Employment Relations Amendment Bill 8-1

[Jonas Undrawing]

"The core of the bill is new sections 67A and B, which allow small employers ("by agreement" - meaning by economic coercion) to impose a trial period of up to 90 days on new staff, during which they will have no right to bring legal proceedings if dismissed. While existing rights to bring proceedings for racial discrimination and sexual harassment are purportedly preserved, the effect of new s67 B (2) will be to completely undermine them in practice. So, this is a racist's and sexist's charter.

Oh, and as a bonus: employers can now sack you or dock your pay if you join KiwiSaver. Merry Christmas! (The government apparently intends to address this with amendments to the KiwiSaver Act, but if so, they should repeal the anti-discrimination provisions when they make those changes, rather than repealing them now and leaving employers with a year or more in which to exploit their absence. The failure to do this can only be regarded as intentional, a deliberate attempt to create a nasty loophole). "

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008...will-bill.html


So if youŕe looking for work, protect your rights and only join companies with more than 20 staff. What a stupid, STUPID bill.

discuss.

[Torka]

discuss.

lol, National.

[fixed_truth]

This is just typical National outdated ideology that what's good for business and the rich is always good for the country.

Nationals argument that it will create opportunities for long-term unemployed / people with no skills - is just plain unrealistic rhetoric. The reality of the application of this bill will be much different.

Suck to be a vulnerable worker in the current downturn - basically it's do what your employer says or you're back to the benefit - even if what your employer is asking is unreasonable.

It probably wont effect us middle-class peeps, so who gives a fuck right?

[Mickey]

I don't see the big deal. Every job I've ever had has had a 90 day out clause in it. 90 days is fuck all time, after that you have your job, everyone is talking like the employer can sack you at will whenever whereever, its only a 90 day trial.
To train someone into a job and to fire them before 90 days is actually incredibly costly to an employer, i can't imagine that being the attractive option for anyone at all. Having to do back ground checks, reference checks, have another staff member train them etc, all takes a massive amount of time and money.

Sure there will be the odd dodgy employer who will use it to their advantage, but I imagine the first time it happens it will make the media and that person will have a shit name.

Employers have had zero power the last decade, having to keep dead weight as a court case would ensue if you dared to fire someone. Its nice they now have a say in who they can keep.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Employers have had zero power the last decade, having to keep dead weight as a court case would ensue if you dared to fire someone. Its nice they now have a say in who they can keep.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure no one got fired or made redundant in the last 10 years. Oh wait, shut up.

[Hory]

Originally Posted by Mickey

I don't see the big deal. Every job I've ever had has had a 90 day out clause in it.

So does my current employer, however if I was dismissed within 90 days for an unfair reason I would have had an opportunity to appeal the fairness of that dismissal through the employment relations tribunal.

But now instead, an employee can have no right to appeal an unfair dismissal in the first 90 days under this new act. How is that fair?

Interesting fact: 16 & 17 year olds have to get paid adult minimum wage after 200 hours work, if they are working part time - two 8 hour shifts a week would take about 3 months, or 90 days......

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by JP

Yeah, i'm pretty sure no one got fired or made redundant in the last 10 years. Oh wait, shut up.

Im not saying that, Im saying that it was incredibly difficult to fire someone purely cos they were shit at their job. Near impossible.

[xin]

isn't this exact same bill what provoked the last lot of French riots/protests?

I think it's fucking retarded myself. If an employer wants to take a risk on a new employee, they sould put a similar clause in their contract. Not have it covered by some arbitary bill.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Im not saying that, Im saying that it was incredibly difficult to fire someone purely cos they were shit at their job. Near impossible.

I hear that from a lot of people, but at my previous job I saw three people get fired. Three warnings then fired. No court, no worries really. The people were shit and they got fired. Might be harder for a small employer I don't know. But i've heard what you're saying a lot, and it always seem anecdotal.

I'm not saying it's not the case. Just that all i've got is anecdotal evidence to go on, and from my experience i've seen plenty of shit works get fired.

I don't see how allowing people to have no rights around dismissal as a fair solution to that issue. It seems massively unfair. Making it easier for employers to legally fire someone sure. But people should always have the right of review.

[Jonas Undrawing]

where the bill really sucks is that an employer CAN fire someone because they're too black, or too pregnant but they don't have to tell the employee that. It's just "Get out", and it's fair dismissal if they leave out the "Get out, nigger."

[CCS]

Just thought this old (July 9 2008) NBR column might make for interesting reading.

National’s proposed law will likely be similar to the Wayne Mapp’s private member’s bill in 2006. It will not protect employers if they have fired employees for any reason prohibited by the Human Rights Act (unlawful discrimination) or for seeking to uphold their other minmum rights (such as being paid in time). Critics have concerns about how enforceable these provisions may be.

Whether the current version of the amendment has that same provision, I don't know.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by xin

If an employer wants to take a risk on a new employee, they sould put a similar clause in their contract. Not have it covered by some arbitary bill.

I think many employers do, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't stand up in court under current law.

What I want to know is, even if the law were to have merit, why does it need to be put through parliament under urgency?

I could see this law being misused - hire someone under the pretence of permanent employment, then once they've finished what you needed them for ( within 90 days ), tell them they're not working out and let them go.

Unless I was desperate for work, I would stipulate in the contract that normal proceedings would have to occur before firing me, even within that 90 day period.

[adonis]

I'd just like to point out that the new law doesn't come into effect automatically, the employee has to agree to it. Some people won't have a choice but to accept it though I suspect.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by adonis

Most people won't have a choice but to accept it though I suspect.

fxd.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Sure there will be the odd dodgy employer who will use it to their advantage, but I imagine the first time it happens it will make the media and that person will have a shit name.

Laws are there to protect the majority from the self-serving minority. This law protects the self-serving minority from justice.

[Hurtuso]

^^ hates the minorities

[Ab]

This is the first I've heard of the Kiwisaver angle, so I don't know enough to comment. But the 90-day probation aspect is eminently sensible and I support it 100%.

[Lightspeed]

What about the lazy? They deserve jobs too!

[SID|DensitY]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

What about the lazy? They deserve jobs too!

they only have to work hard for 3 months.

[CCS]

What's that? Apple picking season?

[Trigga*happY]

re kiwisaver - I would suggest that employers were already taking kiwisaver into account when offering pay rises.

[QWERTY?]

this is standard in canada (also was in all my contracts in nz also) if you're shit in the first 90days, boom you're gone, no questions, also lets you leave in the first 90 days no questions asked.

I don't have a problem with it tbh, I think it's good because you can never really know someone until they work for you especially people straight out of training and also immigrants, even with the reference checks they can look great on paper, but when they have apply there skills they can be complete arse (which is very common in IT)

[JP]

I have no problem firing people who are shit with in 90 days. Seems a fair trial period, and really should allow for rather strict employee protection rules after that period. I don't see what that has to do with making employers immune from getting in trouble for discrimination.

[devilmonkey]

I think its great!

Ive been in many situations where sales people try to get into the banking area, and because they're great at sales, they've great at selling them self for the job.. within a week, problems occur and $$$$$$'s are effected.. but you cant get rid of them.. which is SHIT..or turn up after saying they can do all this stuff... turns out they can.. but like 3 bits of work a day.. in comparison to everyone one else processing 50+ bits a day..

[QWERTY?]

yep exact same thing in IT (particularly development), people have looked at a tech can give all the keywords around it, and possibly even explain the concepts, but putting them into action on the other hand they are complete fail.
Generally from what I have seen 3 months is plenty of time to find out if they are carp not, if they're arse = gone.

But i can see the flipside where people get hired, but really only to do a small piece of work, once its done you're gone.

[duckmannz]

Originally Posted by QWERTY?

But i can see the flipside where people get hired, but really only to do a small piece of work, once its done you're gone.

Wow, getting contractors for employee rates? ftw!

[QWERTY?]

mmm but if that was the case you wouldnt be able to find people with the required skills for those rates, because they are either contractors, or working for someone else for money $$

[A Corpse]

No, 'cos to a lot of people, a steady income/job security is more important than sporadic but high income from contracting.

I have no problem with a 3-month trial period. I have issues with the way this has been implemented because it *will* be abused by *some* employers, and there's no recourse if they do.

[fixed_truth]

It still pisses me off that National sold workers rights to 'business' - and pitched it as a way to give long-term/unemployable people an opportunity. Why on earth would these people (let alone in the current downturn) go into a job knowing that they can be fired at the whim of an employer & then face a 3 month stand down to receive unemployment payments again!

Removing all rights of appeal goes too far. Either National know what they are doing but don't give a shit about you unless you don't need support - or they rushed a Bill through & are in fact N00bs.

[Evoke]

Originally Posted by devilmonkey

I think its great!

Ive been in many situations where sales people try to get into the banking area, and because they're great at sales, they've great at selling them self for the job.. within a week, problems occur and $$$$$$'s are effected.. but you cant get rid of them.. which is SHIT..or turn up after saying they can do all this stuff... turns out they can.. but like 3 bits of work a day.. in comparison to everyone one else processing 50+ bits a day..

unless some bank i am not aware of employs <= 20 people, i don't see how this piece of legislation would make any improvements to your plight

[Jonas Undrawing]

lets start an nzg bank. weĺl advertise for staff targeting people on the benefit. After a week, tell them it isnt working out and itś specifically not because they are "black, gay, jewish etc". Skin saved.

[CCS]

Just thought this old (July 9 2008) NBR column might make for interesting reading.

National’s proposed law will likely be similar to the Wayne Mapp’s private member’s bill in 2006. It will not protect employers if they have fired employees for any reason prohibited by the Human Rights Act (unlawful discrimination) or for seeking to uphold their other minmum rights (such as being paid in time). Critics have concerns about how enforceable these provisions may be.

Whether the current version of the amendment has that same provision, I don't know.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by CCS

Just thought this old (July 9 2008) NBR column might make for interesting reading.
Whether the current version of the amendment has that same provision, I don't know.

It does. Can't see those provisions being workable, however. I am a fence sitter on this proposed bill - while I can't see encouraging a "fire at will/fire out of spite" mentality at any place with some respectable HR and understanding of the costs of recruitment, I can see it being terrible in industries known for exploitation and being dominated by unskilled employees.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by cyc

I can see it being terrible in industries known for exploitation and being dominated by unskilled employees.

so, for the majority of the nations workforce....
service,retail,hospitality,light industrial/manufacturing.

futures so bright.... gotta wear shades.