|
19th July 2010, 08:28 | #81 |
|
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 |
|
or whatever it is that most Mari's are trained at, bone carving, flax weaving, road workers etc
|
19th July 2010, 09:19 | #83 | |
Don't worry, be harpy
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 09:36 | #84 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 10:01 | #85 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 10:33 | #86 | |
|
Quote:
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.. |
|
19th July 2010, 10:39 | #87 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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, 10:53 | #90 |
|
Don't flatter yourself
|
19th July 2010, 11:00 | #91 |
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, 11:37 | #92 | |
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 12:47 | #93 | |
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by blynk : 19th July 2010 at 12:48. |
|
19th July 2010, 13:04 | #94 |
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, 13:04 | #95 | |
|
Quote:
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 the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin |
|
19th July 2010, 13:31 | #96 |
|
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, 13:33 | #97 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin |
|
19th July 2010, 13:38 | #98 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 13:50 | #99 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 13:51 | #100 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
||
19th July 2010, 13:56 | #101 | |
|
Quote:
There must be evidence, surely?
__________________
So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin |
|
19th July 2010, 13:56 | #102 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 14:10 | #103 | |
|
Quote:
No I don't accept this
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:10 | #104 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 14:10 | #105 | ||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 14:14 | #106 | |
Don't worry, be harpy
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 14:19 | #107 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:23 | #108 |
|
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, 14:24 | #109 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 14:30 | #110 | |
|
Quote:
Anyway, 1 in 4 sacked in probation period.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:32 | #111 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
19th July 2010, 14:33 | #112 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin Last edited by Cynos : 19th July 2010 at 14:34. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:36 | #113 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin |
|
19th July 2010, 14:41 | #114 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
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, 14:43 | #115 |
|
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, 14:45 | #116 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:48 | #117 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
19th July 2010, 14:57 | #118 |
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, 14:58 | #119 | |
Stunt Pants
|
If you want something to argue about, try this:
Quote:
__________________
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, 15:00 | #120 |
|
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. |