90-day workplace probation - Page 3

xor · 19th July 2010, 08:28

The accountants will be pleased. They don't have to worry so much about employee's accumulating leave on the wrong side of the ledger. Management will be able to get rid of them before that 90 day period is up and then get i a truck load more Mari's to pick the fruit. Cool eh Si?

xor · 19th July 2010, 08:36

or whatever it is that most Mari's are trained at, bone carving, flax weaving, road workers etc

ChaosWulf · 19th July 2010, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Hmmm...

Your employer can let you go within 90 days without telling you why you were let go. Kinda hard to prove discrimination unless they were REALLY blatant about it, which people don't tend to be if they know they've got a safe "out", and can just fire your ass.

xor · 19th July 2010, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Your employer can let you go within 90 days without telling you why you were let go. Kinda hard to prove discrimination unless they were REALLY blatant about it, which people don't tend to be if they know they've got a safe "out", and can just fire your ass.

Having an employee that has to go to a mari funeral disrupts the work flow. NEXT!

::Shocker · 19th July 2010, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Good luck with the job hunt

Cheers

_Incubus_ · 19th July 2010, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

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.

Good synopsis, basically anyone who has overseas work experience sees a probation as the norm. What ppl are ignoring you have to go through the traditional HR process of 3 written warnings to get rid of someone within the 3 months anyway, its not like you can just walk up and say pack your crap and get out.

The new one is getting rid of the 'mental health' days

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ne-day-sickies

This has been in OZ for a few years now, when you are sure that someone is taking the piss you can request a medical certificate to prove someone has a legitimate reason to take a day off, while it might not deter someone who wants to take a sickie, you can force them to front up to a doctor and spend money to justify it. It works really well with employees who have a string of Friday/Monday sick days..

David · 19th July 2010, 10:39

Speaking as an employee and an employer, the mental health sickdays are simply because some companies have no leniency over annual leave. I think if they had policy to allow a staff member five days of their annual leave where they can call in on the morning and take it, you'd get rid of quite a few of these one off sick days.

Of course that doesn't help with coverage and ensuring you have enough staff to do the role, that's a different issue all together. In my industry, it's not essential to have bums on seats everyday so we're more prone to get away with it, in a workplace like retail sales, less so.

xor · 19th July 2010, 10:49

Norton! Norton I think David looks like the kind of guy that can't handle pressure. I heard him on the phone to his girlfriend the other day, he sounded like a fag. I'm afraid we'll have to get rid of him. I also think he votes for the Greens.

Much lols to be had

David · 19th July 2010, 10:50

Awh Xor, always trying to face hump me.
Estrogen levels out of whack again? You should really stop that hormone shit you peddle.

xor · 19th July 2010, 10:53

Don't flatter yourself

ChaosWulf · 19th July 2010, 11:00

IMO employers being able to call employees on sick days is reasonable. I think they'd need a damn good reason for it, e.g. that employee always takes Mondays off sick or seems to always get "migraines" at pivotal work stress times. As the employer will be paying for the employee to see the doctor, I can't see why it should be a problem.
And YES, the "big brother from work now can haz access your private life" aspect does bother the hell out of me, but hey. If people want to take a break from work, that's what annual leave is for.

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

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

Apples & Oranges.

Because New Zealand is one of a few developed countries that don't have centralised collective bargaining only 20% of our workforce is covered by a union-negotiated collective agreement. Australia is 60%.

We have the fourth weakest employment protection level out of 28 OECD countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employm..._by_the _OECD

But good on National for making it even weaker

blynk · 19th July 2010, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

And further:
You can't work overtime because you have kids (something they knew when they hired you).
You won't put up with being belittled at the morning meetings.
You raise valid questions about outdated procedures.
You look better than the aging office bitch.
You won't make the boss a coffee at his whim as you have your own fucking work to do, it's not in your job description and you're not his fucking PA.

... and yes, these are all issues I've dealt with just within ONE company.

Ah yes, but they were all from ONE company. Of course there are going to be companies out there they will abuse this, but would surely be a tiny number.

I fall on the left of the ledger, and I support this. I've worked with people that are clearly not capable for the job.

Or an Alternative to this is that a job hunter must supply all previous job details which companies can ring for references, not just the favourable ones. That would allow a company to really see what a person is like.

I also agree with the sick days thing. Even if the company asks for a med cert, it's not that hard to go to a doctor and say that you have really bad stomach cramps and get a certificate, but at least if they are faking, it does interrupt their day.
If you wanted to be a real pain, you could say you have a really bad migrain, and that you can't drive, so they will need to pay for the taxi to take you to the doctors.

ChaosWulf · 19th July 2010, 13:04

You know what, blynk - I'm kinda done repeating myself here. Lets just say "I DISAGREE WITH YOU", and sincerely hope you're not in a situation one day where you look back and regret not standing up for your rights as a worker more.

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Hmmm...

I'm sure no-one will lie. "Oh it's because you were... gay, wait, I mean late. That one time."

And I hear that this legislation doesn't require the employer to actually tell you why you were fired.

"...nah, can't really tell you why, and legally don't have to. But rest assured, it's not because you were gay."

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 13:31

Incidentally, there's always been the capacity for employers and potential employees to agree to a trial period. What evidence is there that this mechanism failed?

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

This has been in OZ for a few years now, when you are sure that someone is taking the piss you can request a medical certificate to prove someone has a legitimate reason to take a day off, while it might not deter someone who wants to take a sickie, you can force them to front up to a doctor and spend money to justify it. It works really well with employees who have a string of Friday/Monday sick days..

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.

::Shocker · 19th July 2010, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

Incidentally, there's always been the capacity for employers and potential employees to agree to a trial period.

There was no special protection for employers, i.e. employees dismissed during the probationary period could take a personal grievance just like any other employee. That's the key difference.

MrTTTT · 19th July 2010, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

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

So basically those who don't think like you are 'less worldy'. I've worked overseas and I'm against the 90 day trial period... There ya go.

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

There was no special protection for employers, i.e. employees dismissed during the probationary period could take a personal grievance just like any other employee. That's the key difference.

Why justifies new employees being unable to take a personal grievance against unjustified dismissal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Your employer can let you go within 90 days without telling you why you were let go. Kinda hard to prove discrimination unless they were REALLY blatant about it, which people don't tend to be if they know they've got a safe "out", and can just fire your ass.

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

There was no special protection for employers, i.e. employees dismissed during the probationary period could take a personal grievance just like any other employee. That's the key difference.

Yes, I know. Hence, my question: What evidence is there that this mechanism failed?

There must be evidence, surely?

::Shocker · 19th July 2010, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Why justifies new employees being unable to take a personal grievance against unjustified dismissal?

I think my views on this are clear by now, and I've set out my reasons in my earlier posts. Whether or not you accept them, is of course up to you

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

I think my views on this are clear by now, and I've set out my reasons in my earlier posts. Whether or not you accept them, is of course up to you

So protecting incompetent businesses at the expense of workers it is then.

No I don't accept this

::Shocker · 19th July 2010, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

Yes, I know. Hence, my question: What evidence is there that this mechanism failed?

I'm not aware of any relevant research. But from what I gather, they were (and still are) useful for large employers who have the resources to manage the probationary period properly, not so much for small employers.

CCS · 19th July 2010, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Your employer can let you go within 90 days without telling you why you were let go. Kinda hard to prove discrimination unless they were REALLY blatant about it, which people don't tend to be if they know they've got a safe "out", and can just fire your ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

I'm sure no-one will lie. "Oh it's because you were... gay, wait, I mean late. That one time."

And I hear that this legislation doesn't require the employer to actually tell you why you were fired.

"...nah, can't really tell you why, and legally don't have to. But rest assured, it's not because you were gay."

So what we have then is homos everywhere who get fired for reasons other than being a homo but who starting shrieking like Chris Carter. "You're picking on me because I'm gay! I have no real reason to believe that's why I got fired, but I think you're discriminating against me!"

The message I'm getting from you guys is that you really believe that employers will hire people on the 90 day probation period and will just fire people for the hell of it. Wake up one morning "damn I'm in a shitty mood. I'll feel better if I fire some cunt."

What I don't like about this 90 days law is that it is going to be applied to all companies, regardless of size. I think that's unnecessary. Companies with 20 people or less is fine.

ChaosWulf · 19th July 2010, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

What I don't like about this 90 days law is that it is going to be applied to all companies, regardless of size. I think that's unnecessary. Companies with 20 people or less is fine.

Then we actually agree.. I think hell just froze

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

So what we have then is homos everywhere who get fired for reasons other than being a homo but who starting shrieking like Chris Carter. "You're picking on me because I'm gay! I have no real reason to believe that's why I got fired, but I think you're discriminating against me!"

This hasn't been happening.

David · 19th July 2010, 14:23

Let's all cry over people who aren't skilled and offer nothing redeemable to their jobs, therefore are easily let go rather than treated as "must have" staff members.

Let's all pretend like these are hard working decent folk who deserve their job and use it to put bread on the table.

Let's pretend in a country that has one of the highest (if not highest) minimum wages per GDP in the world is actually a bad place for unskilled workers to be.

This is a pathetic example of why New Zealand never goes anywhere anymore. Too busy pandering to the fuckheads who didn't bust their ass to get any skillset.

Those that started in minimum wage and worked your way up? Pat on the back, good on you. Those that believe despite doing a minimum wage job that they should be entitled to more money and be absolutely lazy while doing it? Fuck off, and fuck off within 90 days.

kthxbye.

Ab · 19th July 2010, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

This hasn't been happening.

Exactly. Most people who get jobs appear to be making it through their probation period.

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Exactly. Most people who get jobs appear to be making it through their probation period.

I was referring to CCS's post about workers abusing their right to claim a grievance, when they had this right.

Anyway, 1 in 4 sacked in probation period.

Ab · 19th July 2010, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Anyway, 1 in 4 sacked in probation period.

Exactly. Most people who get jobs appear to be making it through their probation period.

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

The message I'm getting from you guys is that you really believe that employers will hire people on the 90 day probation period and will just fire people for the hell of it. Wake up one morning "damn I'm in a shitty mood. I'll feel better if I fire some cunt."

I do, because I used to work for a company that did just this - everyone started on a trial period, and the management was dysfunctional as fuck and so you'd have an unstable kitchen manager screeching and firing a sandwich maker because she thought she'd looked at her funny. Staff morale was in the toilet for some odd reason.

I worked there as a kitchen-hand for six months and I outlasted seven chefs.

Management gave written warnings if they caught you discussing your wages with any other employee, as there were gross discrepancies between people with the same responsibilities - ladies who'd been there nine years were still on minimum wage, but the cute young girl who started in pizza might start 3 - 4 dollars an hour higher.

Anyway, the reason I lasted six months is because I joined the Service and Food Worker's Union two months in and that scared them off enough to leave me be - also, I was somewhat indispensable given that most dishpigs lasted about two weeks due to the excessive workload - we ran mostly on temps for dishpigs and chefs.

So, moral of the story - bad employers do exist, and this law change leaves the more vulnerable members of society exposed to them.

Also, never eat any food at Christchurch Airport, same company's still cooking, and morale is still terrible.

Cynos · 19th July 2010, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

This is a pathetic example of why New Zealand never goes anywhere anymore. Too busy pandering to the fuckheads who didn't bust their ass to get any skillset.

Really? I was going to blame a culture of low wages meaning that businesses have little economic incentive to invest in process improvements.

I try to envisage you David, and all I get is a thin, tall, pale guy who stays up all night crafting vicious dissections of the moral failure of the left to post in the Whale Oil comments.

CCS · 19th July 2010, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

This hasn't been happening.

So there's no problem then?

doppelgänger of someone · 19th July 2010, 14:43

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.).

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

bad employers do exist, and this law change leaves the more vulnerable members of society exposed to them.

As long as than half of workers are ok it doesn't matter about the rest! eh Ab?

fixed_truth · 19th July 2010, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

So there's no problem then?

Don't start playing dumb because you've got no argument.

You were clearly implying that when they had the right, gay workers would exploit this right to claim a grievance by playing the gay card. This is BS.

CCS · 19th July 2010, 14:57

Lol, wtf? I was clearly implying that? Perhaps you didn't detect the hyperbole in what I was saying? Or maybe you did and took it at face value?

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

CCS · 19th July 2010, 14:58

If you want something to argue about, try this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

The message I'm getting from you guys is that you really believe that employers will hire people on the 90 day probation period and will just fire people for the hell of it. Wake up one morning "damn I'm in a shitty mood. I'll feel better if I fire some cunt."

David · 19th July 2010, 15:00

Thing is, if you're working for an employer as bad as you indicate - Cynos - it's not going to make any difference to you that this probationary period has come in.

For every "bad employer" situation people have been in, and we're not just talking "Oh, they pay me too little" - that's your fault - every bad employer situation probably has at least ten bad employee situations (proudly bought to you from statistical facts pulled straight from my ass).

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.

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.

19th July 2010, 14:57	#118
CCS Stunt Pants	Lol, wtf? I was clearly implying that? Perhaps you didn't detect the hyperbole in what I was saying? Or maybe you did and took it at face value? I would have thought maybe you'd realise that I was giving a facetious reply to an idiotic claim. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

19th July 2010, 08:28	#81
xor	The accountants will be pleased. They don't have to worry so much about employee's accumulating leave on the wrong side of the ledger. Management will be able to get rid of them before that 90 day period is up and then get i a truck load more Mari's to pick the fruit. Cool eh Si?

19th July 2010, 08:36	#82
xor	or whatever it is that most Mari's are trained at, bone carving, flax weaving, road workers etc

19th July 2010, 10:39	#87
David	Speaking as an employee and an employer, the mental health sickdays are simply because some companies have no leniency over annual leave. I think if they had policy to allow a staff member five days of their annual leave where they can call in on the morning and take it, you'd get rid of quite a few of these one off sick days. Of course that doesn't help with coverage and ensuring you have enough staff to do the role, that's a different issue all together. In my industry, it's not essential to have bums on seats everyday so we're more prone to get away with it, in a workplace like retail sales, less so.

19th July 2010, 10:49	#88
xor	Norton! Norton I think David looks like the kind of guy that can't handle pressure. I heard him on the phone to his girlfriend the other day, he sounded like a fag. I'm afraid we'll have to get rid of him. I also think he votes for the Greens. Much lols to be had

19th July 2010, 10:50	#89
David	Awh Xor, always trying to face hump me. Estrogen levels out of whack again? You should really stop that hormone shit you peddle.

19th July 2010, 11:00	#91
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	IMO employers being able to call employees on sick days is reasonable. I think they'd need a damn good reason for it, e.g. that employee always takes Mondays off sick or seems to always get "migraines" at pivotal work stress times. As the employer will be paying for the employee to see the doctor, I can't see why it should be a problem. And YES, the "big brother from work now can haz access your private life" aspect does bother the hell out of me, but hey. If people want to take a break from work, that's what annual leave is for.

19th July 2010, 13:04	#94
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	You know what, blynk - I'm kinda done repeating myself here. Lets just say "I DISAGREE WITH YOU", and sincerely hope you're not in a situation one day where you look back and regret not standing up for your rights as a worker more.

19th July 2010, 13:31	#96
Cynos	Incidentally, there's always been the capacity for employers and potential employees to agree to a trial period. What evidence is there that this mechanism failed? __________________ So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin

19th July 2010, 14:23	#108
David	Let's all cry over people who aren't skilled and offer nothing redeemable to their jobs, therefore are easily let go rather than treated as "must have" staff members. Let's all pretend like these are hard working decent folk who deserve their job and use it to put bread on the table. Let's pretend in a country that has one of the highest (if not highest) minimum wages per GDP in the world is actually a bad place for unskilled workers to be. This is a pathetic example of why New Zealand never goes anywhere anymore. Too busy pandering to the fuckheads who didn't bust their ass to get any skillset. Those that started in minimum wage and worked your way up? Pat on the back, good on you. Those that believe despite doing a minimum wage job that they should be entitled to more money and be absolutely lazy while doing it? Fuck off, and fuck off within 90 days. kthxbye.

19th July 2010, 14:43	#115
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.).

19th July 2010, 15:00	#120
David	Thing is, if you're working for an employer as bad as you indicate - Cynos - it's not going to make any difference to you that this probationary period has come in. For every "bad employer" situation people have been in, and we're not just talking "Oh, they pay me too little" - that's your fault - every bad employer situation probably has at least ten bad employee situations (proudly bought to you from statistical facts pulled straight from my ass). 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. 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.