A Christchurch retail manager who told her employer: “F..k you, I am going”, has been awarded $8000 for unjustifiable dismissal.

Yes, the $8,000 went to the employee not the employer.

The authority’s written findings state that Sullivan’s employer had “seized the opportunity” to be rid of Sullivan after a “troubled” employment relationship, including four warnings the employer says it issued for Sullivan’s abusive conduct and quality of work.

So there were four previous warnings!

“Ms Martin was negative in the way that she approached me, being abrupt. I accept I threw the rosters on the floor. I said I was sick and in my frustration I said: `F..k you, I am going!’ I picked up my bag and left. I left crying and upset.”

By her own admission, she told her boss to get fucked, she threw the rosters on the floor and she stormed out of work, not returning that day. And just because she thought her supervisor was abrupt?

Sullivan did not show up for work the following day, with her employer denying Sullivan’s claims she had been granted a sick day.

So she took a second day off also.

“There was … no raising of concerns, no discussion or real attempt to ascertain Ms Sullivan’s views about what had occurred and therefore no consideration of those views.”

The authority granted her $5053 in compensation for loss of income, and $3000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

So the employer ends up $8,000 out of pocket, because they didn’t consider Sullivan’s views enough after she had stormed out, saying “fuck you, I am going”, and after four previous warnings.  You have to feel sorry for the employer.

A man who took a blank DVD from his workplace for his own use has been found to have been justifiably fired from his job.

David Dumolo worked as an information technology technician for the Lakes District Health Board, helping hospital sites in Taupo and Rotorua.

In May last year he was dismissed from his job after he took a blank DVD, without permission, for his personal use.

My first reaction to this is that it was vast over-kill. Hell, I’m pretty sure I’ve taken the odd blank CD home in the distant past, just as I’ve sometimes taken a pen home.

A month before he lost his job, Mr Dumolo had gone into work on Saturday, April 24, to get a blank DVD.

On the day he took the DVD, another employee spotted Mr Dumolo and reported him to their manager.

This changes it somewhat. I would not go into work to grab something for personal use. I’d go to Dick Smith’s and buy it. If it was a “I was heading out the door and realised I need a blank CD and grabbed one from my desk” I think it would be less of an issue.

The Employment Relations Authority found that Mr Dumolo’s dismissal was justified.

His managers’ decision to fire him was fair in that in the seven months he had been working he had been given a formal warning and had been spoken to on several occasions about other incidents.

This I suspect is the major reason he was sacked. There had been other problems and they used the DVD as a catalyst to get him fired.

Watch his interview with Rachel Morton and then with Mihi Forbes.  I don’t think I have ever seen such sheer awfulness before. Lew at Kiwipolitico has done an initial list of 10 things the EMA did wrong.

This has gone from just being an issue about Alasdair to an issue about the EMA Northern. I can imagine employers all over Auckland quietly removing from their office walls their certificate of membership before anyone notices it. They’d be embarrassed to be associated with the last 24 hours.

This may have been the most effective brand destruction we have seen since Wellington Airport tried to rename Wellington into Wellywood, or the CTU declared war on hobbits.

Before we come back to the interviews let’s focus on the substance of the issue, as a couple of people think this is just about political correctness – far from it.The issue is why do women on average get paid less than men.

Now I do not think the gap between the average hourly rate for men and women is due to discrimination. Sure there may be the odd employer who is an old bigot (and they generally are old) and actually thinks women are inferior. But they are dying out.

Part of the gap is because men and women tend towards different jobs. More men are police officers and more women are teachers for example and police officers get paid more on average. But that doesn’t explain all the difference as there is a gap within professions also. On average male lawyers get paid more than female lawyers and male teachers more than female teachers.

There are a couple of factors at play here. One is historic – until 20 years ago men far outnumbered women at university in the high paying professions such as law, medicine etc. So most of the senior ranks are still men. Fortunately at entry level the numbers are now more balanced, so over time the gender mix may get more balanced at the senior or higher paying levels.

The other factor (which Alasdair correctly pointed out) is that more woman than men take a break from the workforce to be the primary caregiver, and when they return are more likely to be part-time so prospects for advancement are not so good as the person who has stayed working full-time throughout.

Even this doesn’t fully explain the gender gap, as there has been a recent study that even early on in a profession, men are being paid more than women. Now one has to be careful about a study over a profession, rather than just one employer, as differences between employers may account for the gap. However if one accepts the study at face value, a possible answer is that generally younger men are more assertive than younger women in pushing for pay rises and generally in salary negotiations.

So I tend to reject the thesis that women get paid less because evil employers discriminate against women and think they are inferior.

The possible factors I have laid out above are all about individual choice. You may choose to enter a less well remunerated profession, because it isn’t just about the money. You may choose to take a break from the work-force. You may choose not to be aggressive in your pay negotiations and take whatever is initially offered. These are all individual choices. Sure there are issues around societal expectations, but that is a debate for another day.

But here is why what Alasdair Thompson said is so stupid and counter-productive. he listed something women have no choice over (having a menstrual cycle) and cited it as a reason why women get paid less. He basically said that women are less productive because they are women. It undermined all his other (generally sound) arguments.

This reinforced every prejudice unions and others have about employers – and worse this comes from the head of EMA Northern.

And I can only imagine how women feel, to have to put up with having a menstrual cycle is I suspect bad enough by itself, so to have some employer bigwig come out and say oh yeah and your monthly cycle is also why you get paid less would be beyond infuriating.

It is possible of course that some women do have a high use of sick leave due to their menstrual cycle. But I do not believe, and have not seen a shred of evidence in support, the notion that the prevalence of this is significant enough to actually affect average pay rates.

Now the original comments by Alasdair were survivable. All he had to do was to say something along the lines of “A couple of employers had anecdotally mentioned to me this was an issue for them, but I was quite wrong to link it to average pay rates between genders as it is not a factor, and I apologise for mentioning it in the interview”.

But instead we got the Tv3 interviews where he could not have made a worse impression of himself. If Helen Kelly could invent a wicked caricature of an employers boss, she couldn’t have done better than what we saw. Rambling justifications, instructions to the cameraman as if he was the producer, demanding no interruptions, walking out, patronising the female reporters, constantly referring to his own staff members in a way which I found demeaning, standing over Mihi Forbes and angrily remonstrating with her, calling her a liar, demanding previous footage be declared off the record retrospectively and the list just goes on.

I don’t know how professional media trainers like Brian Edwards, Judy Callaghan, Bill Ralston and Janet Wilson even managed to watch a few minutes of the video without their heads exploding in despair that someone could come across so badly in what is meant to be a damage control setting.

EMA Northern need to consider what they have to do to repair the damage. My only advice is that it does not involve Alasdair doing another round of TV interviews.

Staff for Members of Parliament will now face the 90 day no rights trial period, unless they are employed to work for Labour, says Darien Fenton, Labour’s spokesperson for Labour Issues.

“Labour does not believe that 90 day trial period is fair, justified or needed and our caucus has unanimously resolved that no Labour MP or manager will accept a 90 day trial period as part of the employment of any new staff member,” Darien Fenton said.

This is hilarious hypocrisy, because Darien has forgotten to mention one key thing.

All parliamentary staff who work for an MP or a parliamentary party (even if they have worked there for 20 years) are effectively on a permament probation period where they can be dismissed at any time, regardless of performance.

In every employment contract there is a clause called “irreconciable differences”, which states that if your MP or Leader declares they have irreconciable differences, you lose you job in return for a payout.

So Labour trumpeting that their staff are protected from the 90 day probation period is meaningless, as Labour MPs can (and have) sack their staff at any time without any need to prove it is a justified dismissal.

The question that should be asked of Labour is why do they campaign to deny other employers the same rights they have as MPs to dismiss their staff purely because they no longer have confidence in them.

The policy, which will require a change to the Electoral Act, will allow voters to sack an MP if they feel the MP is not working out. There will be two ways this could happen.

If 10% of an electorate MP’s constituents sign a sacking petition within 90 days of an electorate MP’s election, then their seat falls vacant. It is thought unlikely to be used often, due to the cost of a by-election. This will discourage opposition parties from using the provision recklessly, but allows the voters to take action if an MP is clearly just not working out.

The provisions around List MPs are harsher. A petition to sack an MP from their list spot can be lodged at any time. However it must be signed by at least 500 members of the party that MP represents in Parliament. This will provide an incentive for List MPs to better represent their party’s interests.

The policy has been approved by Cabinet, but not yet gone to Caucus, where there may be some resistance. However the case will be put to MPs that this just puts them on a level playing field with parliamentary staff who are on a effective permament probation period. Staff who work in a parliamentary or MPs office can be dismissed without cause at any time, under a provision in their employment contract called “irreconcilable differences” which is a fancy term for “am sick of you”.

Paying overnight staff to sleep will cost more than $500 million over three years and changing the law may be considered, Health Minister Tony Ryall says.

The Court of Appeal yesterday upheld an earlier Employment Court decision against an IHC provider, which had opposed paying for sleep-over hours. Instead of a shift allowance of about $30, staff would get at least the minimum hourly wage.

If this is the law, then the law needs to change. If you are rostered to be on call then you should get some kind of allowance for this, but to get paid the same rate of pay for sleeping as for actually working is just ridicolous.

Staff know this. This is why they accepted jobs where you get paid at least the minimum wage for hourrs you actually work, and a lesser allowance for merely being on call.

If the law is not changed (or appealed to Supreme Cout) then $500 million will be be spent – and not extra patient or pupil will get better care due to it. It will be $500 million for a zero return. No IHC patient will get better care due to that $500 million.

I note Labour have said they would provide the extra funding. God know what rainbow they think they will find the pot of gold under. Their promises must be getting close to $10b now. Just last night their Botany candidate was promising that ECE funding would be increased to 1% of GDP.

THE Commonwealth Bank has threatened its employees with disciplinary action, including dismissal, if they do not report criticism of the bank made by others on social media channels, including Facebook.

The Finance Sector Union yesterday demanded the suspension of the bank’s new social media policy, accusing it of trying to restrict freedom of expression.

Bank employees have been told they must immediately notify their manager if they become aware of “inappropriate or disparaging content and information stored or posted by others”, including non-employees, in the “social media environment”.

It says the content may damage the bank and its reputation.

“For example, your friend could post an inappropriate comment about the group on your Facebook page or create a blog about the group,” the policy says.

As well as notifying their manager, employees must assist the bank with any investigation into the material, and its removal.

This goes way way too far, and on this issue I’m all with the union. You absolutely should not slag your employer off on Facebook, but you have no duty at all to report online criticisms of your employer to them. Employees are not the Internet Police in their spare time.

I mean it really is so stupid to be almost laugable – requiring you to nark on your friends if they criticise your employer online.

They also have a copy of the official letters from BK.

Sometimes an employer can over-react to comments on Facebook, but in this case I don’t think Burger King is over-reacting. She directly slagged her employer off in a public forum.

If she had not named the employer, then that would not be an issue. Likewise if an employee just posts about a bad day at work, then an employer might be over-reacting to take action. But the comments made by Tyler undermine the good faith needed in the employer/employee relationship.

As it happens, she was also on a final warning for swearing and customer relations.

Data are now available to analyse these impacts in the policy’s first several months in operation.¹ NZIER has conducted an initial analysis of the publicly available data from Statistics New Zealand’s Linked Employer-Employee Database (LEED), including April 2009 to September 2009. Our analysis assessed year-over-year changes in total jobs, accessions (hirings), and separations (firings) from 2005 to 2009 for six size categories of employers in 17 industries. The analysis controlled for seasonal variation in employment by identifying second and third quarter figures separately. Simple regression models² were estimated for the three employment variables. The models also included a variable indicating whether the trial period was in effect for the time period and firm size. The regressions used are a simple analytical technique; more complex models may be able to estimate the policy’s impact more precisely.

So this is an analysis of actual employer data from Stats NZ. So what did they find:

• The trial period appears to have increased hiring. On average, hiring by SMEs was almost six percentage points higher than expected, given the relative performance of other firms and the annual hiring trends.
• Total job numbers for these firms were also higher, by about two percentage points.
• These positive employment outcomes happened while hiring overall was falling. The model found that hirings fell on average in 2008 and 2009.
• There was little difference in hiring behaviours across industries.

A 6% improvement in hiring and a 2% improvement in job numbers are good outcomes. The extension of the 90 day trial period to all employers is a good thing.

Public servants will not be forced to have a 90-day probation period but it will not be ruled out in their contracts.

Well done Kate for accurately reporting the policy, rather than the hysteria that 90 day probation periods will be compulsory.

All that has been stated is that no government agency will agree to a collective agreement that forbids probation periods. If they agreed to such a thing, it would effectively ban grievance free probation periods.

Instead each agency will decide whether or not to ask for a probation period, when hiring someone.

A spokesman for the State Services Commission said government departments were always required to enact government policy. However, it would be silly to assume the 90-day probation period would be applied to everyone in the state sector, he said.

“You go through these incredibly long and arduous recruitment processes to get the best people, you don’t then turn around to them and say: `Oh by the way, we’re putting you (on a probation period),’. It’s just common sense.”

Exactly.

Incidentially in the UK they have just extended the grievance free period for employees from 12 months to 24 months. Shows how moderate the NZ policy is.

A former Social Development Ministry employee landed in hot water after posting a Facebook description of herself as a “very expensive paperweight”, “highly competent in the art of time wastage, blame-shifting and stationary [sic] theft”.

The Employment Relations Authority in Auckland this week refused to uphold a complaint from Tania Dickinson, 34, that she was unfairly dismissed from her role as a prison reintegration case manager at Work and Income’s Kawakawa service centre.

She was sacked in April for her comments on the social networking site, as well as arson charges she was facing at the time, and an incident in 2007 where she had been given a formal warning for accessing records of clients that she knew.

I suspect her arson charges were the bigger factor. However one does wonder whether the descriptions of her job were in fact correct.

So what are the actual law changes? There are several, and while I support most of them, I actually agree with the union criticism of one aspect of the changes.

• Consent needed by employer for union to enter workplace, but can not be reasonably withheld, and a response to a request must be given by end of the next working day, and reasons for any declining within two days max. Basically this just calls for some good faith between unions and employers. Unions can’t barge in whenever they like, and employers can’t unreasonably restrict access. Not sure there was a big problem to fix here though, so give this a 6/10. Was a 2008 election policy.
• Allowing employers to communicative with employees during collective bargaining, so long as not breach of good faith. This allows an employer to tell the truth to employees about what they have offered, if te union is mis-representing or lying about their offer. A not totally uncommon problem. 7/10
• Extending the 90 day trial provisions to all workplaces. This has been incredibly successful in workplaces of less than 20 employees. A DOL survey has found 40% of staff hired under a probation period would not have been offered the job without this provision. The CTU campaign against the bill has failed to come up with even one convincing example of abuse. I rate this extension as a 9/10.
• A small but significant change to the justification test for employers. The test changes from “what a fair and reasonable employer would have done” to “what a fair and reasonable employer could have done”. I’d rate this 8/10 as the current law had it almost impossible for employers to meet what was almost a mythical standard of perfection.
• An employee can ask an employer to cash up their 4th week of leave. This was National election policy and will be great for employees who need some extra money so they can enjoy the other three weeks of holidays more. It is worth noting that when you leave a job you get your outstanding leave paid out anyway, so not a big change for many. I give this a 9/10 as it is a big win for employees in giving them choice.
• Allows an employer to ask for a sick leave certificate for sick leave of less than three days duration, if the employer will pay for it. Previously an employer had to have reasons to suspect abuse. I don’t like this part of the law change. I think it is impractical as no doctor will ever be able to state whether someone really was sick two days ago for a day. People won’t be able to get in to see doctors in time. I give this change 2/10.

In this video the aggrieved ex-employee says he was never told of an employment contract or a 90 day trial. He goes onto say he has never had an employment contract in any hospitality job.

This where the CTU campaign backfires. He did not sign an employment contract in which he agrees to a 90 day probation period. Therefore it does not apply. He is going to win damages in court.

You have to wonder how desperate the CTU is for “examples” when the best they can come up with are ones that don’t even apply.

Now you may wonder, what if he had signed an employment contract with a probation period. did they really sack him at the end of 90 days merely for putting “too much sauce and aioli” on servings?

I’m suspicious, because why would an employer sack someone who is otherwise a great employee just for that? That will just cost the employer money and experience getting a replacement.

Sure enough the employer has a different story – one the CTU and Labour forgot to mention:

Mr Collins had said Mr Greave was not sacked because he used too much sauce and aioli.

“On the last day, my mum, the owner of the cafe, said to him, cut the use out, it’s too much wastage.

“[He was sacked] because he would change menus, wouldn’t listen to me as a superior.

“He wouldn’t listen to any instructions either from the owners of the cafe or myself as manager. [He] wouldn’t do his job the way we required it.

“He just wasn’t what we were looking for in a chef and basically I believe he just wasn’t willing to have a younger … member in charge.”

Mr Collins, who is 22 years old, said his age was a problem for Mr Greave, who called Mr Collins “very inexperienced” in the video.

I have to say the employer’s version has the ring of truth about it. You listen to the video of the ex-employee and you get the impression he thought he was better than the owners and he was indispensable.

At the end of the day, why would they have sacked him if it was only using too much sauce?

“Good faith” remains at the centre of New Zealand’s labour laws and, until now, has delivered relatively benign industrial relations.

The problem is that the Employment Relations Act’s authors couldn’t have anticipated a person such as Australian Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance boss Simon Whipp.

Australian unions are overbearingly powerful and notoriously corrupt, with historic links to organised crime. It was to people with that cultural inheritance that New Zealand’s actor unionists turned – implausibly, they claim, simply because they wanted a chat with the New Zealand Screen Production and Development Association.

In fact, Mr Whipp then conspired with other union bosses in Australia, Canada, the US and the UK to arrange a global boycott of The Hobbit, which would have cost more than 2500 highly-skilled, highly-paid jobs and unravelled an industry worth more than New Zealand’s entire exports of beef, butter or cheese.

But the problem has been solved, or has it?

Good faith is meant to be a mutual obligation, requiring parties to interact constructively. It covers the whole relationship between employer and employee, not just formal bargaining, and includes not only current but intended employers and employees – including those working under commercial contracts who want to become employees. …

Not even in their fevered imaginations could it be considered good faith to conspire with militant union thugs across the English-speaking world to organise a global boycott of a vitally important project which already pays above industry averages – and all without even giving prior warning to the employer of their intention to do so.

Actors aren’t alone in making a mockery of “good faith.” Similar conduct is under way in secondary schools from the PPTA, a union with a history of communist connections. It has no intention of dealing in good faith with the Ministry of Education because its true objective is industrial havoc in election year. The primary teachers’ union will no doubt also find a pretext for havoc in 2011, probably over national standards – a policy which, like few others, has received overwhelming mandates from parents and voters. Other unions plan to sabotage the Rugby World Cup.

So good faith seems to be rather lacking from the unions, Hooton says.

The government may also need to consider whether the law around “good faith” should be reviewed in the light of union antics. The provisions imposing good faith obligations on unions as well as employers could be strengthened. Or perhaps employers could be able to apply to the courts to have organisations like Actors Equity and the teacher unions proscribed and the requirement to deal with them in good faith removed. Or perhaps “good faith” needs to go altogether.

That would be a shame – but it would be Ms Walsh, Ms Ward-Lealand, Ms Malcolm, Ms Kelly and Mr Whipp who would be responsible.

By coincidence (or maybe not) I also had a phone call on Friday, saying that the laws around good faith need to be reviewed as the unions make such a mockery around them. Is it possible Mr Hooton is flying a kite for certain people within National who want to see change in this area? If so, they have certainly been given an opportunity to do so by not just the MEAA, but also PPTA and NZEI.

Like Matthew, I think this would be a shame. I think good faith is important in the employment realm. But it does need to apply both ways, not one way.

A UMR survey released today by the CTU shows that 80 per cent of New Zealanders oppose the Government’s planned changes to dismissal law.  Previous polls had asked the question about whether respondents supported a 90 day trial and unsurprisingly, the majority said yes – because after all these were already allowed under previous law.

But Darien is wrong in claiming the UMR poll shows 80% are opposed. The question that was asked is:

“Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed, even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?

Now that question is open to a very wide interpretation. An appeal can mean anything from asking your boss to reconsider, to appealing to your boss’ boss to “appealing” to the ERA.  The question is so wide, that it of relatively little value (in my opinion) in judging whether or not people support or oppose the Govt’s law change.

Note this is not a criticism of UMR.  This is a criticism of how Labour and the CTU have portrayed the results.

As a comparison, let us look at the poll done by Colmar Brunton for One News. It asked:

Currently employment law allows a business to take on a new worker and then if it does not work out dismiss that worker within 90 days without the worker being able to take a personal grievance claim. Currently the scheme only applies to companies with fewer than twenty employees but now the government plans to extend the 90 day trial period to cover all companies and so all new workers could be subject to the scheme. Some people believe this places workers in a vulnerable position but the government claims it creates jobs because businesses will be more willing to take on a new worker.

Do you think the 90 day trial law should be extended to cover all companies every time someone starts a new job?

Now this is a far better question (for judging if someone agrees with the Government’s proposed law change) as it tells people what the current law is, tells them what the proposed change is, and summarises arguments for and against.

Colmar Brunton found 60% in favour of extending the 90 day law to all companies.

This is a good example of the importance of poll questions. And again it isn’t that one question is necessarily “good” and one is “bad”.  It is about whether one can fairly interpret the poll result as reflecting what the public think of a proposed law change.

It is quite clear that the UMR result can not be used as representing public opinion on the Government’s law change. All it can be used for is representing whether people think there should be some sort of generic appeal from dismissal decisions – no details on who the appeal should be to – which is crucial. And an appeal is not the same as the right to take a personal grievance and get compensation etc.

One has to wonder why the CTU did not ask the same question as One News? The answer is obvious.

Heather Smith was publicised in the union’s “name and shame” campaign after being sacked by Stokes Valley Pharmacy in Hutt Valley.

She had worked there for almost three years, but had to re-apply for her job late last year after the business changed ownership and name, and was sacked a few weeks later.

Now this case concerned me. Because the 90 day grievance free provisions are meant to apply to new employees only, not existing employees. I wasn’t convinced that a change of ownership could change things.

If her job was truly made redundant and she applied for a new job, then that may be a grey area – but if she was carrying on in much the same job then it would not be a true redundancy.

So I checked with the Minister’s office, and was told that the case the CTU had highlighted had gone to court – something not mentioned in the original media reports. This is a good thing, as it looked like the 90 day period had been misused.

And the court has ruled:

The first employment case brought to court under 90-day trial laws has gone in favour of a dismissed employee, prompting the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) to send a warning to employers.

Backed by the CTU, Ms Smith’s case ended up in the Employment Court, which ruled in a decision released today that the new employer had not complied with contractual requirements of the Employment Relations Act relating to the trial period, meaning laws preventing Ms Smith taking a personal grievance case were nullified.

The court also referred to “good faith” expectations and said the employer had not lived up to those in its dismissal of Ms Smith and there were grounds for a personal grievance.

CTU president Helen Kelly said the employer had relied on the law for complete indemnity from standards of decent employment practice, but was found to have breached both good faith requirements and terms in the employment agreement.

This is a good ruling by the court, and I am glad the CTU helped take the case. Unions do often play a valuable role in protecting some workers.

However I believe it was wrong to include this case as one of the 90 day examples, when there was in fact a lawsuit underway arguing it was not covered by the 90 day law. And indeed we have found out that the law is not as wide reaching as the CTU claimed.

We don’t know the employer’s side of the story, as they were not interviewed. What we do know, is that Florence Cohen (let us presume they made a typo” is a Labour Party activist.

Now this does not mean Florence’s version of what happened is not correct. But the failure to identify her as a Labour activist is significant, considering the Labour Party is campaigning to get rid of the law, and this means an activist is hardly someone unbiased.

In the comments Trevor Mallard tries to spin this as:

Lots of people join political parties after being treated unfairly. Good on you Florence.

Sadly for Trevor, the Labour site shows Florence joining in April 2009, and the law only came into force in March 2009, so it is impossible for Florence to have only joined Labour after a dismissal at the end of a 90 day probationary period under the new law.

I want to stress that I think Florence comes across well on the video, and I am not disputing she may have had a negative experience under this law. I don’t want people attacking a 17 year old who may have done nothing wrong.

My criticism is of the CTU for not doing full disclosure. Being a partisan activist is relevant information if you are put forward as a “victim” of a law your party strongly opposes.

The PM was quite bolshie this week about the CTU’s open letter and threats to cut off political co-operation. He reminded the CTU’s Helen Kelly he’d broken a National Party promise by heeding union pleas not to break what he called the union “monopoly” on collective bargaining. It’s something the CTU should “think about,” he said.

So let’s see if I have this right.

Prior to the last election the CTU ran advertisements and explicitly campaigned against National. They even targeted senior MPs in video ads.

Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.

Instead John Key gives the CTU direct access to him. And even better he agrees to hold off on implementing two of National’s election policies – employer consent for access, and removing the union monopoly for collective bargaining.

So just think about this. He has a National/ACT majority. He could implement his entire election policy and in fact some of ACT’s. But instead he agrees to defer two policies to keep happy the very same organisation that campaigned against him.

18 months later, he announces that one of the two deferred policies will be implemented. A policy that was explicit election policy. And on the basis of this, the CTU claims it will call for strikes, industrial action and refuse all co-operation.

There is a lesson in this for John Key. As admirable as it is to be Mr nice guy, and try actually extend the hand of friendship to the CTU, despite them campaigning explicitly against you, it was always doomed to fail. The CTU will always put first its desire to get Labour into office, and was always going to turn around and crap on you. They just needed the excuse.

I mean does anyone really think it is a rational decision to declare you are now against all free trade agreements and will try and stop them, just because a union now has to let an employer know at least a few minutes in advance if they want to visit?

The PM should get on and implement the remainder of the 2008 industrial relations policy. Unions should indeed not have a monopoly on collective bargaining. A group of employees should be able to negotiate a collective contract themselves without needing to form a union.

Likewise a lawyer should be able to represent a group of employees, and negotiate a collective contract on their behalf. You do not need a union to negotiate a collective contract. Labour merely passed a law requiring it. Under the former law, there were quite a few collective contracts that did not involve unions.

The left-wing activists who stormed the Sky City Hotel last Sunday in an inevitably futile attempt to force their way into the National Party conference should take a good hard look at themselves.

The noisy fracas with security guards inside Auckland’s Temple to Capitalism certainly got the activists what they wanted – top-of-the-bulletin coverage on that evening’s television news. But if they think such tactics are going to mobilise public opinion against the Government’s just-released package of workplace law reforms then they should think again.

Their actions were widely viewed within the Labour Party as unhelpful, though no one was saying so publicly.

Sue Bradford and John Minto charging a Police line just sends people into the opposite direction.

While others on the left have been quick to label National’s package as a “class war” being waged on the country’s workers, Labour has avoided using such over-the-top language.

When it comes to portraying National’s policy prescription, there is a danger of crying wolf. More so because much of the package is based on National’s 2008 election policy. That prescription pleasantly surprised some left-wing commentators for being so moderate and not a return to the Employment Contracts Act. They cannot now turn around and argue that the package released by Key last Sunday is designed to wage class war.

And many aspects will actually be welcomed by employees such as the ability to trade leave for pay.

Even the 90 day trial period will be popular with many employees I reckon. We’ve all seen new people hired at a workplace and within a week or two it is apparent they are not up to the job. It isn’t just the bosses, but the other employees, who often have to carry them until they finally leave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dom Post:

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

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

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

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

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

Finally the ODT:

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

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

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

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

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

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