Kiwiblog

1. Argentina (3 – 12 months)
2. Armenia (3 – 6 months)
3. Australia (3 – 6 months)
4. Austria (1 month)
5. Belgium (up to 6 months)
6. Brazil (90 days)
7. Canada (3 months renewable)
8. Cyprus (6 months)
9. Czech Republic (3 months)
10. Finland (4 – 6 months)
11. France (1 – 3 months)
12. Germany (6 months)
13. Ireland (12 months)
14. Italy
15. Japan
16. Jordan (90 days)
17. Korea (3 months)
18. Latvia
19. Luxemburg
20. Republic of Moldova
21. Pakistan
22. Portugal
23. Russia (3 – 6 months)
24. Serbia
25. Slovenia
26. South Africa
27. Spain
28. Sweden
29. Switzerland (1 – 3 months)
30. Thailand
31. Turkey
32. Ukraine
33. UAE (6 months)
34. UK
35. US (6 – 12 months)

This change is bringing NZ into the mainstream. We are catching up to Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, France and Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway what are the other changes announced by National.

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

This is common for almost all tribunals.

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

Oh how evil, promoting mediated settlements.

Behaviour that delays the Authority will be penalised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best thing about the Government’s decision to extend the option of 90 day grievance periods to all employers, is that the unions have planned a protest today outside the National Party conference.

Many delegates had lamented how much they miss the traditional protests outside, so thanks to the CTU for going to the effort to organise one.

Turning to the merits of the policy, I would commend to readers a copy of the DOL report into the current 90 day grievance free period for small employers. Not online yet, but expect will be on DOL website on Monday. Some key facts from their survey:

• Half of the employers who had hired someone since 1 March 2009 had used a trial period for at least one employee.
• 74% of those in a trial period retained their employment, 5% were still in the trial period and 22% were let go.
• In relation to the last employee hired on a trial period, 40% of employers said they would not (or likely would not) have hired that person without a trial period!!

That last paragraph is staggering, and shows how important the trial periods have been for convincing employers to take on extra staff. With the risk of being lumbered with an unsuitable staff member diminished, many more employers are willing to expand.

43% of those on trial periods were aged under 25, and this makes sense – it is employees with relatively little experience and skills who are the biggest gamble for an employer, and stand to benefit most. Of course one also need to delink the youth minimum wage from the adult one.

What I also found interesting is that a third of those dismissed during the 90 day trial period were let go within two weeks. This indicates that it becomes absolutely clear within days that the person has hired is just clearly not up to the job. Anyone who has been an employer knows this problem.

It costs considerable money and time for employers to employ staff. They want new staff to stay on if they can do the job.  But sometimes (and it seems to be around 1 in 10 of all new staff) they clearly show they are either lacking the skills or the temperament to be a productive member of a team, and the trial period allows the employment relationship to be halted without forcing the employer into spending tens of thousands of dollars on an employee who never contributed much of value to the business (it generally takes some months for new employees to come up to full speed).

At the end of the day, remember that 40% figure. 40% of those on trial periods would probably not have been offered jobs at all, if the 90 day law had not been passed.

The Herald on Sunday editorial concludes:

Anything that encourages an employer to take a punt on a new worker – and in particular to give a chance to someone who shows promise but lacks credentials – must be worth trying. It defies common sense that cost-conscious bosses will casually sack someone they have spent three months training. …

But in opposing the extension of the trial scheme unions seem more driven by ideology than good sense.

How unusual!

The Herald reports:

One of New Zealand’s largest unions says the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) is “scaremongering” when it claims employees should face legal action for complaining about their jobs on Facebook.

The Engineering and Manufacturers Union (EPMU) has come out strongly against the call from the EMA, saying that prosecuting people for what they say online comes “dangerously close” to impinging on fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

EMA employment services manager David Lowe said the use of social media was untested in employment law but employers should take action if employees badmouthed them online.

“Some employees continue to say things on their social networking pages forgetting it isn’t private. Businesses must not sit back and allow their reputations to be sullied by the thoughtless comments of employees or ex-employees.”

Not much one can do about ex-employees, except to point out the obvious that slagging a former employer off in public may make it difficult for them to get future jobs.

In terms of current employees, the EPMU’s position seems rather strange. As much as I support free speech, that is not to say speech does not have consequences.

If an employer or manager posted on their Facebook site that they wanted to strangle a employee because the employee was always fucking things up, I have no doubt the EPMU would say this is outrageous and a breach of the good faith needed in employment relationships.

The same applies in reverse. If an employee is slagging off the employer, managers or even colleagues, that is a breach of the relationship.

Now having said that, an employer should not over react. If an employee is being indiscreet with their comments on say Facebook, the best approach would be to point out why this is a bad idea, and the consequences that could occur.

Now if someone has their Facebook page restricted to friends only, you can argue this is not in public. But then one presumes an employer would not get to see it. If they do, then pretty much by definition it is not private.

The SST reports:

CHUCKING SICKIES could be a thing of the past if the Service and Food Workers’ Union’s call for “whanau leave” to give people time off work to care for dependants is adopted.

But we already have whanau leave. S65(1) of the Holidays Act states sick leave can be used for you, your partner or dependents.

Massey University Albany psychology lecturer Dianne Gardiner said the idea should be adopted because the law does not reflect the realities of life, including looking after sick children and parents.

I think the lecturer should read the Holidays Act.

While countries such as Japan and Australia provide 10 days for personal sickness, bereavement or to care for dependants, New Zealand legislates for just five, which have to include any time off to care for family.

Now this is a different issue. This is about the quantity of leave available, which is different from whether one can use sick leave for family members – which is currently allowed.

The union’s northern regional secretary Jill Ovens said her 23,000 members were this week expected to ratify a clause calling for five whanau leave and 10 sick days, on which the union would campaign.

She said the statutory minimum is inadequate because people could easily use five days on dependants and have nothing for themselves. “Even with 10 days a year, it’s quite difficult to manage if you’ve got children or elderly dependants. A lot of people who are still working have elderly parents.”

I have some agreement with the union, in that the legislative minimum of five days is rather low. In fact I don’t think I know of an employer who doesn’t provide for at least ten. I would be open to persuasion that the minimum should be 10.

Going beyond 10 (which is around one day in 20) would be going too far in the other direction I think. Some employees do see sick leave as a target, not a safety net, and maximise their sick leave. Many employers do react with compassion to someone who is genuinely sick for longer than 10 days a year, and don’t force them to start taking annual or unpaid leave, even though they could.

Businesses need staff working, in order to make money. Aready of the 250 “work days” a year, staff get 11 days of public holidays, 20 days of annual leave and normally ten days of sick leave.  That averages out to a worker not being at work one day in six (on top of weekends).

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.