous meetings that others were to be used as spokespeople and he was to step back from that role.

At the end of the day,employees have to follow the legal instructions of their employers. Salinger refused to do so, and suffered the consequences.

NZPA report:

The Herald on Sunday (HOS) newspaper was justified in sacking assistant editor Stephen Cook, who was being investigated as part of a police inquiry into drug dealing, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.

The HOS will be pleased to have won what was a messy battle with one of their former senior staff.

The Herald reports:

The Government has introduced a law change that will allow bosses to withhold workers’ regular breaks, and instead pay for the time or trade the breaks for time off later.

National’s bill allows bosses to replace regular breaks with “compensatory measures”.

These include being able to start work late or leave early, or stockpile the missed breaks and trade them for a day off.

Some history:

The bill will repeal the law passed by Labour last year which gave workers two 10-minute breaks and a half-hour lunch break at reasonably well-spaced times each day.

Before that, there was no statutory requirement for paid breaks, although most workers negotiated them as part of their employment contracts.

And you know, despite no statutory requirement, I don’t know of any great plethora of complaints from workers not allowed a break. Most employers are reasonable people.

Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson said the changes were aimed at restoring flexibility for employers, by allowing them to time breaks in a way that did not disrupt their businesses.

It is partly aimed at solving problems in workplaces such as sole-charge air traffic control watchtowers.

You actually had airports having to close down twice a day, because Labour’s law didn’t allow for flexibility.

But Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said last year’s law was flexible enough to cater for different businesses while giving “the most vulnerable” protection.

The new bill replaces the minimum rest break lengths with the more general guideline requiring employers to give workers “a reasonable opportunity … for rest, refreshment and attending to personal matters”.

Again I’d love same actual examples (ie name the employers) who had not allowed staff meal and refreshment breaks.

The Herald reports:

The Government is reviewing personal grievance claims procedures to make them less onerous on employers.

John Key told the Council of Trade Unions the personal grievance process needed to be more coherent and easier.

“Substance-over-form issues are the area of concern – where someone has genuinely done something that warrants dismissal but because [the employers] haven’t followed the rules absolutely perfectly, they lose. It can be very expensive for small companies.”

Well overdue. Even large companies with scores of lawyers often fail to follow perfect process, and have to pay out money no matter how justified the dismissal is. For small companies, it is far worse, as they do not have access to in house legal advice, and often they just have to carry on with someone who is not up to the job, for fear of having to do a big pay out if they take action.

Quite like the gall of John Key in announcing the changes at the CTU conference, along with this report:

John Key laid down a challenge to teachers yesterday – sacrifice part of a pay rise so school support staff can have one.

Speaking at the Council of Trade Unions’ conference, the Prime Minister was challenged by Frances Guy from the teachers’ and support staff union, the NZ Educational Institute, over the nil pay increase offered to support staff. …

Mr Key said the staff were in a difficult position in their negotiations because of the fiscally restrained environment.

“Maybe one option is you guys ought to go and talk to your fellow unions and say, ‘Let’s have teachers taking less of a pay rise so it can be put toward education support staff’. See if they support you.”

Oh that is wonderful. What a cunning response. Of course Labour is outraged:

Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous” to propose setting the education groups against each other.

Outrageous Fortune perhaps

I always regarded the law passed last year legislating for rest and meal breaks was a solution looking for a problem.

It now turns out the solution was somewhat flawed, as it imposed a national requirement that doesn’t take account of the flexibility needed for some individual businesses. The Herald reports:

Legislation allowing workers to take meal and breast-feeding breaks may be changed because it would cause the cancellation of nine domestic flights, Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson says. …

The current legislation meant regional airport control towers were being closed down while workers took breaks, she said.

Pharmacies, schools, meatworks and sole attendant operations had also raised concerns about the law, she said.

Imagine a parking building has a sole attendant. How would you feel if you were unable to leave the building for 10 minutes because the attendant is on their statutory break?

Or do you force the business to double its staffing budget just to cater for the ten minute breaks, and have two staff working, even though you only need one?

The Press reported:

A Christchurch tax worker fed up with his bosses has made a spectacular protest by driving his car through three plate-glass windows in the Inland Revenue building.

I do hope he gets made t pay the cost of repairs, so us taxpayers don’t have to.

But anyway the part I thought was really funny was:

Theobald posted the letter suspending him from work, written by a human resources manager, on the internet.

“Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a vehicle through Inland Revenue’s Christchurch building,” the manager wrote.

“I am concerned that your conduct may be inconsistent with the code of conduct.”

That is such an HR letter. Driving your car into the front of your workplace “may be inconsistent” with the code of conduct they are concerned.

I lambasted One News for their errors in a 1 March story on the 90 day probation period law.

Dave at Big News also highlighted their errors, and actually lodged a formal complaint with them.

Dave blogs that TVNZ has upheld his complaint and conceded the story was inaccurate.

Good to see John Key confirm that National will implement their election policy of allowing workers and employers to decide to cash in the 4th week of annual leave, if they both agree.

What this means is the default is 4 weeks leaves. So you may be on $50,000 and have four weeks leave. You could ask your employer to pay you an extra 2% or $1,000 and drop down to three weeks leave.

Many people will want to keep a fourth week of leave (and will) but equally many would like the option of earning some extra money. This is why choice is a good thing.

And please don’t even try pushing the “Some employers will pressure employees and the poor employees will have no choice” line. Apart from the unlikely motivation of an employer wanting to increase its costs by 2%, you can argue against all and any choice on the grounds that someone may possibly try to pressure someone illegally. Using that logic the state should set all pay rates, as some employers may pressure employees to take a pay cut.

The CTU is planning a “name and shame” campaign against employers that “exploit” workers under the new trial period law.

I don’t actually have a problem with this. Community reaction is one of the factors that is an influence on business decisions.

The vast majority of businesses will use the law responsibily. Many will not even ask for such trial periods in contracts, and generally there is no logicial incentive to dump a new employee if they are performing well. It costs money and time to recruit and train staff. The notion that there will be masses of employers sacking new workers on Day 89, just because they can, is ridicolous.

However there are some bad employers out there. They actually piss me off a lot, because it is the “bad” employers who lead to calls to regulate this and regulate that.

If an employer really does “exploit” a new employee, sacking them on whim, then unions have every right to highlight this.

But I would warn the unions to be careful about assuming all, or even most, dismissals during the 90 day period are “exploitive”.  That new sales rep may have proved unable to make any sales. That new cleaner may just be generating too many complaints from clients. Or that new staffer might just be an arsehole who is disrupting everyone else in the office.

In the end, what I am saying is each situation should be judged on the facts, not just given a pre-determined label.

Some incredibly basic facts wrong with the One News story on the trial periods law. The presenter said:

It means bosses can sack employees after a 90 day probation period

Three massive errors in just one sentence.

1. It is during, not after the 90 day probation period. There is a massive difference.
2. No mention at all that it only refers to businesses with under 50 20 staff, which excludes off memory around 40% of workers
3. Also no mention that it is not in any way automatic. The law merely provides that an employer can seek to have such a clause in an employment contract. Many employers will not.

The combination of those three errors is grossly misleading.

Then even worse they have a long-term beneficiary (he has mild autism) saying he is desperate for a job, and that somehow this will make it more difficult for him. In fact it is the opposite – it means an employer can give him a chance (despite his autism) without risking a costly personal grievance if it does not work out.

Then One News goes on to call it the “hire and fire” law, a term used only be opponents of the law.

A pretty disgraceful piece of journalism. The opening sentence alone would almost be worth a BSA complaint. The other stuff is of course debatable, but the openeing sentence was flat out incorrect.

Amazing. The Herald reports:

Auckland bus drivers are being advised by their union to “borrow” cash from their passengers today, after being shocked to learn they will not receive their weekly wages in time for Christmas.

Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said he suggested they withhold cash takings until receiving wages into their bank accounts from NZ Bus tomorrow, to ensure they and their families will not miss out on Christmas trappings. …

He said that as long as drivers did not admit to depot managers why money was missing from their fareboxes, they had 24 hours to repay it.

“But the problem is that not many passengers are travelling today and the drivers are not taking much cash.”

Just incredible. Gary is complaining that there may not be enough cash to steal. And let there be no mistake, “borrowing” cash from your employer without permission is theft.

The union leader said the company was more in tune with the yuletide spirit last year, when it paid drivers two days before Christmas Day, which fell on a Wednesday.

Of course employers should be flexible with pay dates around Xmas, but nothing excuses encouraging “helping yourself” to the cash.

The Herald Editorial says:

Workers should welcome it because there can be no better incentive to additional employment than a reduction in the risk that a new employee represents to a small business.

And as some have said, it gives confident employees the option to use the law as a positive, and say “Look give me a chance, and if you are not happy, you can let me go within 90 days”.

Capable and conscientious workers have nothing to fear. In the ordinary course of business employers do not go to the trouble and expense of hiring somebody only to dismiss them lightly and go through the whole costly, time-consuming exercise again. In an ideal world recruitment methods would be foolproof and the need for a probationary employment period would not arise. But in the real world the best selection procedures will occasionally fail to ensure a job applicant is reliable and temperamentally suited to the job.

Indeed. In fact it can take, oh a couple of months sometimes, to really work out if someone is suited to a job.

The same is true for the applicant, of course. But if the job or boss proves unbearable the newly hired employee can leave at will. Despite the passage of the “fire at will” law, as critics call it, it is a fair bet the number of employers who invoke their newly acquired right will be a fraction of the number of employees who quit a job without warning, due notice, discussion or reason.

And even if there is a notice provision in an employment contract, this is almost impossible to enforce in the vast majority of cases should an employee quite suddenly.

That can happens to the best employers at any time. Small business owners can be left scrambling to cover a sudden departure as they urgently seek a replacement. There is nothing the law can reasonably do to prevent it, but the right to quit at will should be remembered when labour unions rail at the 90-day probation bill.

Heh, “quit at will” – a nice phrase.

Three idiot lawyers – Helen White, Simon Mitchell and Greg Lloyd – have just done a scare-mongering press release about the new probation period law. Their ignorance of the law they criticise seems to be reason never to use them.

In a statement issued today, the lawyers say that the new act exposes everyone who starts a new job in a company where there are fewer than 20 employees to the risk of being sacked without even being told the reason, let alone having any ability to do anything about it.

Wrong. They have the most basic fact wrong. It is not everyone who starts a new job. It is only if the employer wishes there to be a trial period of up to 90 days, and only if the employee agrees to it.

For example, think about a hairdresser who is so good at the job that he/she is attracting all the customers from a nearby competitor. Under these new provisions, a rival salon could poach the hairdresser with promises of more money. Two weeks’ later the hairdresser is sacked – as allowed under the law. It turns out that the new employer’s real intention was to damage a rival’s business and used the hairdresser as a pawn.

How stupid is this example. If the hairdresser is so good at their current job, why would they agree to a trial period with the competitor? You wouldn’t. You’d say that if you want me that badly, then no trial period.

We advise workers:

* Not to accept a position with a company of fewer than 20 employees if they can’t afford to lose the job.

Again moronic stupidity. They have the most basic law wrong. Their advice should be not to accept any employment contract with a trial period in it. But scaremongering against all small businesses is stupid and wrong.

So who do these genius lawyers work for:

Simon Mitchell (Unity Chambers)

Greg Lloyd (National Distribution Union)

Helen White (Unity Chambers)

So one is a union lawyer. How about the other two. Is SImon Mitchell the same Simon Mitchell who purchased the evidence in Paintergate for Helen Clark’s office so they could burn it? And Helen White I presume is the former EPMU lawyer? So is this factually wrong advice politically motivated?

Here’s my advice. If you get offered a job with a small business, don’t quit your previous job until you have signed the employment contract for your new job, and if your employer insists on a trial period, and you don’t want one, then stay in your current job.

Section 67A makes it very clear that the trial period is not automatic:

67A When employment agreement may contain provision for trial period for 90 days or less
(1) An employment agreement containing a trial provision, as defined in subsection (2), may be entered into by an employee, as defined in subsection (3), and an employer as defined in subsection (4).

NZPA have already run this press release almost word for word as a story. They should also read the actual law, and also perhaps research the actual background of the lawyers rather than cite them as a neutral group of lawyers.

Parliament has passed the probation period bill by 63 votes to 51.That would suggest the Maori Party abstained.

I suspect in a couple of years people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

UPDATE: An MP helpfully advises me that the Maori Party did vote against. The reason for the low number of votes against is both the Greens and Maori Party were voting under strength. If more than 1/4 of a party’s MPs are absent from the Parliamentary precinct, then a vote can not be cast on their behalf by the Whips. This means the maximum number of MPs a party can have outside the precinct is 15 for National, 11 for Labour, 2 for Greens, and 1 for Maori and ACT.

Goodness the way some people are reacting you would think National was passing a law allowing every worker to be fired for Christmas. In reality the law – which was an explicit election pledge – is extremely modest, and merely catches us up to the rest of the developed world.

Here’s a few things you may now know:

1. A probation period is not automatic for new jobs in small businesses. It only occurs if the employer and employee agree to it.  Try offering me a job with a probation period, and I’ll tell you where to stick it! Mind you as a business owner any of my clients can sack me at any time without any notice!
2. The 90 days is a maximum, and it can be less.
3. All employment rights such as good faith, non-discrimination, non-harrassment, holidays, leave, OSH are maintained during a probation period. It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance. If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.
4. There can be only one trial period per employer. An employer can not have a trial period for an employee who has worked for them previously.
5. If you leave a benefit to take up a job terminated within the 90 day probation period, there is no stand down returning to the benefit.
6. While small businesses (less than 20 staff) make up 97% of enterprises, they only employ 31% of employees.
7. The law only applies to new jobs, and can not affect any existing employee in their current job.

I suspect those who have never worked in a small business, will never understand the need for this law change. One bad staff appointment can wipe out the entire firm’s profitability. Many small businesses owners have periods where they are paying themselves less than the staff.

Most business owners will do almost anything to keep a good staff member on. It is expensive and a hassle to have to find a replacement. If they do use the provisions of the new law (to be) it will be because they relucantly have concluded the person is unsuited for the job. You can’t always tell in advance from a CV and 60 minute interview.

Kerre Woodham supports Tariana Turia on abolishing the dole.

It’s an idea that could have only come from the Maori Party. If Act or National had suggested this, we’d have all been leaping up and down and accusing them of heartlessness.

But the idea of working for the dole has some merit.

I would hate to see us operate as some other countries do, where people either work or die. But when you’re working every hour God sends, it’s galling to think of healthy, able-bodied people collecting money from the taxpayer for doing nothing.

All the people I’ve spoken to on the radio who’ve been unemployed for any length of time say it’s soul-destroying. Their confidence diminishes by the day, they become lethargic and unmotivated and a sense of worthlessness pervades.

There’s never enough money – rather than being grateful for the money they get from the state, they feel aggrieved that it’s not more and they become alienated from the community.

On the other hand, work is good for the soul. I’m not sure about the make-work schemes – they’re extremely expensive and if the workers feel they’re just marking time, doing something pointless, they don’t even get the satisfaction of a job well done.

Making it easier for employers to give somebody a chance might be the way to go. Given how difficult it is to fire someone who doesn’t work out, and given the speed with which employees contact lawyers when they’re shown the door, many small business owners are justifiably wary of taking a chance on someone whose CV might be a little patchy.

So Kerre supports work for the dole and grievance free trial periods. Her conversion from a latte liberal to a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy continues.

I blogged earlier this week the EPMU’s reasons for dismissing Shaun Tan, and linked to their reasoning and evidence.

I’m happy to do the same for Shaun Tan with his response to them. He has provided me three documents.

1. tan-response – a 13 page word document responding to the allegations
2. tan-emails – a copy of e-mails referred to in the main response
3. open-letter-to-epmu-members – an open letter from Shaun to EPMU members

The full documents are worth a read. The first section of the response is:

These unsatisfactory references stemmed from my stint at Finsec, where I was employed for a 12-month fixed-term contract. I was battling health issues at the time, so it is despicable for the EPMU to be publicising my private health matters in this manner – especially when I have now overcome these.

If the public must know, I was battling severe sleep apnoea at the time. This is a condition that causes you to fall asleep uncontrollably at unforeseen moments. So when the EPMU refers to my ‘lack of focus’, this would be in reference to my occasional spells of dozing off in the office while at Finsec.

I tried explaining this to the union, but it was not accepted – and was in fact dismissed as a lame excuse. This is despite sleep apnoea being a genuine, recognised and serious condition. I have documents from the Sleep Apnoea Clinic at Mercy Hospital to demonstrate that I indeed had a sleep study done there last year, and that a report was generated based on their findings.

For a union to persecute someone for a health condition is both morally repugnant and inimical to the principles of fairness and equality they are supposed to embody and in turn promulgate. Their actions are akin to disciplining someone because he has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

And a later section responds to the e-mails with ACT people:

The EPMU have raised my e-mail correspondence with ACT personnel as a breach of work policy. Yet, one of their senior managers, National Education Officer Ross Teppett, lists his EPMU e-mail address on a Wellington Central Labour Party newsletter in his capacity as the co-ordinator of hoardings for Labour candidate Grant Robertson. The fact that Mr Teppett lists his work e-mail address in such a manner indicates that he is likely to be sending and receiving Labour e-mails during work time, and via work equipment.

Again, the EPMU demonstrates its blatantly duplicitous treatment of staff. Or worse: they have unwittingly acknowledged that they are not a third party.

It appears that the EPMU do not have a problem with these (and other) goings-on – except, of course, if it is ACT e-mails that are being sent and received. Perhaps the reason for this disparity in treatment is because the EPMU is intrinsically linked with Labour; thus, campaigning for Labour during EPMU time using EPMU equipment constitutes engaging in EPMU work.

Off memory too the (possibly former) Labour Electorate Chair for Northcote put out Labour Party press releases listing his EPMU address as a contact. This was a few months ago announcing the candidate I think.

I’ve blogged both sides to the story, and am not making any assertions or predictions about the outcome of any ERA decisions on whether the dismissal was justified.

The EPMU has announced it has sacked Shaun Tan. They also give a timeline of events, as they see it.

Now this may go to the Employment Relations Authority, and litigation, so I’m not going to say who is right or wrong. But I will say that the EPMU makes a strong case justifying their actions. I suggest people read the linked statements before jumping to conclusions.

I was highly amused by this part though:

“It should also be noted that Shawn was employed on a probationary basis for six months because of unsatisfactory references from previous employers. The requirement for Shawn to remain focused on union work was expressly part of the probationary arrangement.

Using a probationary period to dismiss someone. Didn’t a union organise a march against such things recently? And 180 days, not 90 days.

Some extracts from the EPMU timeline:

March 10: Tan is employed as an EPMU support centre organiser on a six month probationary period.

May: Tan counselled about his heavy Internet use.

July 16: In his capacity as Asian Anti-Crime Group Media and Legal advisor, Tan organises a meeting between the AAG and the ACT party in order to broker a deal in which AAG organisers, including Tan, are provided with electorate and list candidacies in exchange for the AAG mobilising Chinese votes for ACT. Rodney Hide is in attendance

July 18: Tan discusses ACT party candidacy and AAG involvement with EPMU Director of Organising, Bill Newson, and concludes that he will not be standing for ACT in order to devote spare time to AAG.

Tan prepares CV to send to ACT Party electorate agent Brian Nicolle.

July 22/23: Bill Newson confirms to Tan the union has no issue with his AAG involvement.

July 25: Tan provides CV to prospective employer (emails detail Tan’s continued search for other employment from July 18 onwards).

August 7: Tan emails recruitment agency seeking alternative employment.

The EPMU has also placed their evidence on their website plus more here. And the 13 page letter of dismissal.

This is on workplace issues. Panelists:

• Trevor Mallard (Lab)
• Sue Bradford (Greens)
• Kate Wilkinson (National)
• Peter Brown (NZ First)

Questions

1. What changes to KiwiSaver and why?
2. What changes to ACC and why?
3. Will you allow grievance free probationary periods?
4. Will you remove the union monopoly on on collective bargaining?
5. Will you change the “relevant daily pay” provisions of the Holidays Act

Kate Wilkinson

1. No policy released. Key has indicated some modest changes to be announced in due course. Against Labour’s KiwiSaver amendment passed this morning that makes total remuneration packages illegal
2. Will investigate opening the work account to competition so incentives are there for good safety practices, and allow employers to insure for a higher stand of cover. Also will have an independent disputes tribunal for ACC to be fair to claimants
3. Yes a 90 day trial period for businesses with less than 20 employees.
4. Yes will allow a collective agreement with no union. Making employees form an incorporated society just to negotiate a collective contract is cumbersome.
5. The Holidays Act is like the blackboard scribblings in A Beautiful Mind. Will appoint business and union reps to a working group to review the Act, esp for relevant daily pay definition. Not to reduce rights but make law more clear.
6. General comment – important to be fair to all parties – no major changes but some improvements

Peter Brown

1. Want to make KiwiSaver compulsory
2. Do not support competition to ACC. Does support an independent disputes tribunal.
3. Missed
4. Passionate about allowing employees to do a collective contract without forming a union, but NZ First does not have policy.
5. Thinks law has settled down but willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Sue Bradford

1. Support Government, think it is great.
2. Oppose any moves to competition. Want more emphasis on equitable compensation regardless of how someone is impaired.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.

Trevor Mallard

1. Missed but I guess no major changes
2. Against
3. Current Act has probationary periods (but grievances still possible)
4. Against
5. Missed

What was interesting is that every speaker against Trevor just spoke to policies and issues while Trevor sounded like he was blogging at The Standard and was referring to Crosby/Textor and the like.

The NZ Herald likes the 90 day trial period for small businesses:

The Government and the trade union movement do not see it that way. Labour Minister Trevor Mallard described it as “almost a charter for people to abuse newly appointed low-wage workers”. Such an interpretation betrays either a misunderstanding or an extremely cynical view of the aims and intentions of most employers. Why would they use it to sack employees without good reason when good staff are hard to find and much time and effort is put into training them?

Read the Hollow Men and Horowitz to understand why Mallard says this.

A more rational take on the proposed law is that it will encourage employers to give people a chance to show they can do a job. Most advantaged by this will be those who employers might otherwise be reluctant to recruit – the likes of new immigrants without good English, former prisoners, those wishing to change careers, young people without qualifications, and those with no recent work experience. National’s proposal would allow employers to take a chance knowing there will not be the prospect of complex and costly personal grievance procedures if there is a genuine problem.

Yep. With the best will in the world you sometimes just can not determine how someone will work out, until they are in the job.

This freedom has long been sought by small businesses. It was pinpointed as the “single most important change needed in employment law” by the Small Business Advisory Group, which was set up by the Government in 2003. The group identified employers’ fear of hiring new workers as a significant obstacle to business growth.

And business growth leads to more jobs, more tax, more wealth for New Zealand.

When National’s member’s bill was before Parliament two years ago, trade unions staged public demonstrations, terming it an intolerable attack on workers’ rights. In fact, New Zealand is the only OECD nation, apart from Denmark, that does not have a legal probationary period in some shape or form. Other countries have recognised the advantages to both parties.

This is hardly some hard right policy. All the leftie social democratic countries in Europe already have this in their law.

It seems to be my day for disagreeing with gallery journalists. Of course nothing wrong with disagreements. Colin Espiner has blogged on why this is a good week for Labour:

I can just visualise Helen Clark and Michael Cullen doing a little jig in their Beehive offices this morning. A further lowering in the OCR is just what the doctor so desperately wanted. And the more aggressive stance that Bollard seems to be taking to cutting hopefully means more money in homeowners’ pockets before the election.

Agree this is good for the Government, even if bad for NZ.

There are a couple of other reasons why Clark is smiling at the moment. National confirmed its industrial relations policy this morning, which changes little except for introducing a 90-day trial period for workers, cleverly dubbed “fire at will” by Labour. I think this will haunt National during the campaign, and for little political upside. If employers won’t be unscrupulous and sack people after the three-month trial is up, then why have one at all?

I guess Colin has not been an employer. Sacking someone not up to the job is not being unscrupulous. Employers generally want to retain staff. But if a staff member is costing them money rather than earning them money, then a small business has to do what is necessary. And the reality is that a small business has great difficulty in sacking someone just because they are incompetent. They do have have the resources larger firms do.

Colin is right that Labour wil try and scare people off with this policy. But National’s job is to make sure people realise it applies to small businesses only and just for 90 days.

The other reason, curiously, is the Winston Peters donation scandal. I’m not so sure this is bothering Clark terribly much. Why do I think this? Well, for one thing, when junior partners in a coalition or confidence and supply arrangement get into trouble, it’s almost always the smaller party that suffers – the Alliance, for example, in 2002.

I think Colin is very wrong here. First of all he overlooks that every day the headlines are about the Foreign Minister’s secret donations, they are not about stories that are more favourable to the Government. They face weeks and weeks where the main political news is Winston.

Secondly Colin should look back to 1996 and 1997 and Tuku’s Undiegate. Yes NZ First lost support, but so did National – greatly so.

The second reason is that the irony of the donor scandal is that it once again raises the whole issue of anonymous rich people trying to buy elections. And while the heat is currently on Peters, I wonder how long before it will again turn back to the National Party, which has more experience with secret trusts hiding large corporate donors than any other party.

There is a risk there, but the key difference is National has not spent 15 years condemning such trusts and demanding they be ended. Also the latest revelation from Bob Jones suggests a level of secrecy well beyond anything National has done – at least their trusts are known about, commented on, and declare their donations to National. The Spencer Trust appears to pays bills off secretly on behalf of NZ First.

It also limits National’s ability to go quite so hard on the Electoral Finance Act in future. Granted the law is complicated, virtually unworkable, and probably unfair. But it does limit the ability of parties to slip donations under the carpet in the way NZ First is being accused of doing, and as National (and Labour) have done in the past.

I don’t think it does. While the EFA does have better provisions relating to donations (and I am on record support some of them) this is showing the false confidence one can gain from such a regime.

Secret donations to MPs and/or their expenses are allowed under the EFA.

Secret donations to trusts associated with a party are allowed with the EFA.

Donations from different family members and companies associated with them are not discloseable under the EFA so long as each is under $10,000 and each family member and associated company is not proven to make the donation on behalf of someone else.

One can still donate $66,000 in a year without disclosing your identity.

One could donate $250,000 over a year through anonymous $1,000 donations a day if the party doesn’t know they are from the same source.

So don’t think the EFA solves all this.

And National knows it can’t go after Peters too hard in case it needs him after the election. The temptation must be there, though, given if it did manage to finish Peters off an early election would be in its favour. The fear, however, is that if the attempt backfired and Peters survives, National can kiss goodbye to any post-election deal with NZ First.

Indeed. But both Clark and Key will be wondering how long a post-election deal would last, if there are more revelations like this week to emerge, and if Peters is never going to retreat from his stance of never admitting any fault at all, and blaming the media for exposing his secret donations.

So provided Peters doesn’t completely throw his toys and march out of the government, therefore prompting an early election, I don’t think this week has done Labour any harm at all.

Which is why the Prime Minister is still smiling.

The PM will be happy with the cash rate announcement. I don’t think she is at all smiling over the antics of her Foreign Minister.