|
13th December 2008, 16:10 | #1 |
|
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 8-1
"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. |
13th December 2008, 16:16 | #2 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
14th December 2008, 10:41 | #3 |
|
This is just typical National outdated ideology that what's good for business and the rich is always good for the country.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? |
14th December 2008, 11:04 | #4 |
|
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. |
14th December 2008, 12:19 | #5 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
14th December 2008, 12:51 | #6 | |
|
Quote:
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...... Last edited by Hory : 14th December 2008 at 12:52. |
|
14th December 2008, 12:51 | #7 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
14th December 2008, 12:57 | #8 |
|
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. |
14th December 2008, 13:02 | #9 | |
|
Quote:
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. |
|
14th December 2008, 16:36 | #10 |
|
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."
|
14th December 2008, 21:56 | #11 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Just thought this old (July 9 2008) NBR column might make for interesting reading.
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? |
|
14th December 2008, 23:20 | #12 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
15th December 2008, 01:32 | #13 |
|
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.
|
15th December 2008, 07:30 | #14 | |
|
Quote:
fxd.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
15th December 2008, 11:04 | #15 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
15th December 2008, 19:23 | #16 |
|
^^ hates the minorities
__________________
yadda |
15th December 2008, 19:42 | #17 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
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%.
|
15th December 2008, 22:02 | #18 |
|
What about the lazy? They deserve jobs too!
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
17th December 2008, 16:47 | #19 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
17th December 2008, 17:35 | #20 |
Stunt Pants
|
What's that? Apple picking season?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
24th December 2008, 09:33 | #21 |
|
re kiwisaver - I would suggest that employers were already taking kiwisaver into account when offering pay rises.
|
25th December 2008, 10:29 | #22 |
|
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)
__________________
please discontinue your lies. |
28th December 2008, 15:24 | #23 |
|
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.
|
2nd January 2009, 18:13 | #24 |
|
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 $$$$$$'s are effected.. but you cant get rid of them.. which is SHIT..or turn up after saying they can do all this stuff... turns out they can.. but like 3 bits of work a day.. in comparison to everyone one else processing 50+ bits a day..
__________________
Just because I'm a short New Zealander doesnt make me a Hobbit |
3rd January 2009, 06:40 | #25 |
|
yep exact same thing in IT (particularly development), people have looked at a tech can give all the keywords around it, and possibly even explain the concepts, but putting them into action on the other hand they are complete fail.
Generally from what I have seen 3 months is plenty of time to find out if they are carp not, if they're arse = gone. But i can see the flipside where people get hired, but really only to do a small piece of work, once its done you're gone.
__________________
please discontinue your lies. Last edited by QWERTY? : 3rd January 2009 at 06:42. |
3rd January 2009, 14:39 | #26 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th January 2009, 08:47 | #27 |
|
mmm but if that was the case you wouldnt be able to find people with the required skills for those rates, because they are either contractors, or working for someone else for money $$
__________________
please discontinue your lies. |
5th January 2009, 08:53 | #28 |
talkative lurker
|
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.
__________________
Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_< |
5th January 2009, 12:04 | #29 |
|
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. |
5th January 2009, 12:44 | #30 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th January 2009, 12:51 | #31 |
|
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.
Last edited by Jonas Undrawing : 5th January 2009 at 12:55. |
5th January 2009, 15:02 | #32 | |
Stunt Pants
|
^^^ You again?!
Just thought this old (July 9 2008) NBR column might make for interesting reading.
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? |
|
5th January 2009, 19:18 | #33 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
6th January 2009, 09:42 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
service,retail,hospitality,light industrial/manufacturing. futures so bright.... gotta wear shades.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|