90-day workplace probation

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Aren't they doing you, or anyone unlucky enough to work there, a favour by firing you after 90 days? Imagine what it would be like working there for your whole life.

I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing that some nasty employers use the 90-days trial period to fire employees. At least you KNOW they are nasty, and it is better to NOT work for them. I don't see the data that there is widespread abuse (and at this point, any data is not stable enough to lead to any meaningful conclusion anyway, all we get is anecdotal evidence.).

Depends, did I need that money to feed my kids? People will put up with a lot of shit to keep their families fed.

Remember what WINZ does if you get fired - you get a 13 week stand-down for any UB application. Unless they've changed that policy... niiice.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by CCS

I would have thought maybe you'd realise that I was giving a facetious reply to an idiotic claim.

And I was using exaggeration to make a point. There won't be a huge amount of abuse, but there will be. People like the Exclusive Brethren have employees too. I'm not against trial periods - what I'm against is giving the employee no practical rights of redress.

Originally Posted by David

Businesses in NZ that work in production or manufacturing have such a hard road to make it anywhere due to international competition. Mother and father businesses have been fucked over for years by bad employees and this just opens the door to get rid of them.

Yes, that's why they've expanded the 90 days to all businesses; because all businesses in New Zealand are owned by a Mum and a Dad (you homophobe).

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Yes, that's why they've expanded the 90 days to all businesses; because all businesses in New Zealand are owned by a Mum and a Dad (you homophobe).

90% of businesses in NZ are like this, though as someone else stated - 20 or less staff.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

My viewpoint is simple, that NZ has very good conditions for the unskilled worker and that their base level quality of life isn't much different from the middle class.

Dude, have you ever been on minimum wage _and_ not living at home at the same time?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

90% of businesses in NZ are like this, though as someone else stated - 20 or less staff.

So they were already covered, so why extend it?

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

So they were already covered, so why extend it?

Because, why not?

Discrimination of larger businesses solely because they're bigger can't work, splitting the law down the line of size never works.

Let's take away the idea that this is an incentive to employ in borderline situations, let's take away the fact that this should protect people from a rotten employee and give them some degree of power to get rid of them and let's put to bed the concerns that somehow gay people are going to be fired on mass because they're gay....

Do you honestly believe New Zealand businesses hire people just to fire them and do you know the costs of employment for a business?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Cynos

And I was using exaggeration to make a point.

So was I. But it was fixed_truth who was having a cry over my response so I'll let him defend himself, mmkay?

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

Good synopsis, basically anyone who has overseas work experience sees a probation as the norm.

Could you argue that it's necessary in countries like Australia because of the increased protection/benefits you get once you're past that probationary period e.g. massive redundancy payouts etc?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by David

Do you honestly believe New Zealand businesses hire people just to fire them and do you know the costs of employment for a business?

As I said earlier most employees are still going to do all they can to hire the people who are the best suited for the job (ie, qualification and experience wise) and not hire those undesirables who don’t make it past the interview & checks etc. The probation period won't effect these businesses.

All the bill does it create a loop hole for poorly run and dodgy businesses to exploit. And peoples rights will get abused.

[CCS]

So what's your solution? Short of simply scrapping the bill, what would you do to improve it?

[David]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

As I said earlier most employees are still going to do all they can to hire the people who are the best suited for the job (ie, qualification and experience wise) and not hire those undesirables who don’t make it past the interview & checks etc. The probation period won't effect these businesses.

All the bill does it create a loop hole for poorly run and dodgy businesses to exploit. And peoples rights will get abused.

So, all I see here is "Some employers who aren't repsonsible and are generally nasty people/dodgy businesses will use this to exploit people, therefore we should ignore the fact that there are many dodgy employees who employers have no protection from"

Typical left wing viewpoint and it's (much like every other left wing viewpoint) a social engineering nanny state point of view where the few should outweigh the needs of the many.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Cynos

And if I come back with a legit medical cert, the employer pays for it, right? If your plan includes that part, it sounds fair.

I think it sounds fair but is largely counter-productive. First it simply pushes people onto the GP system who don't need to be there because it is a work requirement and prevents the really sick people from getting timely treatment. Second the message being sent to employees is that the company doesn't trust them and is prepared to nickel and dime them where it can. That perceived attitude can be very toxic long term as it tends to promote a similar mentality of nickel and diming back from the employees.

This is one employment practice my old employer, GNS Science, got right. Sick days were just claimed when needed and only if two or more days were claimed was a doctors certificate potentially needed. The end result is that staff there have lower than average rates of sickdays because the mentality goes from it being a contractual right to have x days of sick leave per year to it being something the company is generously providing and so the inclination is to not abuse the system.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by David

...where the few should outweigh the needs of the many.

Except that it's not a "need" in either classical, or economic sense is it? You are right that the minorities shouldn't not hold the power - but conversly we don't want to be in a situation of tyranny of the masses either do we?

Pixie

[fixed_truth]

therefore we should ignore the fact that there are many dodgy employees who employers have no protection from"

See this is BS. What's the difference between business's that don't have problems with bad eggs & ones that do? The ones that don't have a problem are the ones that have taken the time to to do adequate screening & implement performance reviews based on the job description.

[Lightspeed]

I'm pretty sure there are many stories scattered around NZG of employers being assholes, in spite of the law. Giving employers the legal right to be cunts (e.g. insisting on a medical certificate for any sick leave taking) is incredulous.

[CCS]

I bought a sandwich today... it was incredulous!

[Lightspeed]

Dammit, I should have said NZG is rife with stories of asshole employers.

[chubby]

finally, there's been a preponderance of clever right-wingers here for a while.
then david arrives and sucks nearly all the IQ points out of the room.

o for......

[Ab]

I am incredible.

Alison Murray left a well paid, secure job to take up her dream position as an art valuer with Dunbar Sloane. But two weeks after starting she received a letter telling her she was fired.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...fter-two-weeks

[David]

Originally Posted by Ab

I am incredible.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...fter-two-weeks

Saw it, and yet her work says "There were valid reasons, but in the interests of privacy, we're not telling"

For all we know, she could have been pig fucking hopeless.

[Lightspeed]

Actually, I didn't even think about that angle. How is someone supposed to look further their career if the risk is leaving your job for one where they can fire you on a whim?

[Ab]

I dunno, how about being good at what you do?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Ab

I dunno, how about being good at what you do?

There's no accounting for that single cunt manager who takes personal offense at the slightest chance. I do believe there was a series of GMGs from a member suffering such a cunt.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, cause being good at what you do is foolproof protection from bullshit office politics.

[Cynos]

What I want to know is what the hell you say when you go for your next job?

"So, what happened in your previous role?"
"They let me go after 70 days."
"Why?"
"Didn't say, wouldn't say when I asked them either."

Like, okay, let's say you made a genuine fuck-up that you're unware of and you get laid off. You want to learn from your mistakes right? But they don't have to tell you what the mistake was.

o_O

It's like they threw in that last little detail just for the extra dickery. Because it's now legal to say:

"You're fired"
"Why?"
"Because. Now clear your desk."

[David]

Yes, we should believe every GMG to the letter and assume that no fault can be placed upon the original poster because people are never irrational and view things solely from their side of the story, right?

If you're employed by a cunt and you stay in that position, more fool you.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cynos

There's no accounting for that single cunt manager who takes personal offense at the slightest chance.

Yeah, I see your point.

Originally Posted by Cynos

What I want to know is what the hell you say when you go for your next job?

I wouldn't even mention it. If a job didn't work out during probation I wouldn't even include that job on my resume.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

Yes, we should believe every GMG to the letter and assume that no fault can be placed upon the original poster because people are never irrational and view things solely from their side of the story, right?

I've got no reason to consider CCS a liar. If you've got evidence to prove your assertion that he's lying, pos it.

Originally Posted by David

If you're employed by a cunt and you stay in that position, more fool you.

I've got a family to feed, and a shit boss.

Do I:

a) get a new job, and hope that I don't get fired within 90 days
b) stay in my current job, because at least I'm legally protected and can continue to earn money under a framework of legal protection.

FUCK YEAH, WHAT CHOICE THIS NEW LAW CHANGES PROVIDE TO ME.

[chubby]

http://publicaddress.net/6764#post6764

The report says the imbalance was "due to resource constraints". Similar constraints meant that an assessment of "macro-economic impacts of and influences on trial periods, such as the wider labour market, was out of scope of this study."

It looks to me as if an exercise in doing what the notes say – assessing employer understanding of recent changes in employment law – has been hijacked to allow the government to claim that one particular policy, the 90-day trial period, has worked well and created few if any problems. It doesn't show that. It couldn't show that.

I don't regard employers as the enemy. That would be ridiculous. The enterprise and willingness to embrace risk of employers literally pays the rent of millions of people. I don't regard farmers as the enemy either – but it would be insane to base your fields-and-streams environmental policy entirely on what farmers think, wouldn't it? You'd take some actual measurements.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

Yeah, I see your point.



I wouldn't even mention it. If a job didn't work out during probation I wouldn't even include that job on my resume.

"And where were you working from XX to YY?"

[Ab]

"During those weeks I was--what on earth is that over there?!"
***FALCON PUNCH***

[Lightspeed]

So if this law were to pass, is it likely this have to be included in your contract to apply, or alternatively will you be able to stipulate in your contract that this does not apply? Or will it be something that applies regardless of your contract?

[Ab]

If I was hiring and someone said a condition of their application was that there would be no probation, their application would go straight to the trash.

[chubby]

^^ how much will you be paying for your lawyer?

lightspeed actually

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

If I was hiring and someone said a condition of their application was that there would be no probation, their application would go straight to the trash.

What about if they said 30 days probation? Or if they said 90 days probation with conditions (e.g. a single written warning)?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by chubby

^^ how much will you be paying for your lawyer?

lightspeed actually

You don't need a lawyer to negotiate your contract.

[crocos]

With very few exceptions (mainly around copyright) you cannot contract out of the law. Pretty sure that applies to the probation period.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You don't need a lawyer to negotiate your contract.

i mean post-dismissal.

[Lightspeed]

That... doesn't really have any bearing on my question.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

So if this law were to pass, is it likely this have to be included in your contract to apply, or alternatively will you be able to stipulate in your contract that this does not apply? Or will it be something that applies regardless of your contract?

The Government says there is nothing to stop individuals or unions negotiating out of its controversial 90-day probation period.

But as Ab said there's nothing stoping employers making the probation period a prerequisite for employment.