That 90 day employment thing

[mashman]

what the hell... I picked up a flyer for fairness at work (http://www.fairness.org.nz). Seems there are several rally's on this weekend around the country...

Do you think the Unions are an outdated concept?

Personally i'd like to keep the unions, because they lend the weight of numbers and expertise to "your" cause (and you've already paid for it with your dues)... granted though, that kind of power can be used for both good or bad... I'd just rather not see them disapear and end up with a bunch of lawyers arguing the toss because some of "US" are unable to protect ourselves... we don't all have high IQ's, we don't all know our employment rights (they change all the time), we're not all confident enough to tackle our employer... this 90 day thing, holidays, sickness leave all up for "discussion"...

but hey, that's just my take

[dipshit]

Useless lazy bastards that don't bother turning up for work in time should be worried..!!!

:shifty:

[Oscar]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

[dipshit]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

If you have a half decent work ethic then it shouldn't be a problem.

For all those useless lazy drug-fucked twits it will be a worry.

[onearmedbandit]

The only people with anything to worry about are those you wouldn't want to employ anyway.

[onearmedbandit]

If you have a half decent work ethic then it shouldn't be a problem.

For all those useless lazy drug-fucked twits it will be a worry.

What has drugs got to do with it? I have managed useless lazy twits before have never touched drugs in their life, and equally I have managed highly efficient motivated people who do use drugs.

[mashman]

If you have a half decent work ethic then it shouldn't be a problem.

For all those useless lazy drug-fucked twits it will be a worry.

:rofl: whilst I see what you're saying, aren't "those" people getting money from the state instead?

This policy has massive knock on effects. 1 being the eradication of unions from the workplace... well, legislated into having a role that is not legally recognised in the workplace... It's wrong.

In regards to sickness and getting a sicknote for a sick day off... wouldn't you think paying because you're ill is a wee tad OTT? especially when you factor in that you've taken an appointment, to get a sick note, that could have been given to someone that actually needed it... it's not like you can get an appointment at the Docs at the drop of a hat these days... How is that going to work? I can't see it being anything other than a millstone for the people of NZ and their health care system...

I agree that the 90 day limit really means nothing... if you have grounds to remove someone from your employ, then remove them irrespective of "notice" period... same old same old... so why the change it if there's no real need to do it? What purpose does it serve?

[dipshit]

I agree that the 90 day limit really means nothing... if you have grounds to remove someone from your employ, then remove them irrespective of "notice" period... same old same old... so why the change it if there's no real need to do it? What purpose does it serve?

It can be very hard for employer to get rid of someone that they don't want working for them.

People talk an absolute load of shit on their CV's and at the job interviews...

A dozen or so weeks of life in the real world reveals the real person and their work ethic.

An employer should be allowed to choose who they want based on how that person actually works compared to the bullshit in their job application form.

[Deano]

In regards to sickness and getting a sicknote for a sick day off... wouldn't you think paying because you're ill is a wee tad OTT?

Doesn't the employer have to pay for the Dr's visit, if they insist on a note ?

I also find it odd that you can't take a "mental health day" once in a while - stress is a recognised hazard in the workplace, so what if you take a day to relieve that stress from time to time.

As long as it isn't abused, like every second Monday off.

If you are entitled to so many days sick leave, you should be able to take them. Unlimited sick leave poses a problem but each case on its own merits and circumstances I reckon.

It's not difficult to see when people are taking the piss.

[Gremlin]

90 days applies both ways as well... I know employers that have had employees quit a few weeks in... recruitment isn't cheap, time spent giving them initial training etc.

Unions... pros and cons. Protect the little guys that would otherwise get shafted, but can also hurt the employees if they have unreasonable demands on the employer. Example, the unions force a pay rise. At $15 an hour, 200 jobs... at $20 an hour, 180 jobs... the unions just effectively got some people fired...

That said, there have also been good examples of unions working with employers...

[MisterD]

Do you think the Unions are an outdated concept?


No, but I do think it's time theey lost their special treatment. It's a problem when the top man of the largest one in the country is also the president of one of the two main political parties.

I'd like to see this government get on with their election promise to remove the unions' monopoly on collective negotiation. If half a dozen employees so choose, they should be able to get anyone they like to neogtiate on their behalf.

[Juzz976]

Unions are good as long as they don't start strikes all the time.

I'd be pissed if we had to go on strike with no pay for say 2 weeks to negotiate a pay rise and find that the rise doesn't even cover the loss of earnings for the 2 weeks.
No Union for my trade anymore, don't know if its a good thing because tradesman rates have fallen behind inflation chronically.

[mashman]

It can be very hard for employer to get rid of someone that they don't want working for them.

People talk an absolute load of shit on their CV's and at the job interviews...

A dozen or so weeks of life in the real world reveals the real person and their work ethic.

An employer should be allowed to choose who they want based on how that person actually works compared to the bullshit in their job application form.

It can be hard, but it is still possible.

Aye, employees lie on their CV's sometimes and employers extend roles and responsibilities of employees without adjusting remuneration... who's the bigger cunt?

Perhaps we should be removing the perceived "liability" over negative references... my god, that might give us a true picture of how a person works etc... nah, much easier to let the employer hire a useless twat that has lied their way in to the job :blink:

I thought that's what employers did anyway (interviewd for positions etc...)? surely they're not suffering in silence because that would make them out to be useless because they hired a fuckwit... taking one to know one :)

[mashman]

Doesn't the employer have to pay for the Dr's visit, if they insist on a note ?

I also find it odd that you can't take a "mental health day" once in a while - stress is a recognised hazard in the workplace, so what if you take a day to relieve that stress from time to time.

As long as it isn't abused, like every second Monday off.

If you are entitled to so many days sick leave, you should be able to take them. Unlimited sick leave poses a problem but each case on its own merits and circumstances I reckon.

It's not difficult to see when people are taking the piss.

I see that's how it works at the moment... it may well be that that's how it will continue (fingers crossed)... I hate rule changes :shifty: they slide all sorts of extras in with their policies...

totally agree... aren't the policies and procedures currently in place good enough for the removal of "unruly" employees?

[schrodingers cat]

Wooooooooooo evil employers...

I think some of these union die-hards should put their money where their mouth is and have a go at starting a business.
Trust me - you get a whole other view on life when its your house (mortgage) tied to the business.

I agree there are some really shitty employers out there but likewise there is a shortage of employees with the right attitude. I found the best workers were those who had been in business at some stage and apprieciated the stress and risk the business owner takes.
In the early days they would get paid and I wouldn't.


Trouble is, currently minority groups get sooooo much airtime.
One bad employer = bosses explotation
Smacking kid = beating child to death

It is a really scary proposition as a small business employing someone. Doesn't take long for all your hard won gains to get frittered away by someone who only cares about their 'rights'

[eelracing]

aren't the policies and procedures currently in place good enough for the removal of "unruly" employees?

I am of the same opinion as they are more than adequate if followed correctly.

Make no mistake the 90 day bill and sick day requirement are open to be abused by a bullying employer and will be used (by some) to cower employees into crap wages and conditions.

[yachtie10]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

Wouldn't have stood up in court so worthless

Personally I wouldn't want to work for someone who didnt want me there so not really an issue for me

Although having been unemployed for a while I applaud anything that might create some jobs

[Motu]

Having been an employer,I like to be able to fire someone on the spot,no questions asked.As an employee I have no problem with being fired...if I was in that situation,I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work there anyway.I have asked to be fired...because then I got holiday pay rather than just walking out on the spot.I like Unions,without them we would still be living in feudal times.I enjoyed the strikes...but back then I didn't mind a few days holiday without pay.

I am trying out a job next week - I am taking annual leave,and working for them for a week.This way they get to see if I'm up to the task,and I get to see if I want to work there....without burning my bridges.Win win for both sides.

[Oakie]

Points:

90 days. I put an advert in the Press today for a new employee. 3 insertions cost me nearly $2000. I'll then spend hours going through interviews and reference checking. I'm not therefore going to sack that person within 90 days lightly and have to go through it all again. If I did have to though, I would tell the person why they got biffed as that seems the ethically correct thing to do. That is something I would like to see written into the Act as it seems to be natural justice.

Medical Certs for 1 or 2 days absence My understanding is that the employer will have to pay for these, not the employee so it won't be done willy-nilly. Really there is not much change to the current legislation as under the current Act I can demand a med cert if I suspect that the sick provision is being abused. The difference is that currently I must tell the employee of my suspicion.

Union Access If I am an employee, my wife, my lawyer or my religious leader (if I had one) cannot just expect to walk onto my workplace and to see me. Why should a union official have the ability to do this?

[Motu]

My wife,lawyer,kids,friends,insurance salesmen,cute girls...and even you can just walk into my workplace and see me.If they couldn't I wouldn't work there.

[Woodman]

How can anyone enforce the med cert rule?? Its just pedantic bollocks if you ask me. Most employers will know when someone is genuinely sick and will not bother.
I sent a guy home today cos he was obviously crook. Don't need a certificate for that.

Rules are made to be broken.

[Oakie]

My wife,lawyer,kids,friends,insurance salesmen,cute girls...and even you can just walk into my workplace and see me.If they couldn't I wouldn't work there.

Actually we allow it at my workplace too within reason as long as it doesn't compromise the care of our residents. Funny thing though, we have a workforce of 72 and not a trade union member amongst them. We do look after our workforce though and we have quite a family atmosphere.

[Oakie]

How can anyone enforce the med cert rule?? Its just pedantic bollocks if you ask me. Most employers will know when someone is genuinely sick and will not bother.
I sent a guy home today cos he was obviously crook. Don't need a certificate for that.

You don't have to get a med cert. It's just that the option will be there for you to ask for one. God! I put a girl off on paid sick leave for a month the other day (personal meltdown) and didn't even mention the medical certificate.

[Indiana_Jones]

... the unions just effectively got some people fired...
.

Where have we seen this before...:yes:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_03/039strikesDM_468x214.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/birmmail/aug2009/4/7/workers-keep-their-spirits-up-by-playing-bingo-dominoes-and-darts-during-the-strike-423545820.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/30/1230635785149/The-winter-of-discontent--001.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/05/article-0-03C2B2E7000005DC-205_468x325.jpg

-Indy

[Oscar]

Wouldn't have stood up in court so worthless



Sez who?

And notwithstanding any legal intervention, I read it, understood it, I signed and am honour bound to keep my word.

[mashman]

Almost 2 years to the day since the OP aaaaaaaaand

New research has been released on the Government's 90 day trial period for new employees.

A Department of Labour report says around 60 percent of employers are using the scheme.

The findings say employers use it to mitigate risk when hiring staff, and it's being used to hire younger workers and the long term unemployed.

Nineteen percent of employers say they'd dismissed an employee during the trial period.

However Labour MP Darien Fenton says the research is missing an important area.

"In all the research they've done they haven't been able to find a single worker to give feedback on it, and especially those who've been sacked without reason and without recourse to justice."

The survey canvassed over 1,900 employers - around 36 percent of whom took part in the study. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14575385/new-research-into-90-day-employment-trial/)

They can't find 1?

[Winston001]

The main point to draw from that report is that employers are now willing to take on new employees with both parties understanding there is a 90 day trial. The law looks like an outstanding success. The report implies 81% of employees are kept on after 90 days.

[avgas]

Do you think the Unions are an outdated concept?
Yes.

Recent studies have indicated that employee satisfaction is paramount to running a business effectively. Any employer whom does not understand this usually looses employees.
Companies that have high-turnover generally do not get good candidates applying.......and get bad names in the press.
They then shut down because losing employees = loosing customers.

All of this happens without someone threatening
"Oi, don't tread on the snake cobber!".

Unions are just another form of government. And like any form of government, I would believe them if they stated they were working for the benefit of others...........if they didn't rape said "others" of all their money.

[mashman]

The main point to draw from that report is that employers are now willing to take on new employees with both parties understanding there is a 90 day trial. The law looks like an outstanding success. The report implies 81% of employees are kept on after 90 days.

If an employer needs an employee, the employer is willing irrespective of the laws that protect them surely? Wouldn't that 81% of employees have worked out anyway irrespective of the law change? As a contractor there's sometimes 1 weeks notice from either party written into the contracts. I sign it and accept it and we all move forwards. I do not see the 90 day law as having achieved anything and I would imagine that not being able to find a single person to comment on its usefulness backs that up to a degree.

[Usarka]

It can be very hard for employer to get rid of someone that they don't want working for them.


Only if the employer is stupid.

[mashman]

Yes.

Recent studies have indicated that employee satisfaction is paramount to running a business effectively. Any employer whom does not understand this usually looses employees.
Companies that have high-turnover generally do not get good candidates applying.......and get bad names in the press.
They then shut down because losing employees = loosing customers.

All of this happens without someone threatening
"Oi, don't tread on the snake cobber!".

Unions are just another form of government. And like any form of government, I would believe them if they stated they were working for the benefit of others...........if they didn't rape said "others" of all their money.

Employee satisfaction is an entirely different thing. There are very few agencies that will help you to protect your position where you feel that you have been unfairly treated. Honest Unions, if they still exist, can help you navigate the minefield at a minimum of cost, without involving tribunals etc... kind of like job insurance. How can that be a bad thing other than it protects employees? If the employer is being a sick, then surely they should be able to be held to account in some form or another.

Companies that have high turn over generally treat their employees like numbers, not workers. They generally don't give a rats in regards to the employee and to that end don't honour the rights of the employees. To a certain extent that's unavoidable in a large organisation, unless of course your manager is a people focussed manager. Few seem to be these days, I certainly haven't met many in the 20+ years I've been working. Essentially if people can get away with X, they will... and even though that goes both ways, a bad employee generally affects the bad employee only, a bad employer affects all of their employees. One has very little "protection" in the workplace... I believe Unions are the insurance policy for employees, tis hardly surprising why the cunts of the business world would like to get rid of them.

[Brett]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

Exactly. If I'm good and creating value in the place I work, then why would the organisation not keep me? If I'm shit at my job...then I wouldn't want to work there anyway. Life's too short to be doing something you don't enjoy and aren't good at.

[FJRider]

Companies that have high turn over generally treat their employees like numbers, not workers. They generally don't give a rats in regards to the employee and to that end don't honour the rights of the employees. To a certain extent that's unavoidable in a large organisation, unless of course your manager is a people focussed manager. Few seem to be these days, I certainly haven't met many in the 20+ years I've been working. Essentially if people can get away with X, they will... and even though that goes both ways, a bad employee generally affects the bad employee only, a bad employer affects all of their employees. One has very little "protection" in the workplace... I believe Unions are the insurance policy for employees, tis hardly surprising why the cunts of the business world would like to get rid of them.

I always have a bit of a giggle when "rights" are mentioned in these situations ... especially when you speak of ... generally treat No mention of the percentage of those employee's that can't ... or wont do their job. Not showing up for work, not showing up for work in such a condition ... they can work. Or using their allowed number of sick days in the first month .... and putting the application for all their paid holidays in ... in their first three months.
Then there's the employee's that cant or wont follow the instructions of their employer .... and decide for themselves which part of the job they will do, and leave the bits they dont want to do ... for somebody else to do.

And some employee's take a job knowing they wont stay for long ... just untill they find the job they actually want to do (or one that pays better for doing less). Then bugger off giving no notice of their intention of leaving.

Funny ... how it's always the employer thats at fault ...

Generally speaking ... of course.

[mashman]

I always have a bit of a giggle when "rights" are mentioned in these situations ... especially when you speak of ... generally treat No mention of the percentage of those employee's that can't ... or wont do their job. Not showing up for work, not showing up for work in such a condition ... they can work. Or using their allowed number of sick days in the first month .... and putting the application for all their paid holidays in ... in their first three months.
Then there's the employee's that cant or wont follow the instructions of their employer .... and decide for themselves which part of the job they will do, and leave the bits they dont want to do ... for somebody else to do.

And some employee's take a job knowing they wont stay for long ... just untill they find the job they actually want to do (or one that pays better for doing less). Then bugger off giving no notice of their intention of leaving.

Funny ... how it's always the employer thats at fault ...

Generally speaking ... of course.

DOH... I completely forgot that the only way to accomplish what people want done without expending any efforts is to crack the nuts using a sledge hammer... who gives a shit about the rights of the individual.

And some employers take people on knowing that they can get rid of their staff after 90 days... and hassle free.

If the employer doesn't have the balls to deal with removing useless staff using the mechanisms available, then how does 90 days help? Ooooo you get 90 days of "work" out of the employee before they revert to type :facepalm:. The employer is responsible for hiring the right people. The onus is ENTIRELY on the employer, however that does not mean that they should be able to treat people how they would like to and abuse their rights. Don't like that fact, get the fuck out of business you do more damage than good.

You of all people :facepalm: Ahem, baaaaaaaa.

[FJRider]

The employer is responsible for hiring the right people. The onus is ENTIRELY on the employer, however that does not mean that they should be able to treat people how they would like to and abuse their rights. Don't like that fact, get the fuck out of business you do more damage than good.

You of all people :facepalm: Ahem, baaaaaaaa.

If said employers are acting within the laws and rules in place in the system ...

Are they bad ... or just unpopular.

There are more steps available, and in place already ... to protect the employee, than there are .... to protect the employer.

[mashman]

If said employers are acting within the laws and rules in place in the system ...

Are they bad ... or just unpopular.

There are more steps available, and in place already ... to protect the employee, than there are .... to protect the employer.

There are processes in place to protect both. If there is a valid reason for getting rid of the employee, can't afford them, crap at their job, gross misconduct (the really tricky one to prove) for example, then how is the employee "protected"? Surely their are entitled to their rights just as much as the employer? Swings and roundabouts seems to mean that the law is weighted in favour of the employee (according to your statement) and the poor employer is hard done by. Either way it all boils down to acceptable justification and always has. Changing the laws does nothing to change that, other than this 90 day debacle that weights things 100% towards the employer for 3 months :facepalm:.

[FJRider]

There are processes in place to protect both. If there is a valid reason for getting rid of the employee, can't afford them, crap at their job, gross misconduct (the really tricky one to prove) for example, then how is the employee "protected"? Surely their are entitled to their rights just as much as the employer? Swings and roundabouts seems to mean that the law is weighted in favour of the employee (according to your statement) and the poor employer is hard done by. Either way it all boils down to acceptable justification and always has. Changing the laws does nothing to change that, other than this 90 day debacle that weights things 100% towards the employer for 3 months :facepalm:.

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issue out of it.

[mashman]

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issdue out of it.

Fair enough/C'est la vie (guerre :shifty:)... so what would make it better? other than allowing employers to shoot their employees, I mean fire them, without any reason at all?

[FJRider]

Fair enough/C'est la vie (guerre :shifty:)... so what would make it better? other than allowing employers to shoot their employees, I mean fire them, without any reason at all?

How about a law preventing people applying for work they are not qualified for. AND ... be WILLING to accept a pay rate that reflects that ... if they do. :innocent:

[mashman]

How about a law preventing people applying for work they are not qualified for. AND ... be WILLING to accept a pay rate that reflects that ... if they do. :innocent:

:rofl: er er er sounds a little familiar... you just described the current system didncha.

[gonzo_akl]

I do not see the 90 day law as having achieved anything and I would imagine that not being able to find a single person to comment on its usefulness backs that up to a degree.

Did you consider that they only surveyed the employers and not the employees?

The article says they canvassed 1300 employers and 36% participated

[mashman]

Did you consider that they only surveyed the employers and not the employees?

The article says they canvassed 1300 employers and 36% participated

Yup. A great one sided piece of research to highlight how successful the law change was. No doubt the 36% that were chosen to comment were hand picked to give positive results. Tin foil hat eh

[caspernz]

With my observations of employment/dismissal procedures in place now ... they are ALREADY heavily weighted on the side of the employee.

It is a shit-fight to get rid of an employee ... if said employee wants to make an issue out of it.

Yep, kinda hard to dump a permanent employee...

That said, an employer who has an unfair mindset can drop a new employee within the 90 day period much easier now.

In essence, if you're a good quality worker and you choose carefully where you go to work, the new rules don't matter much. If you're established in an industry and you know how most employers within it operate, no drama. New to an industry or an area and it becomes a case of both sides beware.

[FJRider]

... That said, an employer who has an unfair mindset can drop a new employee within the 90 day period much easier now.



Interestingly ... I've been around for a few years now. I have my share of employment seeking in various industrys. The 90 day (3 months) trial period has been around since Adam was a lad. You usually had to sign a form agreeing to it. Just because it was not in legislation ... gave a few that didn't get the thumbs up from the boss at the end of the trial period ... a reason to try and fight it. Seldom successfully I might add.
To stop the bull-shit charges of "Wrongful Dismissal" ... the trial period was introduced into legislation. Pretty much thanks to the idiot employee's that wasted so much Employment Tribunal time.

But as usual ... the mean nasty employers get the blame.

[caspernz]

But as usual ... the mean nasty employers get the blame.

Oh I reckon the new 90 day rule is a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a walnut kinda approach...

And while I don't have the outlook that 'mean nasty employers' is a common thing, the ones who want to take advantage of an employee are more empowered now. Have seen it first hand, and to be fair I've also seen plenty of useless employees remain in a job when the employer is unsure of whether to put them thru the process to ditch them...

[FJRider]

Yup. A great one sided piece of research to highlight how successful the law change was. No doubt the 36% that were chosen to comment were hand picked to give positive results. Tin foil hat eh

More likely ... the 36% that "participated" had the least in the way of useful information to offer, but the most to say. And because they "participated" ... their input was used.

Similar methods are used to gather statistics ....

[FJRider]

Oh I reckon the new 90 day rule is a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a walnut kinda approach...

And while I don't have the outlook that 'mean nasty employers' is a common thing, the ones who want to take advantage of an employee are more empowered now. Have seen it first hand, and to be fair I've also seen plenty of useless employees remain in a job when the employer is unsure of whether to put them thru the process to ditch them...

A walnut ... maybe not .... but there's a few nuts out there that need that sledgehammer. It's having the tools in the shed if you need them.

Mostly ... the employer is unsure if the process of ditching an employee is worth the hassle. Regardless of "time served" ...

[Oscar]

I love the way that the wacko left and Mashman the Sheep portray this as employers v. employees.

How many of you have had to work with an incompetent, aggressive, lazy or downright dangerous co-worker and thought "..why doesn't someone 86 this wanker?".
I have seen any number of absolutely useless teachers who are next to impossible to get rid of.

[Ocean1]

How many of you have had to work with an incompetent, aggressive, lazy or downright dangerous co-worker and thought "..why doesn't someone 86 this wanker?".


Someone I work with occasionally rekons the growth in unemployed figures are the employers fault.

I asked him what he'd think if he had to rely on others work ethics to get by, if I owned his house and unless he paid me a grand a week I'd arsehole him outa there. How many of the people he personally knew would he hire to help him survive.

Maybe half a dozen, was the reply. He hadn't seen the link between the two situations at all, didn't really understand the question. Still doesn't.

[mashman]

More likely ... the 36% that "participated" had the least in the way of useful information to offer, but the most to say. And because they "participated" ... their input was used.

Similar methods are used to gather statistics ....

heh heh heh, that sounds familiar for some reason...

I guess it doesn't really matter does it. Was employer protection strengthened? Nah, I can't see it. Was the employee position weakened, yes, very much so. The end.

[avgas]

Honest Unions, if they still exist, can help you navigate the minefield at a minimum of cost, without involving tribunals etc...
Said it before but will rephrase it again.
They don't. They never had.

If you offer a position of power to whomever sticks their hand up......have a guess what personalities stick their hands up.
Unions have caused more harm that good in the world. Even if they are their for the employees you will NEVER see a union fall before the people they are protecting.

Case and point mine workers in Africa recently. I have it on good word that the unions were discussing the NEXT protest as the miners fell.

People need to realize that this is their lives. When they start working they need to be in control of their own destiny. No one will help you out, no one will hold your hand. Your big kids now.
Especially in NZ where you can quit your job and go on a benefit. Seems crazy there are unions here - why stick around in a job where no one likes you?
As soon as people learn these simple concepts the unions are worthless to them. As they are to me.
There is more than one job in NZ.

[oneofsix]

Said it before but will rephrase it again.
They don't. They never had.

If you offer a position of power to whomever sticks their hand up......have a guess what personalities stick their hands up.
Unions have caused more harm that good in the world. Even if they are their for the employees you will NEVER see a union fall before the people they are protecting.

Case and point mine workers in Africa recently. I have it on good word that the unions were discussing the NEXT protest as the miners fell.

People need to realize that this is their lives. When they start working they need to be in control of their own destiny. No one will help you out, no one will hold your hand. Your big kids now.
Especially in NZ where you can quit your job and go on a benefit. Seems crazy there are unions here - why stick around in a job where no one likes you?
As soon as people learn these simple concepts the unions are worthless to them. As they are to me.
There is more than one job in NZ.

what a load of :bs:

[mashman]

Said it before but will rephrase it again.
They don't. They never had.

If you offer a position of power to whomever sticks their hand up......have a guess what personalities stick their hands up.
Unions have caused more harm that good in the world. Even if they are their for the employees you will NEVER see a union fall before the people they are protecting.

Case and point mine workers in Africa recently. I have it on good word that the unions were discussing the NEXT protest as the miners fell.

People need to realize that this is their lives. When they start working they need to be in control of their own destiny. No one will help you out, no one will hold your hand. Your big kids now.
Especially in NZ where you can quit your job and go on a benefit. Seems crazy there are unions here - why stick around in a job where no one likes you?
As soon as people learn these simple concepts the unions are worthless to them. As they are to me.
There is more than one job in NZ.

I've heard the same story from my mum, hmmmmm, anyway, unions are falling as they are pushed out of the workplace in one way or another... I'd hardly call that a positive thing given that that leaves employers (yes the bad bad bad evil employers :facepalm:) to do what the fuck they want in regards to terms and conditions for workers. As you say, if an employee doesn't like it, they can always leave. Brilliant attitude and a wonderful way to embue the workforce to be productive and disenfranchise the working population.

I read about the platinum mine incident yesterday. They wanted more money and so went on strike, I have no problem with that (have you seen the price of platinum?). You don't need a union for a workforce to come to that course of action.

People do realise that this is their life and by no means are they in control of their own destiny where they are an employee. Sure if you're a good employee and you have a good employer you will be financially rewarded (I've known 2 in 20+ years)... but that does not guarantee you your position, especially when a business is down to shedding numbers to save money. Get rid of 5 that cost 200k or get rid of 2 that saves 200k?

The unions give people the knowledge with which to "fight" their employer and the strength in numbers not to become a casualty as you go tete a tete with the employer on important issues. I ain't saying that they are perfect by any means and if I was a tin foil hat type fella I'd say that they were infiltrated for the specific purpose of disbanding them. I'd rather they were there, even with their imperfections.

There ain't always another job.

[Flip]

It works both ways.

I started a job as the chief engineer at a Chch engineering company, a day latter I was the H+S manager, a day later I was working in Wellington, a day latter I was the business development manager. After 7 days I had enough and told the company that I was not able to perform all the duties they wanted me to do and I used the 90 day trial period to quit the position.

If you don't like the 90 day thing remember you (probably) voted a centre right wing goverment in.:facepalm:

[avgas]

There ain't always another job.
If that is the case then its down to "suck it up like a big boy".

Too many soft cocks think that the world owes them something. It owes you jack. If you want something - the only person stopping you getting it (in NZ anyway) is you.

As for the unions being a collective force to be reckoned with, its the workers who have that power. Unions are just another thing to pay off. The smart unions know this.

SFWU have doubled in the last 10 years.......but I don't see Macca's employees paychecks double in the last 10 years.
Not to mention the number of ports/meatworks/metalworks/smelters.......

SAVE US UNIONS, SAVE US......hey where the fuck did they go? Why are they over there with all the money?

[mashman]

If that is the case then its down to "suck it up like a big boy".

Too many soft cocks think that the world owes them something. It owes you jack. If you want something - the only person stopping you getting it (in NZ anyway) is you.

As for the unions being a collective force to be reckoned with, its the workers who have that power. Unions are just another thing to pay off. The smart unions know this.

SFWU have doubled in the last 10 years.......but I don't see Macca's employees paychecks double in the last 10 years.
Not to mention the number of ports/meatworks/metalworks/smelters.......

SAVE US UNIONS, SAVE US......hey where the fuck did they go? Why are they over there with all the money?

:killingme oh if only we were all like you.

And plenty of others that can't get into well paid work to pay their way... but that's their own fault? short of murdering someone and then applying for their job, what would you have them do to make your life so much more comfortable?

The workers do have the power and I agree that the unions aren't overly necessary, but the workers have enough on their plate, what with jumping from job to job (maybe not having the wherewithall) to soak up every process and important piece of legislation that pertains to their rights. Surely if the union was a bunch useless fat cat bludgers, no one would pay the dues?

There are downsides to any power structure and it always seems to come down to money. Tis a shame that it's the good honest employee that bears the brunt... after all employees are just hired help and shouldn't need to have their rights protected.

[scumdog]

If that is the case then its down to "suck it up like a big boy".

Too many soft cocks think that the world owes them something. It owes you jack. If you want something - the only person stopping you getting it (in NZ anyway) is you. ?

Dead right there.

That and this 21st century attitude 'It's not my fault' is what anchors a lot of people.

[mashman]

Dead right there.

That and this 21st century attitude 'It's not my fault' is what anchors a lot of people.

It's also promoted by insurance companies and legal advisers. Deny all liability and make someone prove it :facepalm: The 21st century attitude is no different than the 10th century attitude... it's still a case of, oh they don't do anything of value in my perception (even if they are working), why bother giving them more than I think they need. Brilliant and Ahem, baaaaaaaa

[short-circuit]

If that is the case then its down to "suck it up like a big boy".

Too many soft cocks think that the world owes them something. It owes you jack. If you want something - the only person stopping you getting it (in NZ anyway) is you.



Just pulled this out of the Welfare support and drug testing thread....


Because apparently people believe its their right to be unemployable.........:facepalm:
Fuck knows who told them that.


So which is it?

a) Too bad there's no jobs (because people like avgas support the economic system responsible) suck it up

or is it -

b) you've got no right to be on the dole (cause it's such a privilege), get off your arse and work (in a non-existent job)

[scumdog]

It's also promoted by insurance companies and legal advisers. Deny all liability and make someone prove it :facepalm: The 21st century attitude is no different than the 10th century attitude... it's still a case of, oh they don't do anything of value in my perception (even if they are working), why bother giving them more than I think they need. Brilliant and Ahem, baaaaaaaa

Nup, I have noticed a definite attitude swing in the last 15 or so year, back before that it was common to hear somebody say "I fucked-up"

Now it's "Well it's not MY fault they/it/he should have....(name your favourite 'out')

One of the early '21st century attitude' experience that made me smirk was "Well it's their bloody fault, they shouldn't have got into my car, they know I've only got a Restricted licence so give them the ticket, THEY can pay it":blink:

[mashman]

Nup, I have noticed a definite attitude swing in the last 15 or so year, back before that it was common to hear somebody say "I fucked-up"

Now it's "Well it's not MY fault they/it/he should have....(name your favourite 'out')

One of the early '21st century attitude' experience that made me smirk was "Well it's their bloody fault, they shouldn't have got into my car, they know I've only got a Restricted licence so give them the ticket, THEY can pay it":blink:

I with ya for most of that. I own my fuckups, no point in blaming someone else... great way to learn too :)... no doubt back then a coppa woulda given more warnings too :shifty:.

The problem today is that mistakes generally cost money. It's quite easy to be labelled incompetent if you fuck up, irrespective of all of the good work a person does. I've seen it throughout my career in IT and seldom does the customer get the value for money when there's a fuck up. There's usually a shit fight to apportion blame and then internal heads are hunted to take the fall. It's been known for me to skip around the office doing the Wiggles Hot Potato dance when that's going on. I guess it's hardly surprising that it carries through to every day life... not that I'm blaming corporate culture, heh heh, but the loss of ones income means a damn site more today than it ever did as well as the loss of ones license. Yes it's the persons own fault, but if you're going to lose your livelihood over it (a probable blip over a lifetime), then I'm not surprised the lies floweth.