90-day workplace probation

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

True; Didn't see that. As you were then.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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

(it did for me.
thinking out loud.
beg pardon.)

[ChaosWulf]

Haiku - you're doing it wrong.

[Macca@Work]

I don't get it.Nearly all my jobs have had a trail period?It's nothing new.
Maybe employers are more likely to enforce their option of not retaining a dodgy worker.

[ChaosWulf]

It's not the trial period, it's the fact that they can kick you out at any stage during that time without having to state a single damn reason for it, and you have no right to legally dispute it.

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

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.



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.

Yet, CCS is one of the advocates for the law in this thread.
So, bad employment situation or not, he obviously doesn't feel that should impact an employer being able to remove someone during a trial period.

[wugambino]

speaking from the POV of someone who is trying to get rid of a staff member this is a great thing

[Lightspeed]

Do, or do not. There is no try.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed Semen & Fellatio

Do, or do not. There is no try.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Macca@Work

I don't get it.Nearly all my jobs have had a trail period?

Yeah, but your employer would have no defence if they try to let you go based on this "trial period" and you challenged it

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by crocos

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

there are others such as in relation to holiday pay being included in your rate, employers right to take money out of your pay without prior approval can be waived with a single signature, ...

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

It's not the trial period, it's the fact that they can kick you out at any stage during that time without having to state a single damn reason for it, and you have no right to legally dispute it.

I was close as fuck to having to come back to NZ after losing my Melbourne job during the aussie 3 month trial period.
I mostly got frustrated because it happened about 2 hours before I was due to sign a 6 month lease on an apartment.
All outgoings are contracted into huge terms and commitments, but income? Can go in an instant.
I have absolutely no clue what I would have done if I'd found out i'd lost my job the day/week after signing the lease.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, that's why living in NZ is so great. I mean, was.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I was close as fuck to having to come back to NZ after losing my Melbourne job during the aussie 3 month trial period.
I mostly got frustrated because it happened about 2 hours before I was due to sign a 6 month lease on an apartment.
All outgoings are contracted into huge terms and commitments, but income? Can go in an instant.
I have absolutely no clue what I would have done if I'd found out i'd lost my job the day/week after signing the lease.

to be fair bob, you were making a long-term outgoing financial commitment without knowing if you had a dependable income.

[wugambino]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Do, or do not. There is no try.

I see your use of 'do' and raise you the words 'process' and 'performance management'

[_Incubus_]

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.

Umm no, it does not work like that here, it is your cost...but medicare means it is heavily subsidized

[Lightspeed]

I suspect part of the intention of this bill is to make it more hard (or threatening) for existing employees to look for alternative work and to keep wages low. I mean, an employee certainly loses negotiating power come pay review time given the uncertainty this bill introduces for looking for new work.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Fred

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.

Nice summary.

[Cynos]

So, was listening to the radio and there was an interesting point - this really shits on meatworkers.

Because of the sporadic and seasonal nature of their work, they routinely end employment and then begin it - so there's a good chance that they'd be in perpetual 90 day trials.


Niiiice.

[BoyWonder]

Wouldn't seasonal workers just be contracted for a certain length of time though? At least that's what I would do as an employer...

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

Wouldn't seasonal workers just be contracted for a certain length of time though? At least that's what I would do as an employer...

Meatworkers don't always have constant work - they can have a really good season, or they can often end up with no work for two - three weeks. At least that was the case when I was a UB case manager.

I guess you'd have to ask someone who's worked it to know definitely.

Also, WINZ are being sane:

Clients dismissed during their employment trial

Generally, if an employer does not give a reason for ending the trial then a non-entitlement period will not be considered.

When an employer alleges misconduct by the employee and provides some evidence of the misconduct then a voluntary unemployment stand-down can be considered and investigated in the usual way

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/man...enefit-305.htm

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

So, was listening to the radio and there was an interesting point - this really shits on meatworkers.

Because of the sporadic and seasonal nature of their work, they routinely end employment and then begin it - so there's a good chance that they'd be in perpetual 90 day trials.


Niiiice.

Seasonal contracting already exists. Unions will also have the chance to negotiate but in all honesty, why would you be against someone being removed from their job in this environment where danger and quality concern is high

Of course, Left Wing viewpoints aren't based on facts.. such as the fact that during peak season, meat work facilities actually can't employ the amount of people they need to employ.

They also don't realise that meat work contracts also specifiy already that if there is a need to downsize/downscale operations, they may be let go/have their hours reduced.

AFFCO for instance have this in their main contract already, it wouldn't make any difference.

[Fx.]

yep the non permanent staff here can all have their hours reduced due to slower workload at no notice.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Ab

to be fair bob, you were making a long-term outgoing financial commitment without knowing if you had a dependable income.

Sure, but what were the realistic alternatives? temporary accommodation for three months until the trial period passes?

Yes, it's hard for employers in NZ to currently fire someone for being a drop kick, and this will make it easier, but IMO, it also makes employers lazy.

Background check? Thorough interviewing? Reference checking of any kind?

Na, if he's no good, we've got three months to kick em out with no fuss.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

Why would you be against someone being removed from their job in this environment where danger and quality concern is high

And when did you stop beating your wife? What an intellectually dishonest little troll you are. Yes, I oppose the right to take a personal grievance being removed because if you remove it, all the incompetent people will get fired, and I like incompetent people.

Fun fact - incompetent people can already be fired.

And why do I oppose removing the right to take a personal grievance?
Because people like you become managers, mainly.

Originally Posted by David

Of course, Left Wing viewpoints aren't based on facts. such as the fact that during peak season, meat work facilities actually can't employ the amount of people they need to employ.

So that'll be why Silver Fern just closed their lamb cutting facility down here eh? Too much work. But of course, you'd already know about that, seeing as how you're so fact based. Wait, fact? I think the last two letters should be spelt 'ith' in your case.

Originally Posted by David

They also don't realise that meat work contracts also specifiy already that if there is a need to downsize/downscale operations, they may be let go/have their hours reduced. AFFCO for instance have this in their main contract already, it wouldn't make any difference.

Dude, I do realise that, it's my entire fucking point. Meatworkers cycle on and off new contracts - which means that under this new law, they'll spend a large amount of time under the 90 day provisions over a six month season.

Fuck's sake man, at least try to be a) correct and b) coherent when you accuse someone of 'not having the facts'. Right now it feels like I'm being accused of wearing shit jerseys by David Bain.

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Fuck's sake man, at least try to be a) correct and b) coherent when you accuse someone of 'not having the facts'. Right now it feels like I'm being accused of wearing shit jerseys by David Bain.

Inconsistant and incoherent trolling from SuperAspiesMan? Surely not!

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Dude, I do realise that, it's my entire fucking point. Meatworkers cycle on and off new contracts - which means that under this new law, they'll spend a large amount of time under the 90 day provisions over a six month season.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but you are aware that an employer who has previously employed someone can't rehire them on a trial period, right?

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

And when did you stop beating your wife? What an intellectually dishonest little troll you are. Yes, I oppose the right to take a personal grievance being removed because if you remove it, all the incompetent people will get fired, and I like incompetent people.

Fun fact - incompetent people can already be fired.

And why do I oppose removing the right to take a personal grievance?
Because people like you become managers, mainly.



So that'll be why Silver Fern just closed their lamb cutting facility down here eh? Too much work. But of course, you'd already know about that, seeing as how you're so fact based. Wait, fact? I think the last two letters should be spelt 'ith' in your case.




Dude, I do realise that, it's my entire fucking point. Meatworkers cycle on and off new contracts - which means that under this new law, they'll spend a large amount of time under the 90 day provisions over a six month season.

Fuck's sake man, at least try to be a) correct and b) coherent when you accuse someone of 'not having the facts'. Right now it feels like I'm being accused of wearing shit jerseys by David Bain.

Coherent and correct?

This coming from someone who is agonising over a lamb supply facility being shut down during the middle of winter? Let's imagine that lamb for a second is a seasonal supply product depending on when the farmers are able to produce stock of reasonable quality... Oh wait, we don't have to imagine that - that's the reality.

Let's also imagine that the world is still suffering from an economic slow down and that world demand for higher value products such as export quality NZ lamb has dropped.... oh wait, we don't have to imagine that either!

So... with supply of raw product being down.... and demand of end product being down..... Silver Fern farms are meant to keep their factory running for what reason? Oh I see... They're supposed to lose money because all businesses are meant to lose money? Let's forget that the margins in the meat industry are so god damn small (AFFCO for instance, 1.10 billion turnover last year, net profit of... 16 million, Silver Fern have a similar profit margin, that is to say, extremely poor) and that if they don't take measures such as shutting down the factory seasonally, that there won't be any jobs for any workers during peak season.

So, like my point stated - during periods of high demand and high supply, there isn't enough workers available for these meat factories, to manage this, they tend to start production earlier than they would like and continue later than they should in order to facilitate an even supply of jobs as well as product to sell.

But yes, let's act like a meat works shutting down during mid winter is "STICKING IT TO THE LOWER CLASS YO!". Because that's obviously the best way to view the situation.

Now, being that we've established you don't know much about the meat industry in NZ, let me inform you about their existing contracts.

Their existing contracts have within them an ability for them to basically lose their job overnight dependent on the issues I've stated above. Also due to the nature of the business, safety concerns are also reason to lose their job immediately - these are already factored into the contracts. You'll also find that workers with a long loyal history who have proven themselves to be good are put on retainer contracts, this is to ensure they're not poached by other members in the meat industry because competition in the industry is high (124 players in NZ, with 4 major players)

So, basically, the 90 day trial period won't have any difference within the meat industry, due to these unique things where contracts are supplied on a seasonal basis. In the case of retainer contracts where people prove themselves to be worth keeping on, they will expire their 90 day period quite easily.

But don't let, you know... coherent, correct facts get in the way of your grandstanding, ignorance has never been cause for concern from a leftist viewpoint.

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Inconsistant and incoherent trolling from SuperAspiesMan? Surely not!

Awh look, offering clinical diagnosis around someone you see as a troll while trolling for them to comment back at you.

This is classy, it also invalidates anything you've said in this thread - you know, above and beyond the beat down you got for your original point and the fact that you're supremely ignorant about the ERA.

And as per the "You can't re-hire someone you fired during a trial period" - good point, one I didn't know and one that ultimately kills any further discussion on seasonal supply contracts.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but you are aware that an employer who has previously employed someone can't rehire them on a trial period, right?

I didn't, do you have a link to something I can read up on this?

[::Shocker]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I didn't, do you have a link to something I can read up on this?

Certainly, here's a link to s 67A of the ERA 2000.

Note subs (3): "Employee means an employee who has not been previously employed by the employer."

AFAIK, National isn't proposing to remove this requirement.

[Torka]

heh reading this thread while rereading The Grapes of Wrath is quite the trip

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Certainly, here's a link to s 67A of the ERA 2000.

Note subs (3): "Employee means an employee who has not been previously employed by the employer."

AFAIK, National isn't proposing to remove this requirement.

Cheers, I stand enlightened and corrected.

David's still a pole-smoker though. I'm adopting that as part of my company's values statement:

1. Pride in our work
2. Integrity in our actions
3. That guy on the internet is a real dick
4. Openness with our customers

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by David

This is classy, it also invalidates anything you've said in this thread - you know, above and beyond the beat down you got for your original point and the fact that you're supremely ignorant about the ERA.

Keep it coming, luv.
Just one teensy weensy thing; seeing as you didn't agree with my viewpoint to start with and appear to be incapable of anything other than hypocrisy and self-indulgence let alone a social conscience, don't mind if I don't lose sleep about my "argument" being "invalid" to you.
Go sit in a corner and play with a potato.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Torka

heh reading this thread while rereading The Grapes of Wrath is quite the trip

Is it any good? I've read In Dubious Battle, and now I'm shit-scared of anyone from California involved with fruit.

[Torka]

It's incredible like all Steinbeck but depressing as fuck, the way he depicts poverty and desperation really seeps into your skin

[David]

Originally Posted by Cynos

David's still a pole-smoker though. I'm adopting that as part of my company's values statement:

Hey, if being a pole smoker means I'm not making ignorant statements like you about an industry I know absolutely nothing about, so be it.

I see you don't like correct coherent facts afterall though, nice play - you know, getting personal when your point of view isn't only rebuked but absolutely destroyed. Hope that works for you.

Speaking of which, you'd make a real cute couple with....

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

Keep it coming, luv.
Just one teensy weensy thing; seeing as you didn't agree with my viewpoint to start with and appear to be incapable of anything other than hypocrisy and self-indulgence let alone a social conscience, don't mind if I don't lose sleep about my "argument" being "invalid" to you.
Go sit in a corner and play with a potato.

This would be hilarious and a piece of substance if you hadn't already played submissive to someone else in this thread, admitted your ignorance and removed yourself from the wider discussion, only to re-enter when you saw a chance to play your cute little "OMG, he doesn't agree with me and he tells me I'm stupid, he must have aspergers" card.

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by David

This would be hilarious and a piece of substance if you hadn't already played submissive to someone else in this thread, admitted your ignorance and removed yourself from the wider discussion, only to re-enter when you saw a chance to play your cute little "OMG, he doesn't agree with me and he tells me I'm stupid, he must have aspergers" card.

David/Haydos. Writing the rules of the internet since .. 2 minutes ago.

[David]

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

David/Haydos. Writing the rules of the internet since .. 2 minutes ago.

This is the best you can come up with...? Hrm. Best go back to you know, not saying anything while grown ups talk, love.

[ChaosWulf]

Hey, I already bagsed the "luv/love" comment. Fuck off and find your own form of patronising buzzwords.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Macca@Work

I don't get it.Nearly all my jobs have had a trail period?It's nothing new.

Whereas I've never had a trial period in any of the jobs which I've done in the last 15 years (or before then). Just because you've had trial periods (and I haven't) doesn't add anything to the argument for either of us because all it does is colour our opinion on what we consider to be normal and reasonable - without adding anything tangible to the discussion.

Pixie