$2,400 for Hurt and Suffering

[Squeak the Rat]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10385366

Ahhhh, Labour....... Guy steals petrol from his boss, draws swastikas on the house of the family who's grandparent survived the holocaust. His boss didn't warn him well enough so he gets $2400 cashola for hurt and suffering. Poor guy.

[madboy]

What an arsehole boss. How dare he treat that fine upstanding employee in that way. That young man had a real future ahead of him, and now because of his treatment by this horrible excuse for a boss he will permanently have this scar on his employment record. How will he ever become a pre-school teacher now?

[idb]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10385366

Ahhhh, Labour....... Guy steals petrol from his boss, draws swastikas on the house of the family who's grandparent who survived the holocaust. His boss didn't warn him well enough so he gets $2400 cashola for hurt and suffering. Poor guy.
I wonder if he thinks that $2,400 is going to be worth having his name published for being such a tosser.
He may have won but he may have lost more - plonker!

[GR81]

doesnt surprise me... gg nzl's court system!

[Sniper]

Fucken employment courts.... useless.

[bobsmith]

It says that the guy was fired for "being late"?????

Perhaps, the boss should have fired the bastard when he drew graffiti... If he had a proper contract and employer should have had a clause where they could fire him for serious misconduct such as graffiti on client's homes, trying to steal fuel, etc...

It does suck the boss has to pay up to the bastard now, but hopefully in the future, he will have more regard for such legal issues beforing firing someone, (ie, fire them for serious misconduct instead of being late)

[scumdog]

Would have been more worthwhile to have spent $2,399 on a hit-man, at least he would have saved a dollar AND got rid of a loser.

[Drunken Monkey]

I got the impression the graffiti was done because he was fired.
The ERA is often tipped too far in support of employees. In principle there wasn't anything wrong with the ECA, just too many people signed employment contracts because they needed the work, without considering the details of the contract before signing.

[**R1**]

Would have been more worthwhile to have spent $2,399 on a hit-man, at least he would have saved a dollar AND got rid of a loser.:gob: Thats interesting considering your ocupation...you doing foreigners???

[Sniper]

:gob: Thats interesting considering your ocupation...you doing foreigners???

I have never done anything to you..... Besides, Im a citizen now.

[scumdog]

I have never done anything to you..... Besides, Im a citizen now.

You worried that R1 has something against you??
Or feeling guilty about something?:innocent:

[Sniper]

You worried that R1 has something against you??
Or feeling guilty about something?:innocent:

No comment... :shutup:

[scumdog]

:gob: Thats interesting considering your ocupation...you doing foreigners???

Notice that hardly any of the "1,000 new cops" are getting sent down here - something to do with the crime rate falling in the far south...:innocent: :whistle: :msn-wink:

[Finn]

Question Scummy: If you can get a fellow kiwi knocked off for $2,399, what's the going rate for a Prime Minister?

[Biohazard]

Question Scummy: If you can get a fellow kiwi knocked off for $2,399, what's the going rate for a Prime Minister?

I'm sure that there is long list of people who would do that TWAT for FREE :blip:

[mstriumph]

It says that the guy was fired for "being late"?????

Perhaps, the boss should have fired the bastard when he drew graffiti... If he had a proper contract and employer should have had a clause where they could fire him for serious misconduct such as graffiti on client's homes, trying to steal fuel, etc...

It does suck the boss has to pay up to the bastard now, but hopefully in the future, he will have more regard for such legal issues beforing firing someone, (ie, fire them for serious misconduct instead of being late)

Right

There are obviously procedures to be complied with over there, same as [used to be - pre king f#ckwit howard] here.

Employers ignore these at their peril.

You may not LIKE the system, but this is an indication that it is working as it should be.

..... and yes - the ex-employee is a first-degree wanker - 'nuff said

[Sniper]

I quite like Howards terms on Employee and Employer firing and Hiring

[Lou Girardin]

That was an interesting article, it was linked to the Nat's having a go about the 'grievance industry'. But the figures show that only 58% of cases against employers succeed. They're not odds I'd risk several thousand dollars in legal fees on.
This was a particularly stupid decision, but if employers followed the rules it wouldn't happen. What's wrong with a verbal warning followed by a written warning, followed by the sack?
Or should we return to the 19th century, 14 hour days at your masters pleasure?

[**R1**]

Notice that hardly any of the "1,000 new cops" are getting sent down here - something to do with the crime rate falling in the far south...:innocent: :whistle: :msn-wink:realy?? and I thought it was coz my bike was off the road:nya:

[Squeak the Rat]

But the figures show that only 58% of cases against employers succeed.
58% sounds like a fair number really. In a very loose kind of logic way it implies there isn't a complete bias one way or the other.

I don't really have a problem with following the process. But cash for hurt and suffering? We're slowly getting to be like the states where you can sue someone for emotional distress because they yelled at you.


PS - are the nolans with the sun visor any noiser when it's raised?

[Lou Girardin]

PS - are the nolans with the sun visor any noiser when it's raised?

I haven't noticed a difference up to 140 odd.

[Phurrball]

Like Lou implied above.

There are procedures to follow, and the employment forums concerned don't seem to be falling over themselves to find in favour of employees based on statistics.

Sure, I agree that the case mentioned in the 'harold' is one of a total looser, but it is just that...one case. ONe case does not a biased system make. More fool the employer for not getting rid of the guy properly; you've gotta dot the 'i's and cross the 't's - hell - you can even get employment advice for free from a community law centre if you don't wanna pay a lawyer. ANy student volunteer worth their salt could've told the 'boss' concerned how to dismiss the looser mentioned without a nasty comback.

The system should, IMHO, have a slight natural bias towards employees, due to the imbalane in bargaining power usually inherent in employee/employer bargaining. (Just like the residential tenancies act recognises a similar imbalancce in bargaining power). The 'harold' article was not a stunning piece of journalism, and was hardly balanced. But what do you expect when most of NZ's papers are owned by big business interests?

I know my views ain't gonna be popular, but tough. You may not like the system, but you've gotta work within it if you want results.

(Yes, I know I'm a 'hippy' finn!)

[scumdog]

realy?? and I thought it was coz my bike was off the road:nya:

I said CRIME, not pissuant bike stunting and general dicking around:nya:

[WINJA]

looks like theres only one side of the story presented, the employment court arent that stupid , sometimes when 2 sides are presented in a court it maybe a clearer picture than whats pesented here, most employers are scum in my opinion and get the punishment they deserve

[texmo]

I agree with winja there is alwase 2 sides to the story....

[Skyryder]

I agree with winja there is alwase 2 sides to the story....

I live in a complicated world. There's my side of the story that makes three.:gob:

Skyryder

[JimO]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser

[WINJA]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser
BUT YOUVE ONLY GOT ONE SIDE OF THE STORY, HE MIGHT SAY HES INNOCENT AND PRODUCE A COP AND A JP AS A WITNESS , BUT YOUVE ALREADY SAID YOU WONT EMPLOY HIM AND MADE A JUDGEMENT,YOUR THE KIND OF EMPOYER WE NEED PROTETION FROM

[Ixion]

The Harold article was rather unbalanced. The "grafitti" and stuff was, if I understand correctly, on the unclad framing/inner surfaces of the walls. This has been a tradition for at least 100 years. I have worked on old (C19) houses, and found all sorts of comments/drawing/graffiti in the wall cavities once the matchboard (gibboard nowdays) is removed. Of course , once the wall is gibbed the graffiti is hidden for all time (or many many years anyway).

It is not at all easy to secure a victory on the employment court , you have to do your homework, and the employer must have genuinely stuffed up.

The process is very simple, really. A jolly sight simpler for employers to follow than cops have to go through when giving you a ticket. If they (cops) have to follow the procedure, I don't see why employers shouldn't.

After all , here's the boss saying he wants to sack someone for not following the rules. But, wait a minute, the boss is also saying that bosses shouldn't have to follow the rules? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you reckon that workers should be sacked if they break the rules, then bosses also should have to follow the rules.

[Ixion]

two sides maby but the guy desirved the push for both the incidents and he will have a massive black mark against him now. I am in the same industry and i wouldnt employ the tosser

So you would also support me , as union delegate , calling for a black ban and load out ban on the employer , effectively putting him out of business? (I've done that once) . After all, the court said he was the guilty party.

You are saying that the people of this country should be victimised for seeking recourse under the law? So, in the same logic, if you get knocked off your bike by a cager, and you take said cager to court, and the court awards you compensation for your stuffed up bike, you should be banned from driving for life, because you have committed the "crime" of seeking redress that you were legally entitled to? Same logic. Sounds like your industry could be fertile recruiting grounds for Matt McCarten and the Unite union. I'll pass the message on next time I see him.

[Indiana_Jones]

What a cunt.

-Indy

[Phurrball]

Are you being autobiographical with that enlightened, and contextually obvious statement Indy? :Pokey:

[Finn]

The Employment Relations Authority has just provided the perfect example of why Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill should be passed.

Imagine this - you are a small employer, and you hire a new plasterer. Within a few weeks he tries to steal from you, by using a company fuel card on his personal car, at 12.30 am after a night out drinking (I wonder how he was driving!). You do the proper thing and give him a warning.

Then while out on a job he and a colleague scrawl obscene words and swastikas on the windows and framings. The owners are rightly offended (especially as one had a parent who was a Holocaust survivor). Now even at this stage you don't sack the employee outright, nut do the right thing and give him another warning.

Finally the new employee just simply is not turning up to work on time, so you dismiss him.

What happens? The ERA gives the employee $2,400 for "hurt and humiliation", to be paid by the employer.

As I have said many times, it is near impossible for a small or medium sized employer to legally sack even the worse of employees. The ERA puts huge reliance on minor procedural flaws over the substance of whether the dismissal was justified.

Under Wayne Mapp's bill, that employee who turns up late, tries to steal from the employer and graffitis a client's home would not be getting $2,400 for "hurt and humiliation" as the employer could just within the three month period have let him go.

[Squeak the Rat]

Took me one year to sack some one in a professional role who made up answers when he didn't know. This cost the company tens of thousands of dollars as this guy was supposed to be a specialist. Happened often, including once he made an unauthorised purchase of some software ($25,000) that we couldn't use. During performance session he would have excuses for africa. The dip shit then did something really negligent so we gave him a final warning / dismissal. And guess what, he filed a personal grievance.

Forget small businesses, this was in a big business.

I'm not up to speed with Wayne Mapps bill, but I'd like to think there would need to be at least some justification in the 3 month see-ya-later? Otherwise it could be a good way of getting some good temp resource.......

[Lou Girardin]

I'm not up to speed with Wayne Mapps bill, but I'd like to think there would need to be at least some justification in the 3 month see-ya-later? Otherwise it could be a good way of getting some good temp resource.......

That's the argument against it. But Mapp says we should trust employers not to do this.
And then he can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Indiana_Jones]

Are you being autobiographical with that enlightened, and contextually obvious statement Indy? :Pokey:

Why yes I have, Thank you!

-Indy

[Phurrball]

(Snip) But Mapp says we should trust employers not to do this.(Snip)

A Tui ad if ever I saw one.

Like I said in my earlier post, I have sympathy with the employer, as the ex-employee in question is clearly pond-scum...but due process is there for a reason - people can be instantly dismissed for serious misconduct. You don't need to be a legal drafting wizard to include clauses in the contract that define cases of serious misconduct...like, erm, using the company fuelcard for personal use??!! If the facts fit, you were warned in the contract, so you're a goneburger.

Besides, if someone is really that bad, a background check should show them up even if they lie in their CV. That, and if I recall correctly, there is already provision for probationary contracts in existing legislation (has been a while since I looked at the ERA - happy for a steer on this one as I'm writing an opinion on quite a different area of law ATM, so I shouldn't even be on KB:innocent: )

No one, not employer or employee, should be allowed to terminate an employment relationship without following due process. Mapp's bill is a bad, bad idea IMHO as it would allow just this. Employment termination 'cause you made coffee for the boss with one sugar instead of 2? Could be a reality...along with dismissal for any other non-reason.

My $0.02.

[Ixion]

Or - "Sacked- I don't have to give a reason". But if I did admit the real reason, it'd be that you're a cute young chick and you wouldn't sleep with me. So I'll send you on your way and hire another cute young thing. Sooner or later I'll get one that'll do what i want.

[Lou Girardin]

There was an interview with John Haig QC and some guy from an Employment Advisory service. Haig was the voice of reason and made some good points about the current situation.
The other guy was an Employers cheerleader, it seems they can do, and have never done, anuthing wrong.
This was a good argument to keep the law as it is.

[JimO]

yes thats right:whocares: as a employer i wouldnt employ anyone who did the things that twat did the reason that he is being paid out is because the employer didnt fire him properly .... good reason for not employing him ever

[JimO]

i have noticed a bit of anti employer threads on here, so if you dont like being employed or employers become your own boss.. pedal your own bike.. its not all beer and skittles you know

[WINJA]

i have noticed a bit of anti employer threads on here, so if you dont like being employed or employers become your own boss.. pedal your own bike.. its not all beer and skittles you know
WHAT A FUCKED UP THING TO SAY YOU KNOW 90% OF US HAVE TO WORK FOR SOMEONE ELSE, YOU SOUND LIKE THE TYPICAL EMPLOYER THAT HARDENS MOST EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES, EMPLOYERS ARE USUALLY SELFISH ITS JUST THE WAY IT IS THEY DONT SEE US AS PEOPLE OFTEN THEY SEE US AS CATTLE AND CALL US SHIT LIKE LABOUR UNITS. AND I LOVE THAT FUNNY EMPLOYER TYPE MATHS LIKE WHEN YOU WORK A 9 HOUR DAY EVRY DAY BUT YOUR SICK PAY IS CALCULATED ON A 8 HOUR DAY WE ALL KNOW EMPLOYERS EMPLOY WAGE CLERKS TO MAKE SURE THEY PAY US AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE , YEAH FUCK YOU CUNTS I THINK ITS GREAT WHEN EMPLOYEES RIP YOU FUCKERS OFF AND GET THEIR OWN BACK

[Winston001]

A few points:

The problem with current employment law is that in the 1990's the Employment Court worked out a set of "fair procedures" for discipline and dismissal. This was a judical reaction to balance the pro-employer Employment Contracts Act 1991.

That was replaced by the Employment Relations Act 2000 which is much more employee-friendly.

However the "fair procedures" have never been changed to rebalance the equation. The emphasis in Court continues to be on the process used by the employer, not the actions of the employee. This approach means that the employer is guilty until they can prove otherwise.Thus we end up with extraordinary decisions such as this plasterer jerk.

I agree with Wayne Mapp's "no-cause" 3 month trial employment period. The ERA does currently provide for a probationary period of employment but strange as it must seem, you've got to come up with really compelling reasons to end the employment. In other words, in practise there is no such thing as probationary employment.

[idb]

what a fucked up thing to say you know 90% of us have to work for someone else, you sound like the typical employer that hardens most employees attitudes, employers are usually selfish its just the way it is they dont see us as people often they see us as cattle and call us shit like labour units. and i love that funny employer type maths like when you work a 9 hour day evry day but your sick pay is calculated on a 8 hour day we all know employers employ wage clerks to make sure they pay us as little as possible , yeah fuck you cunts i think its great when employees rip you fuckers off and get their own back
you sound like a typical lazy-arsed tosser who thinks the world owes him a living and resents anyone who might have a bit of extra drive or guts getting anything extra for their efforts.

[Phurrball]

I agree with Wayne Mapp's "no-cause" 3 month trial employment period. The ERA does currently provide for a probationary period of employment but strange as it must seem, you've got to come up with really compelling reasons to end the employment. In other words, in practise there is no such thing as probationary employment.

Some good points Winston. I'm pretty uneasy about any trial employment period that gives allows no employment law remedy for either party in the case of unfair dealing. (I'm know there are other legal remedies...but they are a much longer bow to draw for either party)

Both employers and employees need to be aware of their rights, and enter a contractual employnment relationship with their eyes open. Mapp's bill kinda counts on all parties dealing fairly, and in good faith, and while that's nice, it's not realistic, and people on both sides of the fence will get stung IMHO

(I'd better read that bill now eh?)

[JimO]

WINJA is a good name for you im shure that you are a model employee.. by the way dont you ever get sick of saying "do you want fries with that"

[Ixion]

,,

Both employers and employees need to be aware of their rights, and enter a contractual employnment relationship with their eyes open. ,,

And, in the blue corner , we have an executive of a multibillion dollar international corporation , with a well staffed HR department and a Ivy League law firm on permanent retainer.

In the red corner we have a 16 year old girl who REALLY REALLY wants her first job. With WINZ telling her if she doesn't get it they'll cut her benefit.

They're both reading the employment contract, to ensure that it's fair to both parties.

Anyone see anything wrong with this picture ? Anyone ever tried to get a single word changed in one of those international corporate standard contracts?

[WINJA]

WINJA is a good name for you im shure that you are a model employee.. by the way dont you ever get sick of saying "do you want fries with that"
SHOWS WHAT YOU KNOW RETARD, THERES A GOOD CHANCE IM DOING BETTER THAN YOU.

I BELIEVE IN WORKERS RIGHTS AND I THINK ITS TIME THE WORM TURNED , YEAH IF YOUR AN EMPLOYER YOULL BE SHITTING BRICKS WHEN THE UNIONS ARE IN FULL SWING AGAIN .

IDB GO FUCK YOURSELF

[scumdog]

SHOWS WHAT YOU KNOW RETARD, THERES A GOOD CHANCE IM DOING BETTER THAN YOU.

I BELIEVE IN WORKERS RIGHTS AND I THINK ITS TIME THE WORM TURNED , YEAH IF YOUR AN EMPLOYER YOULL BE SHITTING BRICKS WHEN THE UNIONS ARE IN FULL SWING AGAIN .

IDB GO FUCK YOURSELF

Join the pigs 'cos the public is your boss and you don't have to take any notice of them and they can't sack you.

[Jantar]

... Anyone ever tried to get a single word changed in one of those international corporate standard contracts?...

Sure have. 9 members on our team at work (well 8 at the moment until we make another appointment), and each of us has a slightly different contract. Different salary, different leave provisions, different super provisions etc.

Negotiation is just that. If the employer decides that you are the best person for the job then they will negotiate to ensure that you are the one they employ.

[JimO]

Thats nice winja i hope you are doing real good but you come across a a immature spoilt brat resorting to abuse and having tantrums ..so here is some free advise from someone who left school at 15, owns a couple of houses, 3 late model cars, a classic V8, and a couple of bikes, has been self employed for over 20 years...... GROW UP YOU BIG BABY......

[Mr. Peanut]

Thats nice winja i hope you are doing real good but you come across a a immature spoilt brat resorting to abuse and having tantrums ..so here is some free advise from someone who left school at 15, owns a couple of houses, 3 late model cars, a classic V8, and a couple of bikes, has been self employed for over 20 years...... GROW UP YOU BIG BABY......

FFS you were employed in the 70's, when workers got a fair wage and had rights. Houses cost SFA, then you managed to avoid getting screwed by the employee contract act by becoming self employed.

I can hardly see how you appreciate the average workers situtation.

10.25 an hour??? 3 weeks holiday a year?

Thanks for the advice.

[JimO]

well actually i started work in 1975 as a apprentice and was paid $39 a week when i came out of my time i was getting $175 a week. what a fortune. You cunts that dribble on about employers and conditions and 3 weeks holiday arnt forced to stay, if you dont like it get another job (WINJA could try burger king) You spend a big part of your life working why not be happy doing it. The unions arnt going to save you you have to do it yourself. No one handed me anything i have worked for it and no one is going to hand you anything either

[JimO]

Mr Peanut i see that you are 19, when i was 19 i was earning about $150 a week what are you on, i also only had 3 weeks hols a year, houses didnt cost sfa they were just as expensive as they are now for our wages, i became self employed to get ahead not to beat the employment contracts act. You guys need to get over this BOO HOO POOR ME attitude. perhaps getting the cane at school may have helped or even a good smack from your parents

[Mr. Peanut]

$150 a week in what year? and for how many hours work?

$311 a week aint exactly bad for an apprentice...

[JimO]

1979 that was pretty much 90% of a tradesmans wage

[Mr. Peanut]

Thats $710, You didnt have to pay GST either. And housing cost were cheaper.

I'm on $500 before tax for 50 hours work.

[stanko]

Thats $710, You didnt have to pay GST either. And housing cost were cheaper.

I'm on $500 before tax for 50 hours work.

Minimum wage in NZ is 10.25 so you should ask for the other $12.50

[stanko]

SHOWS WHAT YOU KNOW RETARD, THERES A GOOD CHANCE IM DOING BETTER THAN YOU.

I BELIEVE IN WORKERS RIGHTS AND I THINK ITS TIME THE WORM TURNED , YEAH IF YOUR AN EMPLOYER YOULL BE SHITTING BRICKS WHEN THE UNIONS ARE IN FULL SWING AGAIN .

IDB GO FUCK YOURSELF

The worm will never turn, cos the employers are just that , the employer

WINJA=0.8 Labour Units

[WINJA]

Thats nice winja i hope you are doing real good but you come across a a immature spoilt brat resorting to abuse and having tantrums ..so here is some free advise from someone who left school at 15, owns a couple of houses, 3 late model cars, a classic V8, and a couple of bikes, has been self employed for over 20 years...... GROW UP YOU BIG BABY......
YUP AS I THOUGHT YOUR NOT DOING THAT WELL FOR YOUR AGE, YOU STARTED IN A TIME WHEN IT WAS EASY TO THRIVE AND THATS ALL YOU GOT TO SHOW FOR IT. LOOKED AT YOUR PROFILE IF THOSE ARE THE 2 BIKES YOUR TALKING ABOUT I WOULDNT BE BOASTING IF I WERE YOU, DUNEDIN AYE HOW MUCH ARE YOUR HOUSES WORTH , ADDED TOGETHER THEYD BE WORTH FAR LESS THAN MY AUCKLAND DUMP , I GOT AN OK JOB AND IM HAPPY TO BE THERE I MAKE THE MOST OF IT AND GET PAID WELL BUT IVE HAD TO BATTLE FOR IT BEEN TO PLENTY OF INTERVIEWS TOLD LOTSA HR PEOPLE AND PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS TO FUCK OFF RIGHT TO THEIR FACE SOME EMPLOYERS ARE SCARED OF ME ONE EVEN ADMITTED IT BUT IN THE END HE WAS HAPPY TO EMPLOY ME BEST ENGINEER HES EVER HAD AND THATS HIS WORDS, I ALSO HAVE 2 RENTAL HOUSES SO IM A LANDLORD , I ALSO HAVE A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WHICH I MANAGE, NAH I DONT WORK AT BURGER KING OR MCDONALDS BUT FUNNY ENOUGH IM REAL POLITE TO THOSE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTER ON THE RARE TIMES I GO THERE CAUSE I STILL RESPECT THEM AT LEAST THEIR TRYING

[avgas]

fucken wanker, pity they didnt knee cap him

[WINJA]

The worm will never turn, cos the employers are just that , the employer

WINJA=0.8 Labour Units
WINJA=2 LABOUR UNITS

[scumdog]

Thats $710, You didnt have to pay GST either. And housing cost were cheaper.

I'm on $500 before tax for 50 hours work.

You're in the wrong job.

OR You must like what you're doing or you would move.

And as a matter of fact a shitload of other items were hell or a lot more expensive back then.

[Mr. Peanut]

Not everyone is an independent, intellligent, white male with options. There are plenty of people without a choice.

Im off to tertiary next year, so I'm not that concerned over my pay rate. I'm just not comfortable about the people who have to work these jobs, getting such a raw deal. Someones gotta fill the shelves.

[Ixion]

Intelligent, articulate 30 and 40 year olds with tertiary qualifications and in demand skills can manage very well under the present employment arrangements. Of course, they always could.

But society should not be measured on the basis of how well it treats people who are well able to look out for themselves.It should be judged on how well it looks out for those who are weak, vulnerable and ill equipped to stand up for themselves. On that basis our society when judged is found wanting.

Most employers are decent and reasonable. They always were. Some are not.

Most workers can stand up for themselves and, one way or another, cut a reasonable deal - whether that be by striking out on their own, like Mr JimJim, or by telling ratbag bosses to fuck off like Mr WINJA, or by virtue of presenting in demand skill like Mr Jantar. But there will be some workers for whom none of these options are feasible , for many reasons.

All to often these become the prey of the gredy vicious and unscrupulous employer. An exploitation that we , as a society, now seem happy to condone.

Elevating "I'm all right, Jack, and sod the rest of you" to a cultural mantra is not progress.

[JimO]

There goes mr WINJA at it again i have the bikes i have by choice, the two houses i own total up to around $650 k which wont impress a big shot like you of course because you tell hr people to "fuck off" im not pro bad employers but cant stand employees who think they are owed a big wage and lots of holidays etc because they turn up to work to go through the day as half assed as they can. In fact i have heard that WINJA is a 17 year old pimply faced short kid who lives with his mum:nya: :nya: :nya:

[metric]

Anyone ever tried to get a single word changed in one of those international corporate standard contracts?

Yes.

It didn't happen. Not for want of trying...

[willy_01]

Reading this thread seems to show some people pretty unhappy with their lot. If this is the case no laws or government intervention is going to help you.
As a national voter and general ‘hands off’ government policy supporter (within reason of course) I see little problem with the ERA. I confess im younger than most on this site but have studied and do deal with it daily. The ERA is pretty lopsided when it comes to who it favours, however businesses have other tools in their arsenal so I feel it equals itself up, the biggest being the financial ability to hire someone with sound knowledge of the law, thus being able to develop a solid defence. Remember employment is most certainly not an area where ignorance is bliss. I’ve seen employment contracts and advertisements that are just screaming PG.

[Winston001]

Reading this thread seems to show some people pretty unhappy with their lot. If this is the case no laws or government intervention is going to help you.

Businesses have other tools in their arsenal so I feel it equals itself up, the biggest being the financial ability to hire someone with sound knowledge of the law,

Remember employment is most certainly not an area where ignorance is bliss.

Most employers are small businesses. They employ 3 - 7 staff at the most. These employers are sometimes no better off than their employees and struggle on hoping its all going to turn out in the long run.

Many employers cannot afford to go running to lawyers every time they have a problem.

[idb]

IDB GO FUCK YOURSELF
A good point well made whinger.
You've turned me 'round to your view.

[idb]

Intelligent, articulate 30 and 40 year olds with tertiary qualifications and in demand skills can manage very well under the present employment arrangements. Of course, they always could.

But society should not be measured on the basis of how well it treats people who are well able to look out for themselves.It should be judged on how well it looks out for those who are weak, vulnerable and ill equipped to stand up for themselves. On that basis our society when judged is found wanting.

Most employers are decent and reasonable. They always were. Some are not.

Most workers can stand up for themselves and, one way or another, cut a reasonable deal - whether that be by striking out on their own, like Mr JimJim, or by telling ratbag bosses to fuck off like Mr WINJA, or by virtue of presenting in demand skill like Mr Jantar. But there will be some workers for whom none of these options are feasible , for many reasons.

All to often these become the prey of the gredy vicious and unscrupulous employer. An exploitation that we , as a society, now seem happy to condone.

Elevating "I'm all right, Jack, and sod the rest of you" to a cultural mantra is not progress.
Quite right....you can't assume that all employers are pricks, with greater power or financial resources than their employees.
Likewise, you can't assume that all workers are powerless and dependent.
What is unhelpful is an attitude of 'them and us'.

Any law should be able to take into account all possible scenarios, not favour or disadvantage one side or the other.

And don't forget that most employers are workers themselves, it just so happens that they own the business as well.

[JimO]

what he said

[Winston001]

Just for clarity, I think the proposed 3 month trial period only permits the employer at the end to say "Thanks, but no thanks".

The employer is still bound by all other employment laws such as health and safety, no harrassment, no discrimination, equal pay rates etc. So its actually a pretty narrow change.

At the most basic level, the boss wants someone to turn up reliably, do the job, not annoy customers or other employees. 3 months is a fair trial period for everybody. No boss is going to go through the hassle of getting a new employee if they don't need to.

[Patrick]

Some employers deserve all they get, have a mate who came off a bike, cage on her side of the road... hit the car or the bank...ummmmm... ended up with a broken ankle after hitting the bank...went on ACC and coz it took longer to come right than "expected" they gave her the boot!!!). I'm sure this unfair dismissal will make headlines soon... :wait:

In this case however, my sympathy is with the boss. Shame the houseowner can't sue the tosser for $10K or much more for "hurt feelings and dignity" in the name of their grandparents...

[WINJA]

In this case however, my sympathy is with the boss. Shame the houseowner can't sue the tosser for $10K or much more for "hurt feelings and dignity" in the name of their grandparents...
BUT YOUVE ONLY GOT HALF THE STORY , YOUR OPINION MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT IF YOU HEARD BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY , DO YOU GUYS REALLY THINK THESE EMPLOYMENT COURT PEOPLE ARE REALLY THAT STUPID , I BET IF YOU SAT IN THE COURT THRU THE WHOLE PROCEEDING AND LISTEND TO BOTH SIDES AND THE JUDGES COMMENTS YOU MAY CHANGE YOUR MIND A BIT, HE COULD HAVE BEEN CHINESE AND THE SWASTIKA BACKWARDS MEANS PEACE AND GOOD LUCK (OR SIMILAR POSITIVE SHIT)IN THEIR CULTURE , HE MAY HAVE ACCIDENTLY USED THE COMPANY FUEL CARD CAUSE I KNOW IVE ACCIDENTLY USED MY CREDIT CARD TO FILL THE COMPANY CAR ITS EASILY DONE, FUCK IM GLAD YOUR NOT A COP OR SIMILAR PATRICK

[Patrick]

He used the card deliberately, (oops, I mean in WINJAS world, he mistook his name printed on the card as "Joes Plastering Company")

He deliberately used swastikas on a jewish family home... (ooops... I forgot, in WINJAS world, his name was Sho Mah Big WOK and it is all fung shui).

The boss didn't tell him what was blatantly obvious, "you can't do that shit..." Naughty boss, that will cost you $2400...

Also it was in the Harold... it all has to be completely true and unbiased...

[Ixion]

Just for clarity, I think the proposed 3 month trial period only permits the employer at the end to say "Thanks, but no thanks".

The employer is still bound by all other employment laws such as health and safety, no harrassment, no discrimination, equal pay rates etc. So its actually a pretty narrow change.

At the most basic level, the boss wants someone to turn up reliably, do the job, not annoy customers or other employees. 3 months is a fair trial period for everybody. No boss is going to go through the hassle of getting a new employee if they don't need to.

Uh-huh. Wanna bet how many new training rorts we'll see start up? "Super duper training scheme WE GUARANTEE YOU A JOB AT THE COMPLETION OF TRAINING. Only $5000. Job guaranteed (for three months)".

And how many kids desparate for that first job, or older workers "made redundant", who have been sucked in by the "retraining" bullshit, will pay their money and four months later find themselves less money and still no job.

Sorry mate, you're too decent a guy for this world. There are some utter CUNTS of employers out there, and all a three month trial period does is give them a perpetualy rolling supply of cheap labour to exploit and discard after three months.

[idb]

Uh-huh. Wanna bet how many new training rorts we'll see start up? "Super duper training scheme WE GUARANTEE YOU A JOB AT THE COMPLETION OF TRAINING. Only $5000. Job guaranteed (for three months)".

And how many kids desparate for that first job, or older workers "made redundant", who have been sucked in by the "retraining" bullshit, will pay their money and four months later find themselves less money and still no job.

Yep, that's exactly what has happened in the bullshit 'pre-apprenticeship training' courses dreamed up by the polytechs. But that's got nothing to do with employers.


Sorry mate, you're too decent a guy for this world. There are some utter CUNTS of employers out there, and all a three month trial period does is give them a perpetualy rolling supply of cheap labour to exploit and discard after three months.
It costs a lot of money to employ people what with interviewing, training, unproductive time while they're getting up to speed, kitting up, administrative costs and so on. Where's the incentive to keep changing every three months?

It's true that there are bad employers, there're are also bad employees.
It doesn't have to be just one or the other.
There are good cops and bad cops, good coffee makers and bad coffee makers, soft banana bites and hard banana bites, green eggs and ham.........

[Motu]

Those pre apprenticeship courses are useless,a rip off and give false hope to those on the course.I get a couple a week walking in or phoning up,99% can't speak English,I haven't seen the other 1%.My zombi metho Bro in Law even went on one - he's got no fucking fingers! Cut them all off at the first joint,gauranteed lifetime disability.

As an employer I'm very leery of taking someone on - once you got em,you got em for life.Three written warnings my arse!....''Oh,I've been getting into work earlier,but the dog ate my alarm yesterday and....'' And so you start at warning number one again.The Chinese guy I have here now is absolutly fucking hopeless,but I'm stuck with him....he's at a certain level and stuck there - he's not getting a fucking cent more until he earns his keep.

[JimO]

WINJA get your mum to turn the caps lock off on your computer

[WINJA]

WINJA get your mum to turn the caps lock off on your computer
I WILL , BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO STOP YOUR MUM SNIFFING ROUND HERE FOR A ROOT

[WINJA]

There are some utter CUNTS of employers out there, and all a three month trial period does is give them a perpetualy rolling supply of cheap labour to exploit and discard after three months.
AND WHY CANT THE DUMB CUNTS ON THIS SITE SEE THIS , MOST THINGS ARE STILL STACKED IN THE EMPLOYERS FAVOUR THEY GOT THE LAWERS THE HR CUNTS (IF YOUR IN HR ILL SAY THAT TO YOUR FACE IF YOU LIKE)AND ALL THE HELP THEY NEED TO FUCK YOU OVER , MOST EMPLOYEES ARE ON THEIR OWN EVEN WHEN IN A UNION , ONE REASON THE IMBALANCE IS IF YOU ARE ONE OF 10 EMPLOYEES AND YOU GET FIRED ONLY 10%OF THE LABOUR IS GONE AND THOSE REAMINING USUALLY HAVE TO PICK UP THE SLACK YET FOR THE EMPLOYEE HES LOST 100% OF HIS INCOME

[chanceyy]

And how many kids desparate for that first job, or older workers "made redundant", who have been sucked in by the "retraining" bullshit, will pay their money and four months later find themselves less money and still no job.

Sorry mate, you're too decent a guy for this world. There are some utter CUNTS of employers out there, and all a three month trial period does is give them a perpetualy rolling supply of cheap labour to exploit and discard after three months.

This is law in another country and its not working, the new employees are not covered by the rules & regulations as those employed longer than 3 months.
The concerning part is the new workers have no rights at all. None, Nadda, Zip - there may be shit employees however there are far to many employers who will take full advantage of this to abuse workers

[JimO]

WINGER the only thing sniffing around you would be your poodle

[idb]

and why cant the dumb cunts on this site see this , most things are still stacked in the employers favour they got the lawers the hr cunts (if your in hr ill say that to your face if you like)and all the help they need to fuck you over , most employees are on their own even when in a union , one reason the imbalance is if you are one of 10 employees and you get fired only 10%of the labour is gone and those reamining usually have to pick up the slack yet for the employee hes lost 100% of his income
come on flanger.
lawers and hr c*nts?
how many small businesses can afford an hr c*nt do you think?
how many could afford to go to a lawer every three months?
why do you and all the other flangers think that all employers are rolling in dosh and furthermore are prepared to blow large wads of it on shafting workers for no reason other than their entertainment?
a good employee is actually worth money to a business owner.

[Ixion]

Some folk have postulated that it is unduely difficult for am employer to sack an unsatisfactory worker. WADR, I do not think this is so.

I have, as union delegate, been involved in a number of dismissal cases, several of which went to the employment tribunal. In each case a result beneficial to the worker was achieved. Of course, that is partly because I would not support cases where I thought the sacking justifed.

I have also, as a manager, sacked quite a few people. In two cases, these dismissals were referred to the tribunal. In both cases the dismissal was upheld as justified.

So I have some experience of sacking, from both sides of the fence.

If a worker is genuinely unsatisfactory, in performance or attitude, it is not unduely difficult to dismiss him or her.

Certainly, there is a procedure, which must be diligently followed. That should present no problems. It is just like fixing an engine that will not run properly. You do not go about it by ripping parts off at random, throwing them about the workshop, them fitting bits back any old how on the basis that near enough is good enough for cam timing.

If you want the result to be successful, you obtain the workshop manual. You read it carefully.You follow the required procedures attentively, being careful that each step is correct.

So, with fixing an employment situation that is not working. The manual may be obtained from the Employer's Federation, whose subscription is reasonable, and very good value for the free advice that may be had.

Obtain the manual. Follow it carefully. Ask for advice.

Nor are the procedures unduely onerous.

They are no more than the traditional Kiwi expression of a "fair go".

The workers performance, or attitude, or behaviour must be such as warrants dismissal. That surely is not unfair? If it is competance that is the issue, you will likely find your decision to dismiss supported by the other workers. Noone likes having to work harder to "prop up" an incompetant or lazy fellow.

If it be attitude or general behaviour that is complained of, that must only be such as a reasonable person would think unsupportable. A worker should not be sacked for minor high spiritedness,nor is the worker obliged to agree with all the bosses opinions. Workers after all are people too, entitled to their own opinion on matters, and to voice it. Should a man be sacked beause he does not support the same football team as his boss (one was, in one case I was involved in).

And the boss must be consistent. It is hardly fair if Tom is sacked for doing that which is overlooked in the case of Joe. Or which the boss was willing to tolerate last week, and has given no warning that he has changed his mind. Fair's fair after all.

The actual procedural requirements are not an arcane ritual. All the law says, is "Be fair". Ensure that you have the full story. Ask the worker what his version is, and be prepared to listen to it with an open mind. You do not have to accept lies, but maybe what you thought at first is not the whole story.

Tell the guy that he's in trouble. That he can talk to a lawyer (after all, you have, through the Employer's federation, if you are wise. Why should not he?)

Do not prejudge the matter. If the offence is not of such gravity as to warrant instant dismissal (which is still entirely possible), tell him in clear terms what you expect him to do to make you happy in future.I have seen so many cases where the boss expects the worker to be a mind reader.

CAVEAT: IANAL. And there are other matters to take into account. But, it is like fixing that engine again. If you do not know one end of a spanner from another, you are best to ask an expert for help. Do not blame the bike for breaking down if you put the cams in backward and leave out the oil pump gasket.

[Patrick]

BUT YOUVE ONLY GOT HALF THE STORY , YOUR OPINION MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT IF YOU HEARD BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY , DO YOU GUYS REALLY THINK THESE EMPLOYMENT COURT PEOPLE ARE REALLY THAT STUPID , I BET IF YOU SAT IN THE COURT THRU THE WHOLE PROCEEDING AND LISTEND TO BOTH SIDES AND THE JUDGES COMMENTS YOU MAY CHANGE YOUR MIND A BIT, HE COULD HAVE BEEN CHINESE AND THE SWASTIKA BACKWARDS MEANS PEACE AND GOOD LUCK (OR SIMILAR POSITIVE SHIT)IN THEIR CULTURE , HE MAY HAVE ACCIDENTLY USED THE COMPANY FUEL CARD CAUSE I KNOW IVE ACCIDENTLY USED MY CREDIT CARD TO FILL THE COMPANY CAR ITS EASILY DONE, FUCK IM GLAD YOUR NOT A COP OR SIMILAR PATRICK

It is accepted that swastikas were used in the house. It was accepted that he used the company card deliberately, not by mistake or error...diahorreoa is supposed to come out your arse WINJA...

As I said before...shame the homeowner can't sue the tosser for hurt feelings and dignity... or is that in dispute? They can't have hurt feelings or dignity? Tell us what youreally mean WINJA...

[Winston001]

Do not prejudge the matter. If the offence is not of such gravity as to warrant instant dismissal (which is still entirely possible), tell him in clear terms what you expect him to do to make you happy in future.I have seen so many cases where the boss expects the worker to be a mind reader.



Very fair and I agree. However IMHO the law is weighted in favour of the employee. That is as it should be - a worker shouldn't lose his job too easily.

But the fair procedures regime means that even in egregious cases - such as this wanker we're talking about - the employer gets slammed for acting the way 99% of the community would also act.

FFS, using the fuel card is theft. The swastikas are a clear breach of the human rights act and racially discriminatory. What reasonable employee could possibly expect to keep his job if caught?

[Lou Girardin]

Do all the employer supporters here realise that the, now defunct, ERA was designed to drive wages down and reduce negotiating ability for the majority of workers?
It achieved all that very well.
That's why we are lagging so far behind Aust in Average pay.

[idb]

Do all the employer supporters here realise that the, now defunct, ERA was designed to drive wages down and reduce negotiating ability for the majority of workers?
It achieved all that very well.
That's why we are lagging so far behind Aust in Average pay.
That's the problem with this discussion Lou.
Why do we have to be on one side or the other?
What I'm saying is that there are good and bad employers and good and bad employees.
I object to people assuming that all employers are rich sadists and that all employees are downtrodden and powerless

[Ixion]

Very fair and I agree. However IMHO the law is weighted in favour of the employee. That is as it should be - a worker shouldn't lose his job too easily.

But the fair procedures regime means that even in egregious cases - such as this wanker we're talking about - the employer gets slammed for acting the way 99% of the community would also act.

FFS, using the fuel card is theft. The swatiskas are a clear breach of the human rights act and racially discriminatory. What reasonable employee could possibly expect to keep his job if caught?

Only theft if there is intent to permanently deprive. As I heard it, the guy found himself out of gas and out of money. Wanted to put $5 on the card and claimed he would have reimbursed it. Not condoning that , but (a) that's not theft if there is a genuine intention to reimburse. (b) we don't know if the boss had allowed such expediencies in the past. I have worked in many jobs where such an action would have been condoned - . Perhaps the guy may have genuinely thought that the boss would not object ("Hey boss, I got stuck without petrol last night, so in an emergency I stuck $5 on the company card - here's the five bucks" ) which is what I said about making sure that the full situation is considered.

It is unlikely that the boss viewed it as theft since if he had he would have sacked the guy then and there. The petrol card only seems to have been brought up as an afterthought once the later dismissal was challenged. Which is one of the things the employment court said. "If you are saying that one of the reasons that you sacked him was for using the fuel card, why did you not lay it on the line to him at the time? Why wait till later then dredge it up?"

As to the swastikas breaching the Human Rights Act? Not so IMHO, it is only a breach if intended to be offensive (and maybe not even then). There is no evidence that the guy intended the house owners to see them nor that he knew they would be especially offensive to them

If the mere exhibition of a swastika is a breach of the law, then a hell of a lot of Harley riders are in trouble.

(Incidentally, the swastika issue could only be of relevance because they were drawn on the employers material on a work site. A worker is entitled to draw swastikas to his hearts content , as far as employment law is concerned, outside the work environment. Like I said, a worker cannot be sacked - and should not be able to be- for having opinions that differ from the bosses. Else, where next? Sacked because the boss votes National and the worker votes Labour, maybe? Or, in a government job, the reverse)

[Winston001]

Yes Ixion, this discussion illustrates the dangers of arguing on the basis of a news report for the facts. We need to see the Judge's decision. I appreciate that there could be an innocent explanation for the fuel card but the Herald doesn't provide it.

However there cannot be an innocent explanation for the swastika and grafitti. It was written on the property of a third party - the house belongs to the owner, not the employer. This isn't a matter of free speech. The house owner is entitled to trust and confidence when asking the employer to work on the owners property. If an employee breaches that trust then the employer has a problem with the house owner.

Just as a matter of interest, in the United States, employers hold bonds (essentially insurance) to protect houseowners from employee wrongs committed while on the premises. So there is a recognition that an employer has a real liability to property owners for his employees actions.

[Patrick]

[QUOTE=Winston001]Yes Ixion, this discussion illustrates the dangers of arguing on the basis of a news report for the facts....

However there cannot be an innocent explanation for the swastika and grafitti. It was written on the property of a third party - the house belongs to the owner, not the employer. This isn't a matter of free speech. The house owner is entitled to trust and confidence when asking the employer to work on the owners property. If an employee breaches that trust then the employer has a problem with the house owner.
QUOTE]

But Ixion, isn't that what KB is all about??? Taking off on what was in the Harold as if it is gospel? Most anti cop ones begin exactly like that....

Agree with Winston here too... the swastika thing was clearly to offend the Jew... why else would he do it? Bikies only use them coz they can't write:nya:

[idb]

Two discussions have developed on this thread - whether the guy should have been compensated or not and the pros & cons of the employee/employer relationship.

[Patrick]

Two discussions have developed on this thread - whether the guy should have been compensated or not and the pros & cons of the employee/employer relationship.

Which is what makes this place an interesting read...

[Lou Girardin]

That's the problem with this discussion Lou.
Why do we have to be on one side or the other?


Because it's no fun arguing with someone who agrees with you.

[idb]

Because it's no fun arguing with someone who agrees with you.
What I meant was, why does one have to be pro-worker or pro-employer (or even anti-worker or anti-employer)?
You can still have an opinion without an entrenched attitude towards or against one group or the other.

[Winston001]

What I meant was, why does one have to be pro-worker or pro-employer (or even anti-worker or anti-employer)?
You can still have an opinion without an entrenched attitude towards or against one group or the other.


Why can't we all just get along. Feel the love. :grouphug: :grouphug:

Like WINJA's mum. :;):