Proposed changes to extend 90 day fire at will bill not good!!
|
Quote:
Sure, we all saw this coming a year or two ago, but it still fucking GMG. |
I was going to post about how I hate microwaves that don't clearly state their wattage, but your post GMGs much worse.
|
Quote:
|
TnT - fair enough :)
I used to think that unions stopped being useful somewhere back in the 70s, however last year I had a pretty good demonstration as to how they can be utilised today. Most employees will join unions as a last ditch effort when they feel they're being screwed over by an employer, so to then make them go through that same employer to gain consent is a bit like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Add this to a workforce that has practically no protection against sudden "restructuring", with new employers being able to fire at whim within a 3 month trial, and it all starts to add up. Really pisses me off, as the people who will be most affected by this will be those who can least afford to be. That last sentence pains me for some reason. Too tired to grammar proper, bro. Not writing good GMG. Sleep soon. Zzzz. |
Quote:
The fact is, it's VERY costly for an employee to hire a staff member. It's so costly in fact that it is simply NOT worth firing someone unless they're negatively impacting your business to such an extent that you have no other option and you're willing to pay a $6k cost in the courts to get rid of them. Painting employers as nasty people who want no reason at all to fire someone is fucking pathetic, pedantic and grinds my gears, because it's usually from care bear type individuals with left wing views in life - sorry, did I say left wing? I meant socially fucking inept and retarded views in life. |
Yeah, I fail to see the gear-grind here. Seems eminently sensible to me.
|
Quote:
Just to clarify though, I haven't painted employers as nasty people. However there are those who will abuse this policy and trying to paint all employers as caring sharing group-hug types who only want the best for their employees is fucking deluded. IF the employer has legitimate reason to get rid of an employee, they should have absolutely no problem firing them the old fasioned way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is a reason almost every single business course worth it's salt teaches you how to sack someone and simply pay the court costs when they're terrible. This here allows employers a period of grace to see if an employee is workable without having to stump up with the 6-8k on average it takes to just sack someone. If you feel personally worried by that, be a better worker. |
To further indicate what I mean by this.
Currently if you want to sack someone through "the due process", by law, you have to have a series of three meetings with the person to discuss performance. After the first meeting and you ask them to correct their behaviour/reason you're having issues - you have to give a reasonable period of time (for their job) for their behaviour/skill to improve. If it doesn't - you have a second meeting, same process, must give reasonable period of time - usually 30 days. So you're now at two months after you've originally had an issue, you've had to go by the book and you now have to have a third meeting with the person, at which point, so long as you have objective reasoning that has been documented from day 1 about the performance of a person, that you have existing KPI's across the company that the person knew they needed to perform and these MUST be documented for the position, and that you've given them a reasonable period to improve..... you can fire them, they're still likely to take you to court and in something like 75% of the cases for SMEs, they win. Mother and father businesses suffer most here because they generally have a product or idea they've worked hard to establish, they employ a shithead by accident and due to not having the business structure nor business acumen to have all the processes in place, they're basically fucked and keep the bad staff member because advice is hard to find without paying the world to it. For these people, that type of staff member can be make or break. |
Quote:
Adding insult to injury, the employee can't even turn to a union for help in negotiations because they will now need their employers consent to even join a union. Whatever way you look at it, that's bullshit, ref. |
Quote:
Me personally? The 90 day rule will never effect me as an employee because I'm good at my job and I don't fuck around with my employers time (beyond reasonable levels). As an employer? It would be the difference between hiring someone on gut instinct or not. |
I'd suggest you could fire someone faster than that, with 3 warnings, as each warning doesn't need to be for the same thing at all.
I've moved someone from 'safely employed' to 'final written warning' in the course of a month, when they fucked up big time (costly), then had a sexual harassment complaint against them(which they didn't challenge). They were already on a verbal warning for an unrelated (very) expensive mistake. If they do anything that's significant enough for a warning now they're out the door. That said, I remember the case of a woman that was getting hired, working well for 3 months, then turning to complete shit, getting dismissed and claiming wrongful dismissal through the employment tribunal, winning , getting paid out, and doing it all again. She'd done the same thing to several businesses in a row. It's gonna suck for employees in unscrupulous companies (and there will be some abusing this), but for the most part it'd be nice to know you've got a fall back if you take a punt on someone that turns out to be a complete goddam muppet (which has happened to us, and has resulted in having to carry said muppet until he got the message and left) |
Quote:
Quote:
A few years ago I was doing production planning for a few factories and it was a bit of an eye opener for me. The people who spend 12 hours a day standing on concrete floors glueing your weetbix packets and carding the wool for your new carpets - they don't know shit about employment law. And their employers know it. Unions like the EPMU are the sole (loud and irritating) voice that stands between the workers and the managers, who I have personally seen fire people (on the spot, regardless of any employment law we have in the country) because they refused to work one Saturday or just pissed off the wrong asshole middle manager. Manufacturing is a dying business in this country anyway, long gone are the days when Joe Bloggs could walk out of a shit job at a tyre factory and straight into another shit job at a paper mill; so having your large factory bosses able to fire these guys at whim and deny them even the chance to negotiate is adding just another burden to the lower class. But hey, you're not lower class, why should you care? They just need to work harder, right? Because 12 hour days in absolutely disgusting conditions doing mind-numbing work for $13 per hour just isn't tough enough. |
Quote:
One thing though: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for "Roger Douglas fellating bullshit" - fuck off, in case you weren't aware, before Roger Douglas became Mr Corporatisation NZ for the Labour Government, he was heavily involved in unions in key positions and to this day, would still probably have involvement. You can cry all you like for people too stupid to get a bit of understanding around a topic that isn't that hard to understand. ps, from what I call, Factory/Production Workers have one of the lowest dismissal rates in the country for minimum wage work, so what the fuck are you smoking? |
Yep.
Opening the door for our low paid, unskilled & uneducated workers to get shafted is plain unethical. Employment legislation should be protecting these people. John Key doesn't care about poor people. |
it works fine in CA and AU that i've dealt with..
on the other side of the coin tho employers can hire people they're not 100% sure about and give those people the chance to prove themselves |
The legislation shouldn't give employers the room to abuse this policy. It's as simple as that.
|
Quote:
Does that settle things for you? Cool, as you were, soldier. |
If National had their way we'd still be up chimney's sweeping them out for 18hours a day.
|
My only problem with the original "90 day rule" was that it did not go far enough. Compare it with some other OECD countries:
In the UK, protection for unfair dismissal only begins after one year's service. In Germany, it's after 6 months. In both countries, the rule applies regardless of the size of the employer. Australia has a 6 month limitation period for employers with 15 or more employees, and a 12 month period for the smaller employers. So the proposal goes some way to bringing us in line with international practice, even if the length of 90 days is still woefully short (presumably a sop to the unions). As far as union access to workplaces, I don't know precisely what they're proposing, but denial based on "reasonable grounds" would seem to imply an objective standard. I highly doubt that they're proposing to give employers carte blanche to deny access. |
Quote:
|
Not to mention the 90-day trial is rewarding incompetent employers that can't even put in place a performance management framework.
|
Or for ever having to learn effective interviewing techniques.
|
|
"Man, I could really use an extra set of hands for this project."
"Dammit, no one is applying for this temporary position." "I know, I'll say it's a permanent position and then ditch them within 90 days!" |
Every country in the OECD (except for Denmark) restricts claims for unfair dismissal until after the employment relationship has existed for certain minimum length of time. Even Germany, a workers' paradise with some of the strongest employee protection laws in the world, allows for a six month trial period (with no restriction on the size of the employer).
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to be implying that the 90 day law lets employers kick back, not do their homework during recruiting and take someone on safe in the knowledge that they can be booted out with little consequence if they don't work out. Except that's nonsense. The 90 day law reduces the potential costs of dismissal by removing the threat of legal action, but the cost of recruiting someone and bringing them up to speed generally makes dismissal the option of last resort. In fact, the report just put out by the DoL says: "While the trial period eased dismissals for employers, the qualitative research showed employers recognised dismissals as an unfavourable outcome, and tried to avoid it. Employers were aware that the cost of recruitment and training made dismissals expensive, and some tried to work with the employee from the beginning to prevent a dismissal. Where employees were dismissed, there were cases of employers trying to find them other employment or training." |
Anyway, what else do find out from the DOL report?
1. 74% of employees retained their employment after their trial period finished. 2. The latest employee hired by the survey respondents was likely to be aged between 15-24. 3. 40% of employers would not have hired that person (or would likely not have hired that person) if they couldn't use a trial period. Why are you people against something that seems to be beneficial for youth employment? |
90-day workplace probation
(aggregated thread)
original discussion in 2008 starts about here http://www.nzgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1623264 |
Quote:
|
Well, it will be interesting to see how the changes to dismissal laws pan out. I guess National are trying to reduce the number of employment cases heard by lowering the standards of the law to match the standards of employers.
Poor employers. All they want to do is make money. What's that? Employee number 327 wants to be treated like a human? Wtf? What's that got to do with increasing profit? |
There are two sharp divisions of opinion here by the looks of things.
People who have started a business and/or have been personally responsible for hiring employees think the probation period is a great idea, people who haven't think it's terrible. People who have worked overseas think it's a great idea, people who have never worked anywhere other than NZ think it's terrible. |
Well, if someone who has started a business and been responsible for hiring people can explain it to me without coming across like a self-important cunt with severe Autism, I'd be happy to listen! :) I'm genuinely interested in how this can possibly be for the benefit of everyone. Not just businesses, but everyone. And no one has managed to come even close to answering that yet.
So far we have: - All businesses able to fire people within a 90 day trial, no questions asked. - Unions unable to access workplaces without employer consent. - Employment Relations Authority being able to throw out what it considers to be "time waster" cases. At its own discretion, naturally. - No more 'pedantic' scrutiny of employer processes, so employers no longer have to follow employment relation law to the word. Might as well call it the Employment Relations Guidelines. Sounding great for the common people of NZ, go the National Government! Yet another blow for human rights in this country. |
Nats are trying to sell this to sucke.... the voting public by saying that it opens up jobs that business would otherwise have not wanted to hire anyone for.
Clutching at straws IMO, but hey, politics = selling BS to voters who should by rights be voting for the other guys. |
The National party, looking after the working class man since ages ago :rolleyes:
|
All times are GMT +13. The time now is 03:53. |
Powered by Trololololooooo
© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2024
Site paid for by members (love you guys)