Bye bye smoko break

[MadMax]

Sux to be a labourer.

I've worked a job where I was expected to man-handle over a tonne in half an hour under performance standards and I can tell you that you needed to have a break.

I can see that workers who are stuck forever on minimum wage such as rest-home caregivers will be among those that lose their break and the side effects in these industries will be mistakes made and lives lost.

[Ab]

sucks to be a smoker!

[MadMax]

Actually if you read the amendment it's not what the media portray. It's about removing set break times and allowing them to be adjusted to suit the workflow:

“69ZD Employee’s entitlement to rest breaks and meal breaks
“(1) An employee is entitled to, and an employer must provide the
employee with, rest breaks and meal breaks that—
“(a) provide the employee with a reasonable opportunity,
during the employee’s work period, for rest, refresh- 5
ment, and attention to personal matters; and
“(b) are appropriate for the duration of the employee’s work
period.

It covers safety such that an employee is entitled to a break for rest.


and I thought break times were already flexible? I mean my morning tea is taken anywhere between 10 and 11, lunch is an hour anywhere between 12 and 2 and afternoon tea is anywhere between 3 and 4. Plus my employer is awesome enough that I can have a longer lunch break if required so long as I make up for it elsewhere.

[blynk]

For most office jobs, there is a lot of flexibility given, and for the majority of all people, this won't be an issue.
But we all know that there are people out there that need to be regulated, otherwise they will just abuse people

Worse case would be the employer telling a new employee that they have to work 8 hours straight, and their breaks are at closing time.
Dont like it, then F off.

You now its controversial when a government implements something within 2 months of being elected. Most people will forget about these by next election

[Omegakai]

the difference now is that the company you work for can tell you when you can . or cannot have a break and my instead pay you out.
I can see transport , drivers that drive for long periods of time. being the biggest risk here. those that are not contract drivers anyway.

[Lightspeed]

The whole smoko break business is a smoke screen right? The real issue is with collective bargaining, right?

It's disheartening how effective National is at running interference.

[Ab]

Looks more like National choosing the right time to pass legislation. I.e, when there's no opposition.

[Lightspeed]

Which brings us back to National's effectiveness at running interference.

[Ab]

That's not interference, that's timing.

[Lightspeed]

Timing only possible after a long campaign of effective interference (I would say dirty politics, but the world is becoming 1984-esque - with the election won, there apparently was no dirty politics.)

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Omegakai

the difference now is that the company you work for can tell you when you can . or cannot have a break and my instead pay you out.
I can see transport , drivers that drive for long periods of time. being the biggest risk here. those that are not contract drivers anyway.

Probably not the best example - truck drivers and breaks are stipulated in a whole bunch of other OSH and land transport related laws.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Timing only possible after a long campaign of effective interference (I would say dirty politics, but the world is becoming 1984-esque - with the election won, there apparently was no dirty politics.)

Labour being fucking useless is not National's fault. Right now National is out on the court with points already on the board while Labour is still in the changing rooms arguing about who gets to lead them onto the court.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, because Labour needs to find a captain that can handle an opponent who knows how to get away with dirty fouls.

[Ab]

No, it doesn't. Right now finding a captain is the last fucking thing that Labour should be doing, because arguing about who gets to lead them out onto the court is preventing them from playing. Meanwhile National's out there scoring points unopposed and it's winner-keeps-possession.

[Lightspeed]

Who plays a game they can't win? Especially because the other team is so willing and able at playing dirty when you value fair play? I don't think a bunch of masochists in Opposition is going to do us any favours.

But yeah, lets focus on Labour being unable to prevent National fucking with the country instead of on National fucking with the country.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Juju

Probably not the best example - truck drivers and breaks are stipulated in a whole bunch of other OSH and land transport related laws.

I've seen a claim that fonterra trucks shutdown after the 5 hour drive limit which has marooned drivers on narrow winding roads and yellow no-stoping lines.

Would love to know if that's true. Sounds impossible but not so much if the trucks are speed limited to 5kph or something.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Omegakai

the difference now is that the company you work for can tell you when you can . or cannot have a break and my instead pay you out.
I can see transport , drivers that drive for long periods of time. being the biggest risk here. those that are not contract drivers anyway.

I've read what I believe is the new amendment and all the way through it states that an employee is still entitled to a rest break especially to prevent fatigue and that an employee can have a break at a time that is suitable.

I would love to hear of a case where someone involved in physical work is expected to work for several hours straight.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Who plays a game they can't win? Especially because the other team is so willing and able at playing dirty when you value fair play?

The fuck? The opposition has only one job - put the government under pressure and the bills it proposes under scrutiny. If the opposition decides to have a little tanty and not turn up, that means it has given the government free rein to do whatever it wants.

[pxpx]

LS reality wants a word

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by blynk

For most office jobs, there is a lot of flexibility given, and for the majority of all people, this won't be an issue.
But we all know that there are people out there that need to be regulated, otherwise they will just abuse people

Worse case would be the employer telling a new employee that they have to work 8 hours straight, and their breaks are at closing time.
Dont like it, then F off.

You now its controversial when a government implements something within 2 months of being elected. Most people will forget about these by next election

Most employers will be fine about it. But yeah it opens the door for those at the bottom to get screwed.

[Omegakai]

Originally Posted by MadMax

I've read what I believe is the new amendment and all the way through it states that an employee is still entitled to a rest break especially to prevent fatigue and that an employee can have a break at a time that is suitable.

I would love to hear of a case where someone involved in physical work is expected to work for several hours straight.

you’re talking about this yeah?
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/...tml#DLM5160240
Because I read it a few times to make sure I wasn't spouting uninformed nonsense. And while there is much to be said for a storm in a tea cup about the overall change, there are some specific changes that apply that didn’t beforehand that in my mind are easily abused.
And encase you missed it, in a simplified version.
All employees entitled to take a break, to be taken at a reasonable time every x hours, and every x hours.

Changes to

All employees are entitled to a break(meal breaks include) to be taken as negotiated however in an absence of such agreement the employer may specify what a reasonable time is OR in lieu of this reasonable Compensatory measures can be used if there is justification, for which they outline several sub clauses.

They have allowed this to be negotiated but don’t specify when and frequency, so while its obvious that you could argue the point prior to entering employment once employed the business is not obligated to review this at any time, if fact they can choose to decline any request / or simply ignore it.

So with all of that in mind I will answer your question.

Let’s say you work in a retail chain and normally you would you’re your breaks around the daily rush of customers, however the company chooses to understaff its outlet. They can now claim a negative effect from these breaks and decline you break and offer compensation.
In this case they would have commercial justification to in denying you these breaks and can legally do so.
In this circumstance the employer makes the call regardless of whether or not the employee is happy with the agreement, without notification or warning, at any time they see fit.

Lets say you are the 1 of only a few staff trained and signed off to preform selective duties.

Under these changes they can single you out advise you of the loss of your breaks or lunch break, yet provide the rest of the staff with breaks as per normal.
This can continue on for as long as they see fit, based on the concept that “your role is vital to the operation of the business”

Where the reality might be you have a shitty manager who just simply doesn’t like you.
Currently if managers did this you would have grounds for a grievance could claim unfair treatment, or if you quit or were fired because of the issue you could claim constructive dismissal

These changes impact what or if any outcome should a case of this nature
If you think employment law is the sturdy rock hard black and white thing, then I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Employment law is actually shit.
its “case law” which means it can vary wildly and change for case to case and often many low bows are drawn in these cases with success in the same tone previous successful cases can be used as example and determine how countless others are treated in the work place.

If you think that most companies are upstanding pillars of moral justice, I might ask you to down load the monthly reports from the department of labours case law findings. You will be surprised how many shitty employers are out there.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

The fuck? The opposition has only one job - put the government under pressure and the bills it proposes under scrutiny. If the opposition decides to have a little tanty and not turn up, that means it has given the government free rein to do whatever it wants.

Nonsense. The opposition has a complex role, the parties that compose it having to do their best to position themselves as viable candidates for government as well as opposing the current government.

If an effective opposition is important to you, I don't understand why you so gleefully grab at and magnify anything that might suggest the current opposition parties would be ineffective at government. You would focus on genuine issues instead. Given the bullshit that you were yelling pre-election that was demonstrated to be nonsense, you can't pretend you aren't caught up in the hype National's selling. Hype that clearly undermines our political establishment for the sake of maintaining a power base.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Nonsense. The opposition has a complex role, the parties that compose it having to do their best to position themselves as viable candidates for government as well as opposing the current government.

Right now the Greens ARE the de facto opposition because Labour's speaking in tongues and smearing itself with faeces. Yeah, the Homoeopathy Party. Nice.

[Spink]

Can someone let me know when the sky is actually falling.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Right now the Greens ARE the de facto opposition because Labour's speaking in tongues and smearing itself with faeces. Yeah, the Homoeopathy Party. Nice.

My understanding was they preferred an evidence based approach. I don't think you'll find any shortage of stupid statements around science across the political spectrum by low and sometimes not-so-low list MPs.

Originally Posted by pxpx

LS reality wants a word

It's a mistake to equate one's political views and knowledge as reality.

[Delphinus]

Originally Posted by Ab

Yeah, the Homoeopathy Party. Nice.

One members opinion does not a Party Motto make.

[MadMax]

It must be fun being part of a party that attracts special people votes and having to be nice to them despite reality. Like attracting religious voters when you're not religious.

[Ab]

There's gotta be some serious facepalming going on at Green HQ this week. All those years of effort, putting away the kaftans and the sandals and getting suits and shit, trying to sound like sane grownups...gone.

[StN]

But surely one drop of green diluted into the entire parliament would be more than enough...

[Cyberbob]

Don't forget, it's not just about dilution. You need to smack them in the head first.

[Golden Teapot]

Half of people would survive if given 10 drips of clean water every two hours; this is as good a success rate as almost every other treatment commonly available.