|
30th October 2014, 19:44 | #1 |
Stuff
|
Bye bye smoko break
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.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
30th October 2014, 20:18 | #2 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
sucks to be a smoker!
|
30th October 2014, 21:48 | #3 |
Stuff
|
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.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. Last edited by MadMax : 30th October 2014 at 21:51. |
31st October 2014, 14:12 | #4 |
|
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 |
31st October 2014, 14:49 | #5 |
|
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.
__________________
why is a raven like a writing desk? "Because the notes for which they are noted are not noted for being musical notes" |
31st October 2014, 14:52 | #6 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
31st October 2014, 15:01 | #7 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Looks more like National choosing the right time to pass legislation. I.e, when there's no opposition.
|
31st October 2014, 15:05 | #8 |
|
Which brings us back to National's effectiveness at running interference.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
31st October 2014, 15:08 | #9 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
That's not interference, that's timing.
|
31st October 2014, 15:13 | #10 |
|
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.)
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
31st October 2014, 15:13 | #11 | |
get to da choppa
|
Quote:
Probably not the best example - truck drivers and breaks are stipulated in a whole bunch of other OSH and land transport related laws. |
|
31st October 2014, 15:30 | #12 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
31st October 2014, 15:33 | #13 |
|
Yeah, because Labour needs to find a captain that can handle an opponent who knows how to get away with dirty fouls.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
31st October 2014, 15:40 | #14 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
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.
|
31st October 2014, 15:47 | #15 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
31st October 2014, 15:55 | #16 | |
Stuff
|
Quote:
Would love to know if that's true. Sounds impossible but not so much if the trucks are speed limited to 5kph or something.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
|
31st October 2014, 16:01 | #17 | |
Stuff
|
Quote:
I would love to hear of a case where someone involved in physical work is expected to work for several hours straight.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
|
31st October 2014, 16:08 | #18 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
31st October 2014, 16:21 | #19 |
|
LS reality wants a word
|
31st October 2014, 16:23 | #20 | |
|
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. |
|
31st October 2014, 16:48 | #21 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
why is a raven like a writing desk? "Because the notes for which they are noted are not noted for being musical notes" Last edited by Omegakai : 31st October 2014 at 16:51. |
|
31st October 2014, 17:13 | #22 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
31st October 2014, 17:32 | #23 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
31st October 2014, 19:59 | #24 |
|
Can someone let me know when the sky is actually falling.
__________________
Weak hearts I rip. |
31st October 2014, 19:59 | #25 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
||
1st November 2014, 00:55 | #26 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
1st November 2014, 01:25 | #27 |
Stuff
|
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.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
1st November 2014, 02:05 | #28 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
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.
|
1st November 2014, 22:27 | #29 |
I have detailed files
|
But surely one drop of green diluted into the entire parliament would be more than enough...
|
1st November 2014, 23:17 | #30 |
|
Don't forget, it's not just about dilution. You need to smack them in the head first.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
3rd November 2014, 19:52 | #31 |
Love, Actuary
|
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.
|