Mapp 90 Day Bill

[chanceyy]

hi workers

Just wondering if anyone realises the implications of the 90 day bill that Wayne Mapp Fr National is endorsing.


He is stating that this will create more jobs ................. Tui add .. yeah right


Essentially the 90 day bill means if you change jobs for example for the first 90 days you will have no rights that other workers are protected by.

The only way this will create more jobs is that Employers will have 90 days within to let you go therefore you can get to 89 days .. they can sack you .. no reasons, no protection. Of course they then could employ someone else for 90 days ... creating more jobs but no stability, no rights..

ok let the flaming begin :

[James Deuce]

And the retaliation if he does get it passed is: Don't vote National next election. Even better cast a protest vote for ACT - they no longer appear to be quite as right wing as National.

[chanceyy]

And the retaliation if he does get it passed is: Don't vote National next election. Even better cast a protest vote for ACT - they no longer appear to be quite as right wing as National.



did you go to Rally at Govt grounds yesterday Jim ?? Love the bullshit chant

[James Deuce]

I was actually going to head down, but failed at the last hurdle. I got mixed up in the Falan Dafa march instead.

[Grahameeboy]

This does seem crazy......I always thought there was a 6 month probationary period but this 90 day thing does leave employees open to potential abuse...I mean what if someone has been out of work a while.....mother going back to work......they will always need a time of adjusting to working again and they are vunerable.

Strange place NZ sometimes.

[chanceyy]

I was actually going to head down, but failed at the last hurdle. I got mixed up in the Falan Dafa march instead.



Grins it was fab... he tried to address the crowd ... just kinda failed to be heard ... I hear that National have their conference in chch this weekend .... hmmmmmm and perhaps another rally down there for the workers to voice their discontent, So all you Christchuch workers .. would be good to turn out .. this affects all workers

[chanceyy]

This does seem crazy......I always thought there was a 6 month probationary period but this 90 day thing does leave employees open to potential abuse...I mean what if someone has been out of work a while.....mother going back to work......they will always need a time of adjusting to working again and they are vunerable.

Strange place NZ sometimes.

It is crazy .. no other word for it ..

But National are experts at taking away workers rights .. & yes those workers changing jobs or those trying to enter the work place will be vulnerable

& yes the current systems regarding probationary period (depending on individual work sites) do give both employer and employee rights ..

[Grahameeboy]

Sometimes I think that the EEC is better when NZ does stuff like this...and that is saying something............trubs is that politically NZ is small and it always seems to be a male testostorone thing with MP's here trying to flex their muscle...............apart from that (as I have made obvious) I know f'all about politics..does my head in

[Colapop]

It was bullshit. They had Thorndon Quay coned off for miles and I couldn't get a park except for the expensive $5/hour ones. What a lot of shit. There were only half a dozen buses turn up and the rest of the parks (enough for 20 buses) weren't even used.

As for the bill. It's not saying that workers will have no rights - that's just left wing unionist propaganda. It's saying that if you're a shit worker then they can terminate you and get someone who will be able to do the job. Too many shit workers are being carried by businesses because they cannot fire them. If you're shit at your job all an employer can do is 'encourage' you to improve even if you have performance based clauses in your contract. Sure there will be employers that will abuse the act but those are the ones that are abusing thier staff now.

[Hitcher]

The Trade Union Movement has spoken. Any discussion of this topic is pointless. Despite the fact that it hasn't even got to Select Committee stage yet.

[Grahameeboy]

It was bullshit. They had Thorndon Quay coned off for miles and I couldn't get a park except for the expensive $5/hour ones. What a lot of shit. There were only half a dozen buses turn up and the rest of the parks (enough for 20 buses) weren't even used.

As for the bill. It's not saying that workers will have no rights - that's just left wing unionist propaganda. It's saying that if you're a shit worker then they can terminate you and get someone who will be able to do the job. Too many shit workers are being carried by businesses because they cannot fire them. If you're shit at your job all an employer can do is 'encourage' you to improve even if you have performance based clauses in your contract. Sure there will be employers that will abuse the act but those are the ones that are abusing thier staff now.

Yes that is true, however, as I said in my post there are vunerable employees out there who may not perform well whilst they fit in......it is a fine line I guess but I still think this Bill sucks..............

[chanceyy]

Sometimes I think that the EEC is better when NZ does stuff like this...and that is saying something............trubs is that politically NZ is small and it always seems to be a male testostorone thing with MP's here trying to flex their muscle...............apart from that (as I have made obvious) I know f'all about politics..does my head in

Politics generally does my head in too ... I would like to base my vote on informed decisions however since we know all politicians are full of bullshit .. i then try to decide which party will do more for the workers

................................... and all the workers know its not the torries who support them :nono: :nono: :nono:

[James Deuce]

It's not the large businesses or even the medium ones I'm worried about Col, it's the small businesses who will exploit this loophole to fill a need during a busy period without any intention of retaining the worker, good or useless.

There are less shirkers employed than the Employers Federation would have us believe and a whole lot more Employers with no scruples than most of us would believe.

[acewheelie]

The 90 day trial period is NOT new, it got taken out when the ECA came in.
Having had twenty odd years of experience on both sides of the equation I can say its not such a bad thing. It gives the employee an incentive to get to grips with the job, and if unsuitable the employer still has an out.
With the cost of employing staff being very high, and a shortage of qualified people an employer is MORE LIKELY to give some one not quite upto speed the chance to try to do the job.

In a market of high unemployment (like when I first went out into the work force) it could have been seen to be a bad thing, but we didn't know any better and I ever got sacked in a 90 day period and don't know anyone that was.
Don't always take what you see in the press or through the unions at face value, sometimes you get oly the part of the story they want you to hear.

By the way, Waynes not a bad guy either, LOL

[chanceyy]

It was bullshit. They had Thorndon Quay coned off for miles and I couldn't get a park except for the expensive $5/hour ones. What a lot of shit. There were only half a dozen buses turn up and the rest of the parks (enough for 20 buses) weren't even used.

As for the bill. It's not saying that workers will have no rights - that's just left wing unionist propaganda. It's saying that if you're a shit worker then they can terminate you and get someone who will be able to do the job. Too many shit workers are being carried by businesses because they cannot fire them. If you're shit at your job all an employer can do is 'encourage' you to improve even if you have performance based clauses in your contract. Sure there will be employers that will abuse the act but those are the ones that are abusing thier staff now.

You sound like your in management !!

[chanceyy]

The Trade Union Movement has spoken. Any discussion of this topic is pointless. Despite the fact that it hasn't even got to Select Committee stage yet.

& we hope it does not get to Select Committee

[ajturbo]

i think the 90 day bill is a good idea...
but in my line of work you would know if they are any good within the first day or so, then i can sack them.

but i would feel better if i could do that with no come back..
don't get me wrong, if the worker could prove him/herself, i used to hang on to them and pay them top dollar

[Colapop]

That's true about exploiting workers but the point is that the businesses that are exploiting staff now are only going to continue what they're doing so no-one saves any poor waifs from the poorhouse. Let's face it if you don't where you work enough you'll get off your arse and go get a job somewhere else. Don't give me the line that "Some people can't because of where they live" That is shit too. If you want to work ie. get a job you'll get off your arse and get one. Too often these days there are employees that are being carried along because employers have no recourse once they are hired.

For the record National isn't any more right wing than Labour is Left. Most political parties trot along a safe middle ground so they don't piss anyone off.

[chanceyy]

i think the 90 day bill is a good idea...
but in my line of work you would know if they are any good within the first day or so, then i can sack them.

but i would feel better if i could do that with no come back..
don't get me wrong, if the worker could prove him/herself, i used to hang on to them and pay them top dollar


but there is a number of employers who would have no trouble exploiting this loophole.

[acewheelie]

i think the 90 day bill is a good idea...
but in my line of work you would know if they are any good within the first day or so, then i can sack them.

but i would feel better if i could do that with no come back..
don't get me wrong, if the worker could prove him/herself, i used to hang on to them and pay them top dollar
with the brain drain we have seen in our industry (industrial machinery), we are forced more and more at foreign labour. Its a real risk because overseas training and work ethics haven't been the same as here. It is hard to get rid of bad workers. Therefore we only hire when we really have to and run very, very lean. If we could fire some of our bad workers and hire some good ones we would be better off, not having to rely on overtime by the good ones to take up the slack. It really pisses me off.

[chanceyy]

For the record National isn't any more right wing than Labour is Left. Most political parties trot along a safe middle ground so they don't piss anyone off.


MMP in action

[Colapop]

i think the 90 day bill is a good idea...
but in my line of work you would know if they are any good within the first day or so, then i can sack them.

but i would feel better if i could do that with no come back..
don't get me wrong, if the worker could prove him/herself, i used to hang on to them and pay them top dollar
You can't though. Once you have hired some useless bugger they're protected - by law, by the unions and by you as an employer (because by law you have to) Then you are stuck with them. You cannot even tell someone at the interview you won't hire and why (coz they're useless) "because they have rights" Cry me a river!!

[acewheelie]

That's true about exploiting workers but the point is that the businesses that are exploiting staff now are only going to continue what they're doing so no-one saves any poor waifs from the poorhouse. Let's face it if you don't where you work enough you'll get off your arse and go get a job somewhere else. Don't give me the line that "Some people can't because of where they live" That is shit too. If you want to work ie. get a job you'll get off your arse and get one. Too often these days there are employees that are being carried along because employers have no recourse once they are hired.

For the record National isn't any more right wing than Labour is Left. Most political parties trot along a safe middle ground so they don't piss anyone off.
Except by treading the safe nanny line they end up pissing off almost all of us at sometime or other!

[Colapop]

MMP in action
Don't get me started on that!! If I wanted to hug a tree and let some minor homo party into govt......

[Hitcher]

& we hope it does not get to Select Committee
For heaven's sake. Why? It will go to a Select Committee that is dominated by left-wing interests. There it will be subject to public submissions and fannied around with something chronic. Once it emerges it may bear little resemblance to its current state. It then has to be passed by a majority of MPs who will be voting on party lines.

This is New Zealand's law-making process at work. Yes, crap law does get through Select Committees, but only crap law that is sanctioned by the ruling party/coalition (e.g. the dog chipping law).

Sleep safely in your beds, left-leaning voters. The end of the world is not yet nigh.

[acewheelie]

MMP in action
MMP SUXS!!

Government is rule by commitee as it is, throw multiple parties into the mix and its like the school council meets the ARC UGH.... (with kindie thrown in)

[chanceyy]

Don't get me started on that!! If I wanted to hug a tree and let some minor homo party into govt......


Thought you had already started cola .. LOL

[Colapop]

Left leaning voters are more like the Len Lye water sculpture along Wellington waterfront, they waiver around all over the show.

[chanceyy]

Left leaning voters are more like the Len Lye water sculpture along Wellington waterfront, they waiver around all over the show.

grins .. & your sounding more like management with every post :nya: :wait: :nya: :nono:

[acewheelie]

Whats wrong with being management? When I left school I was a car cleaner, now I drive a desk. I worked hard to get it.

[Colapop]

If I had staff that could do as they have been 'asked' (the poor dears - wouldn't want them to have to work now) then half the battle would be won. The problem is that people have been brought up in Social Welfare state. No accountability, no responsibility and yet they still, after surfing for "not orn" all day front up and expect a paycheck once a fortnight. Our wrkforce has very little work ethic and the foreign staff that we are 'forced' to import actually want to be here and they want to work. I hate to be the bearer of bad news people but, employers don't owe you a living. Now get off your arse and get to work!

[chanceyy]

Whats wrong with being management? When I left school I was a car cleaner, now I drive a desk. I worked hard to get it.

for those progressive managers who work along side their workers to increase productivity, who treat their workers with respect and have fair days work for fair days pay ... no issue (not many of these types unfortunately)

the bill that is up for consideration seriously can diminish workers rights ...

I have actually been on both sides of the fence .. so I am aware of both cons & pros ..


this bill takes away the workers rights for certain protections, its not working overseas .. and workers here need to find out what its about

[acewheelie]

Still depends a bit where the foreign staff came from. NZ used to train very very good mechanics, thats why they are sort after around the world in mining and motorsport. They can do the job inside out, and work well under pressure. This new generation are f&&king hopeless.

[acewheelie]

for those progressive managers who work along side their workers to increase productivity, who treat their workers with respect and have fair days work for fair days pay ... no issue (not many of these types unfortunately)

the bill that is up for consideration seriously can diminish workers rights ...

I have actually been on both sides of the fence .. so I am aware of both cons & pros ..


this bill takes away the workers rights for certain protections, its not working overseas .. and workers here need to find out what its about

I likw to manage by objectives, empowers people and they get far more job satisfaction, but this isn't the issue. The issue is there are lazy employees out there, this law change takes away their protection. Yeah, there are some turkey employers out there too, don't see that this law change can protect you long term working for a loser boss.

[chanceyy]

Still depends a bit where the foreign staff came from. NZ used to train very very good mechanics, thats why they are sort after around the world in mining and motorsport. They can do the job inside out, and work well under pressure. This new generation are f&&king hopeless.

well we do not need to discuss the student loans by where we have forced our skilled labour overseas.


Our wrkforce has very little work ethic and the foreign staff that we are 'forced' to import actually want to be here and they want to work. I hate to be the bearer of bad news people but, employers don't owe you a living. Now get off your arse and get to work!

Part of the issue is that young ppl today are not taught responsibility, good work eithics ... they think the world owes them something ... also if you respect your workers they in turn respect you .. (something most managers have an issue with)


Most employees do not feel valued, those who do will work hard, those who don't ... why bother ..

[Colapop]

for those progressive managers who work along side their workers to increase productivity, who treat their workers with respect and have fair days work for fair days pay ... no issue (not many of these types unfortunately)
the bill that is up for consideration seriously can diminish workers rights ...
I have actually been on both sides of the fence .. so I am aware of both cons & pros ..
this bill takes away the workers rights for certain protections, its not working overseas .. and workers here need to find out what its about
There are several things wrong with this post...
Progressive Managers who work alongside their staff??!!? M A N A G E M E N T is about managing not actually doing the work that workers are employed to do.
A "fair days work for fair days pay" is equitable if the workers you have actually work. Most workers consider that "fair days work for fair days pay" means they start at 9am fart around for half an hour getting settled in to work, break at 10 for smoko - half an hour at least before they get back to work, settle in (again) so it's now 11. 12 o'clock and it's down tools and out the door for an hour (I'm entitled to an hours break) but what about the further half hour it takes them to "settle in" again? And then productivity is down coz they'e stuffed their fat arses with so much food their bodies are incapable of digesting it all in one go. Unless they're "Gym junkies" and they've spent 40 mins grinding their sweaty bodies to some spaced out instructor before hardly showering and getting back to wrk still smelling of B.O. and they're too tired to work. The afternoon shift isn't much better what with afternoon tea and then biding their time until hometime at 5. Unless of course little Johnny or Sally has adentist apointment that couldn't have been made at one of the many after hours clinics. Not to mentions various births, deaths, marriages, accidents, coaching kids sports teams..... It's never ending. Whne the f*ck I am I supposed to get any staff do any actual work around the place? "Oh but you're workaholic" F8ck me!! I don't really want to work 70 hours a week but I don't have any staff that will!
Workers rights???!!!???! Workers have got more rights then they ever have before - and that's not enough??!!?? Noooo it's never enough. We workers don't want to actually have to come to work - We're taking "stress" leave - so you can pay us not to come in....

[Colapop]

Still depends a bit where the foreign staff came from. NZ used to train very very good mechanics, thats why they are sort after around the world in mining and motorsport. They can do the job inside out, and work well under pressure. This new generation are f&&king hopeless.
And that is all to do with the governments of the '80's saying "We don't need an apprenticeship scheme - the industries will train what they want..."

[chanceyy]

I likw to manage by objectives, empowers people and they get far more job satisfaction, but this isn't the issue. The issue is there are lazy employees out there, this law change takes away their protection. Yeah, there are some turkey employers out there too, don't see that this law change can protect you long term working for a loser boss.

As stated earlier Its those employers who will take full advantage of being able to hire staff, then sack them before the 90 days is up, regardless of what ability the worker has.

there are scum workers .. along with scum bosses, But there are genuine ppl who are going to suffer if this bill goes through

[acewheelie]

Its not them and us anymore, those days have gone. i work with a predominantly good group of guys. When I need something done 95 % just go do what I want. They know its important if I give them something to do. The funny thing is, they are the younger ones, its the ones in their forties are the sassholes causing the problems wher I am, and I think its jealousy, silly really.

[acewheelie]

ooops off topic, sorry I haqve the flu!

[chanceyy]

There are several things wrong with this post...
Progressive Managers who work alongside their staff??!!? M A N A G E M E N T is about managing not actually doing the work that workers are employed to do.
A "fair days work for fair days pay" is equitable if the workers you have actually work. Most workers consider that "fair days work for fair days pay" means they start at 9am fart around for half an hour getting settled in to work, break at 10 for smoko - half an hour at least before they get back to work, settle in (again) so it's now 11. 12 o'clock and it's down tools and out the door for an hour (I'm entitled to an hours break) but what about the further half hour it takes them to "settle in" again? And then productivity is down coz they'e stuffed their fat arses with so much food their bodies are incapable of digesting it all in one go. Unless they're "Gym junkies" and they've spent 40 mins grinding their sweaty bodies to some spaced out instructor before hardly showering and getting back to wrk still smelling of B.O. and they're too tired to work. The afternoon shift isn't much better what with afternoon tea and then biding their time until hometime at 5. Unless of course little Johnny or Sally has adentist apointment that couldn't have been made at one of the many after hours clinics. Not to mentions various births, deaths, marriages, accidents, coaching kids sports teams..... It's never ending. Whne the f*ck I am I supposed to get any staff do any actual work around the place? "Oh but you're workaholic" F8ck me!! I don't really want to work 70 hours a week but I don't have any staff that will!
Workers rights???!!!???! Workers have got more rights then they ever have before - and that's not enough??!!?? Noooo it's never enough. We workers don't want to actually have to come to work - We're taking "stress" leave - so you can pay us not to come in....


sorry but your post is bullshit ... bit like the bill really ...

yes managers manage... workers work .. however if you REALLY have all your workers doing the above .. something needs to be done about your recruiting style ..

[Colapop]

It's not do with recruitment. It's to do with the "rights" that workers "expect" me to provide for them. Work to a lot of people is "what's in it for me?" Intead of "How can I best help the business become better?" Thereby ensuring continued and increasing income.

[Str8 Jacket]

I am against the 90 day bill. When I worked in both the Hospotality and Reatil industry there were sometimes clauses in the contract that gave xxx amount of day's as being a trial period and you would be let go if they didnt want you. Unfortunately I often saw this abused because of a simple minor personality clash, or in one case where I worked a few years ago a new employee slept with the bosses son and regretted it so she called things off. The boss fired her cause his son didnt want her there. He didnt tell her this but he told me, I felt really bad for her as she had recently become a single mother and had left her abusive partner, she was just trying to support herself.I know that she had made a mistake but everyone makes mistakes, I dont think that anyone should be punished to that extent. Im sure there would be a dozen or more other situations that could be abused because of this bill. But as Hitcher say's, it hasn't gone to Select Comittee yet. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't.

[chanceyy]

It's not do with recruitment. It's to do with the "rights" that workers "expect" me to provide for them. Work to a lot of people is "what's in it for me?" Intead of "How can I best help the business become better?" Thereby ensuring continued and increasing income.

well if your workers are doing as you say in your previous post, there are serious issues that your work has .. IMHO it would seem that its a two way street .. if your workers are not performing then management needs to first look at its own style of management.

In my work place i straddle the fence .. both as a worker and sometimes on the management team .. its a fine line .. but all of our workers are where they are supose to be during their work schedule, any HR issues are dealt with .. fairly and accountability on both sides is paramount.

[James Deuce]

Geez Col. Thanks. It's that sort of attitude that really makes people want to turn up to work. "You're an employee, so you're a lazy cunt". Ever wonder why no one does the job you'd like them too?

I bought a waterproof pouch to protect my cell phone when I commute because it isn't mine. I have to ring my wife during the day, so I pay for my personal calls on the aforementioned phone. When I'm on call I go nowhere and do nothing, so that I can respond as well as possible, as quickly as possible.

Oldrider's tried to have this out with me before too. My "team" is under-resourced. I work my arse off. I'm there at 7am I go home at 7pm. But I'm not a robot. I can't work at 100% all the time. I don't get stuff done, I get my arse kicked for it, despite there being 1.5 guys doing what used to be comfortably managed by 5 guys.

The fact that we are failing to meet objectives and SLAs is glossed over by refusing pay increments and hiring more management staff to keep a closer eye on all aspects of the process that defines my job, and by sending us on courses so we can better manage our time and apply our knowledge more aggressively. It's demeaning. It doesn't increase workflow, it increases admin. By using Change and Problem management to my "advantage", I can completely and utterly cease to do any work at all and just process the steps of the processes that define those two particular ITIL "areas". They'd love me if I did.

"So go and get another job", I hear you say.

They're all the same is why, and better the Devil you know than the one you don't.

By introducing a 90 day probation period, I'll get even less work done, because I'll be training a never ending stream of "no-hopers" in the process required to manage the Customers I support. You, and every other employer/manager out there know it takes 6 months to get someone productive in a specialised area. The perfect employee you fuckers keep advertising for, you know; "MCSE, CCNA, CCIE, 5 year exposure to ITIL practices, min of 15 year IT experience, Project Management Experience a must, No kids, No pets, No wife, preferably a tertiary qualification at Masters level in a Management discipline, pay range $35-$40K", just doesn't exist.

I'm fucking tired of being held up as an example of a no hoping standard NZ employee because I have no desire to ever plumb the depths of management. I have no ambition. When things are going right I like my job. I like getting to talk to real people who don't live in the unreal IT company space. I DON'T want to spend all my time peering up my own arsehole. Most of all, I want to get to the end of each day having achieved something. Not filling out a million electronic forms, but making someone's day better by doing the fundamentals of the job I am paid for.

But what's the point? You Management types think we're all useless anyway!

[Ixion]

And the retaliation if he does get it passed is: Don't vote National next election. Even better cast a protest vote for ACT - they no longer appear to be quite as right wing as National.


Now why on earth would anyone who objects to workers being exploited want to vote for ACT? How silly. Vote Communist, the only party that makes sense.

As to this pernicious bill, if passed it will not be the lazy or incompetant who will be its victims - there are already perfectly adequate means for employers to rid themselves of those. It will be the worker who objects to being a target for sexual exploitation (male or female); the worker who has the temerity to object to unsafe working conditions; or work practices that are unsafe for the public or crooked or dishonest; the worker who naively expects the pay or conditions promised at the interview to actually be attainable;the worker who expects the initial "training period" at less than minimum wages (or no wages at all) to be followed by the promised employemnt at decent rates; the worker who objects to "tommy shop" demands; the worker who expects statutory holidays; the worker in short who expects a fair deal.

As for the oft heard claims that lazy or incompetant workers cannot at present be dismissed, I can only say "Utter nonsense". I have been (and am) an employee; in my time a union delegate ; an employer; self employeed and a manager who has hired many scores of workers, and sacked quite a few too; so I have seen all sides of the coin.

There is a procedure that must be followed. Follow it , and the process is simple. But, it does require proper management by the managers.

For those who complain that "people do not want to work". Well, have they completed their agreed work load? Do they even know what the duties are? Have you actually agreed with them what you expect of them ? If you have and they are not doing it, then the process of warning and dismissal is straightforward and not hard to invoke. All that is required is basic fairness.

And if they have completed their duties , well, what is your grumble? If the tasks were insufficently onerous, then that is surely your fault as manager, for not setting higher expectations and standards. If they were high, and the worker has worked hard and finished them, then you should give him or her a pat on the back instead of complaining.

[Virago]

I've just taken on a new employee, and have put a 90 day probation clause in his employment agreement, in accordance with current legislation.

Under this system, I am protected from having to keep a no-hoper on my team, provided I follow due process. This means keeping the employee informed of his progress during the probation, and giving him every chance to improve if required. If he doesn't meet the grade, I can let him go.

There is nothing wrong with the current legislation, it can work well for both sides.

[oldrider]

I am against the 90 day bill. When I worked in both the Hospotality and Reatil industry there were sometimes clauses in the contract that gave xxx amount of day's as being a trial period and you would be let go if they didnt want you. Unfortunately I often saw this abused because of a simple minor personality clash, or in one case where I worked a few years ago a new employee slept with the bosses son and regretted it so she called things off. The boss fired her cause his son didnt want her there. He didnt tell her this but he told me, I felt really bad for her as she had recently become a single mother and had left her abusive partner, she was just trying to support herself.I know that she had made a mistake but everyone makes mistakes, I dont think that anyone should be punished to that extent. Im sure there would be a dozen or more other situations that could be abused because of this bill. But as Hitcher say's, it hasn't gone to Select Comittee yet. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't.
No legislation on earth could help a workplace that has the problems above and that is not what this legislation is about either.
Employment is about work place "relationships" the above is not a relationship, it is a disaster waiting to be exposed and the sooner the better. :nono: John.

[Pathos]

I have heard some horror stories about employees taking reasonable employers too the employment court and lefty policies entitled the employee too thousands. Those thousands come straight out of the employers pocket so employment abuse works both ways.

I have no real problem with the legislation as long as it works both ways (employee can ditch the company with out notice within those 90 days without penalty) and the employee is fully informed of the 90 day probation.

[James Deuce]

I have heard some horror stories about employees taking reasonable employers too the employment court and lefty policies entitled the employee too thousands. Those thousands come straight out of the employers pocket so employment abuse works both ways.
.

The Employers lost because they didn't follow a very simple process. It happens probably once every 3 months where I work, primarily because we have 1500 employees in NZ and no HR department to help Managers through the process of ditching a staff member. As Ixion mentioned it isn't hard to sack someone, but get the process wrong and the Company will pay for it.

Verbal, written, written, Bye Bye. It can take three days as a minimum if the employee is a total dickhead.

[The Pastor]

I have heard some horror stories about employees taking reasonable employers too the employment court and lefty policies entitled the employee too thousands. Those thousands come straight out of the employers pocket so employment abuse works both ways.

I have no real problem with the legislation as long as it works both ways (employee can ditch the company with out notice within those 90 days without penalty) and the employee is fully informed of the 90 day probation.


I agree, employers need more power. It is VERY frustrating when a company employs a twat who they cant fire for a long time, and when they finally get enough EVIDENCE to fire them, and they do so they get landed in court! Its nuts.

Im not 100% sure but i think in the states, you can get fired just because you dont fit in or somthing - NZ needs to take a lesson.

But its way to late for nz. We as a country have chosen to go down the labour path (not saying natioal is the defult other path) where nothing is anybodys fault and that the minorty have all the rights (except when it comes to motorbikes and other noisey stuff). Theres nothing you can do, its ingrained into our way of life. The individual is smart, the group of people are stupid and blindly follow the leader.:nono:

[Str8 Jacket]

No legislation on earth could help a workplace that has the problems above and that is not what this legislation is about either.
Employment is about work place "relationships" the above is not a relationship, it is a disaster waiting to be exposed and the sooner the better. :nono: John.

Not really the point though is it. Everyone deserves a fair go. If you dont believe that then I sincerely hope that you fuck up one day and pay for it in a severe way. Sorry if this sounds harsh but its the reality, I do not believe that it is fair but I respect that you have your opinions too and thats cool. Lets just leave it at that.

[James Deuce]

I agree, employers need more power. It is VERY frustrating when a company employs a twat who they cant fire for a long time, ...

How is three days a long time?

[Str8 Jacket]

How is three days a long time?

If you were a dole bludger, maybe?

[Winston001]

I've just taken on a new employee, and have put a 90 day probation clause in his employment agreement, in accordance with current legislation.

Under this system, I am protected from having to keep a no-hoper on my team, provided I follow due process. This means keeping the employee informed of his progress during the probation, and giving him every chance to improve if required. If he doesn't meet the grade, I can let him go.

There is nothing wrong with the current legislation, it can work well for both sides.


Interesting. The only problem is that at the end of the 90 days you can't say "Sorry but it didn't work out". You have to go through the fair procedures malarky as if your probationary employee was permanent staff. That's what Mapp's bill is trying to cure.

[Motu]

Bring back the good old days when you could tell the boss to stick his fucking job and walk out,pick up your pay the next day.And when the boss could tell you to piss off you useless cunt - been on both sides there...and employer and employee.What's wrong with telling someone they are totaly useless and should work somewhere else,but not here.....what's wrong with telling the boss he's a prick and leaving - it's communication isn't it.PC crap.

[James Deuce]

It really is easy to fire someone. If they clearly breach the terms of their contract, they get a verbal warning, a written, a written, and then they're gone. When I started where I work, the guy I replaced was fired over the course of a week for openly viewing objectionable porn during owrk hours, and emailing it around trhe place. He ignored his warnings and got a big shock when they escorted him out.

Another one of our "stars" at a work Christmas Do grabbed a very attractive Customer by the left breast and proceeded to jiggle. He was most perturbed to find his stuff outside the next morning. Being drunk was no excuse.

I repeat, it isn't hard to fire someone in NZ if you understand employment law and how that applies to an individual's contract.

[Str8 Jacket]

I reckon thats totally fair enough, but I think someone should be given a warning first and have xxx amount of days to sort their shit out. Only one chance though. I dont think a hell of alot of people have very good work ethics anymore... all the PC crap doesnt help either.

[Virago]

Interesting. The only problem is that at the end of the 90 days you can't say "Sorry but it didn't work out". You have to go through the fair procedures malarky as if your probationary employee was permanent staff. That's what Mapp's bill is trying to cure.
So what it wrong with following fair procedure? Which part is too hard, being fair, or following simple procedure?

[WINJA]

wayne mapp sounds like he owns some sorta business where he only needs people for 90 days of the year , i hope this shit dont get thru cause it wont be good for the average worker and i have a distrust of all busniesses big or small cause in my experience if theres a law theyll exploit it , i hope wayne mapp gets hit by a car and becomes a paraplegic i wish all the worst on him and his family , i hate the selfserving mother fucker

[Ixion]

Interesting. The only problem is that at the end of the 90 days you can't say "Sorry but it didn't work out". You have to go through the fair procedures malarky as if your probationary employee was permanent staff. That's what Mapp's bill is trying to cure.

Your objection to the present system being the need for fair procedures, I presume you will therefore agree that the benefit(from your point of view) of Mr Mapp's bill is that it will permit unfair procedures.

Which is of course true, and exactly why I object to it. Whether procedural fairness (or any other sort of fairness) is an ill requiring curing is I suppose a matter of opinion.

[Winston001]

IMHO there is one fundamental thing which gets left out of this debate - where did the job come from in the first place? The employer created the job - and ultimately should have the right to take it away.

As for it being easy to dismiss - unfortunately thousands of employers would disagree.

Eg. New Zealand Aluminium Smelters were today ordered to re-employ a crane driver who was dismissed. He had moved a cage in the carbon-bake room when a man was still inside. Fatal stuff. There was a system including a flashing light to prevent such an incident but he overlooked this.

Fortunately the other workers managed to stop him. He was interviewed, suspended, investigated, and dismissed. But not good enough according to the ERA. Lots of comp and reinstated.

The point is that NZAS is a large company with human resources and legal people to burn. And even they got the law wrong. So how is Jimmy the Plumber supposed to deal with it all??

[WINJA]

i went to nationals website , it has an email address , i sent them an email and i hope some of you guys opposed to this bullshit send an email too

[Winston001]

Your objection to the present system being the need for fair procedures, I presume you will therefore agree that the benefit of Mr Mapp's bill is that it will permit unfair procedures.


Aha - you fell into my wily trap. This is a false dichotomy (with thanks to Street Gerbil) because it assumes that "fair procedures" are an absolute. Nothing could be further from reality.

The so-called fair procedures have been developed by the Employment Court(s) since the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. They are not enshrined in statute law but rather are judge-made law. They developed from a type of judicial activism to balance up some aspects of the ECA. Ok, that was reasonable.

But when the Employment Relations Act came along with much more worker-friendly emphasis, there was no winding back of the "fair procedures" rules by the courts. Thus both the new ER Act and the rules were weighted against employers - a sort of double-whammy.

All Mapp is doing is suggesting winding back a little. In fact, apart from the rules on dismissal, all other employment laws will still apply. Where's the problem?

[oldrider]

Not really the point though is it. Everyone deserves a fair go. If you dont believe that then I sincerely hope that you fuck up one day and pay for it in a severe way. Sorry if this sounds harsh but its the reality, I do not believe that it is fair but I respect that you have your opinions too and thats cool. Lets just leave it at that.
I'm a bit confused by your response, I must have expressed my thoughts poorly.
I was condemning the so called management personnel in that workplace. John.

[Timber020]

At present it can be a mare to fire someone whose useless. Its even worse when they are useless and cunning as its near impossible to shake them clear out of your life. They do the minimum, just enough to stay within bounds while making your life hell.
Most employers in this country are small. They are farmers who have one or two employees who at times have them living in there own homes, builders that give a young guy a go etc etc. These are employers that have enough work on there hands and cant hand off tasks such as HR or contract negociation, and possibly have little access to learn about employment law until something goes wrong. Its all well and dandy to talk about written warnings and all that but for small employers all they have to do is make one small screw up and its big money in court. (And I have seen it happen quite a few times, even when one was being robbed blind by there employee)

If this law came in tomorrow, I would be looking for 2 more guys to work with me, but the way things are its just not worth the risk to find myself lumbered with someone who, in my job, my life depends on.

[WINJA]

At present it can be a mare to fire someone whose useless. Its even worse when they are useless and cunning as its near impossible to shake them clear out of your life. They do the minimum, just enough to stay within bounds while making your life hell.
Most employers in this country are small. They are farmers who have one or two employees who at times have them living in there own homes, builders that give a young guy a go etc etc. These are employers that have enough work on there hands and cant hand off tasks such as HR or contract negociation, and possibly have little access to learn about employment law until something goes wrong. Its all well and dandy to talk about written warnings and all that but for small employers all they have to do is make one small screw up and its big money in court. (And I have seen it happen quite a few times, even when one was being robbed blind by there employee)

If this law came in tomorrow, I would be looking for 2 more guys to work with me, but the way things are its just not worth the risk to find myself lumbered with someone who, in my job, my life depends on.

FARMERS HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE WORST OFFENDERS WHEN IT COMES TO EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS , FARM HANDS NEED PROTECTION AS MUCH AS ANYONE, ITS NOT EMPLOYERS LIKE YOU TIMBER THAT MOST EMPLOYEES WORRY ABOUT ITS THOSE REAL FUCKEN ROGUES WHICH SEEM TO BE BIG CORPORATES AND SOME VERY GREEDY UNDERHANDED SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS , AND THEY WILL EXPLOIT ANY LAW TO MAKE MORE MONEY THATS JUST BUSINESS TO THEM BUT TO SOME EMPLOYEES ITS A NIGHTMARE

[James Deuce]

IMHO there is one fundamental thing which gets left out of this debate - where did the job come from in the first place? The employer created the job - and ultimately should have the right to take it away.

As for it being easy to dismiss - unfortunately thousands of employers would disagree.


Without the employee the Employer is just another useless dole bludger. Soemthing they tend to overlook themselves a great deal more than the average employee, because they don't get there nose rubbed in it when the ring in sick because their wife collapsed while carrying their baby and both of them are in the hospital.

Employers that have any compassion at all are few and far between and they usually make lousy businessmen. Good businessmen are complete and utter heartless bastards. Some of them just have a better constructed facade.

[BeakerRAT]

Having been on both sides of the fence on this one, I’d have to say the rules, process and results are ambiguous for both parties involved – Employer / Employee.
Employment law is basically f*ck’d up. Too many add ons and trying to please all concerned. When the shit hits the fan many would say that the lawyers do well,.. but no actually they don’t all the time. My partners a lawyer and due to legal aid, the hourly rates claimable and amount of time written off it would be better to go and work the management fast track at McD’s (no disrespect to those that may be doing this – purely used for effect). Yes in some cases things tend to favor the corporate due to deeper pockets and it’s not their own personal dosh that they are spending on mediation, advice, legal fees etc. Some employees, the bad ones, yes there are bad ones can play the game equally well. Let’s face it some people are just arsehole’s, be they employer or employee! It’s an inherently flawed system. As such I freely admit I don’t know what the answer is, I doubt there is a clean solution to this. The Nats are just using this to sway the business vote. I seriously question whether there would be much effect if the 90 day proposal was to be passed and become law / regulation – after all it’s the honeymoon period for both sides. As an employer you’ve just gone to allot of trouble (time / money) to recruit someone, and you often don’t expect much productivity from them in the first few months. As an employee, you’re on best behavior and glad to have a job – at least for the first couple of pay packets. Yes there will be pricks that hire / fire / hire in the 90 day period, but they are probably doing that type of thing now.
See this for what it is – the Pollies making noise - ‘Andre has a red flag, Chiang Chings is blue. They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu. Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games. Hiding out in tree tops, shouting out rude names…..’:nya:

[chanceyy]

you would find that the companies that have a great culture have a good workforce. In our company everyone likes coming to work, & seeing/working with everyone else, some do not like the company though, and thats fine but they still enjoy working because of that said culture.

what concerns me is if I change jobs I have no protection for 90 days in that said new job, yes sexual harrassment could be an issue, along with other rights that I should have.

I am a hard worker, that takes pride in the standard of work delivered, therefore I am paid accordingly. I know in my current job we had 6 weeks of training and it took approx 6 months to be confident in that job .. including being confident in delivering information.

There are always probationary periods written in to contracts but ppl should not lose other rights during that time frame.

for those who are in management side without owning the company do you realise if you change companies .. you are also affected by this law .. after all you are still only a worker !!

[Winston001]

Without the employee the Employer is just another useless dole bludger.

Well Jim, I'd suggest that most employers start out as one man businesses with no employees. They work for themselves. If all goes well, they employ someone to help in the business. And so with hard work and financial risk by the owner, and a bit of luck, it grows.

The point is that the employer has to make a decision and take a financial risk to take on a new employee. If the risk of being stuck with a "bad" employee is too high (because of the myriad procedures and costs), then the job won't be created. So Mapps bill lowers the barrier for more jobs.

Incidentally in my experience a "bad" employee is quite often one who upsets other employees - yet does his job. Not easy to change or dismiss. The problems can be subtle and due to personalities. But why should a long time staff member leave (out of frustration) because they work with a prick? It happens.

[Lou Girardin]

And what of the employees risk?
The business failing. Being made redundant, etc.
Not to mention the risk of striking one of the weirdos and perverts in some industries who think employing someone entitles them to additional benefits.

[James Deuce]

Well Jim, I'd suggest that most employers start out as one man businesses with no employees. They work for themselves. If all goes well, they employ someone to help in the business. And so with hard work and financial risk by the owner, and a bit of luck, it grows.



Most business ventures fail. It is a truism of any capitalist economy that most fail, becasue capitalism encourages failure. That is due to a huge number of reasons, most of them not having a great deal to do with employees.

Having run my own contracting business I do understand what you are saying, however most of my peers in the same situation were woefully lacking in legal knowledge, financial understanding, and people skills to be able manage a business that consisted of more than just themselves.

If a Business owner can't hire someone who is the correct fit for the business, then that should NOT be made the employee's problem. Mapp's Bill is typical of the attitude that all the failings in the NZ economy are down to lazy overpaid workers, rather than NZ Managers and Business Owners just don't have the skills through both lack of qualification and lack of exposure to best practice to be able to do their job. As we know, shit flows downhill, so it MUST be those good for nothing workers screwing me over. I couldn;t possibly be bad at MY job. Seems to be a common refrain.

The thing that horrifies me the most is that no one gives a shit about the human cost. Societies are built on people, but it seems to me that a large chunk of the people who "employ" would rather that the rest of us were entirely without any employment protection at all.

[Winston001]

The thing that horrifies me the most is that no one gives a shit about the human cost. Societies are built on people, but it seems to me that a large chunk of the people who "employ" would rather that the rest of us were entirely without any employment protection at all.

Which is why the trade union movement grew in leaps and bounds in the early 20th century. A good thing too.

Today no-one who thinks about it seriously, says that employees shouldn't have protections. Employee rights are entrenched in Western societies - some places stronger than others.

I honestly find the reaction to Mapp's proposal hysterical. Australia has just done it. I repeat - all of the normal protections will still exist. The difference is that the employment can be terminated up to 90 days without having to give warnings, conduct interviews, and carry out investigations.

The probationary period does not mean discrimination, sexual harrassment, or abuse are allowed.

[Ixion]

,,,
The probationary period does not mean discrimination, sexual harrassment, or abuse are allowed.

Well, yes, in the real world it does mean just that. Since a worker can be sacked without any reason being given, the threat of this can be used as a constant means to "punish" those who object to any of those things. Or to silence them. The main (often the only) protection that a worker has against ANY of these things is that they canot be punished for objecting without the employer having to justify his actions. Now that protection is removed.

Nor is the effect of the bill actually limited to 90 days. There is nothing whatsoever to stop an employer taking on a worker, sacking them after 89 days (no reason needed remember) rehiring them the same day, for ANOTHER 90 day "probationary" period, and repeating this cycle indefinately. Indeed it is possible that this could happen and the worker not even be aware it was going on - just a couple of entries in the wages book.

[Winston001]

Nor is the effect of the bill actually limited to 90 days. There is nothing whatsoever to stop an employer taking on a worker, sacking them after 89 days (no reason needed remember) rehiring them the same day, for ANOTHER 90 day "probationary" period, and repeating this cycle indefinately. Indeed it is possible that this could happen and the worker not even be aware it was going on - just a couple of entries in the wages book.

Yeah right! You know as well as I do what the Employment Court would say about that. It would be deemed continuous employment - and rightly so.

All of this hand-wringing and fear-mongering (lovely word eh) over 90 days is ludicrous. At 91 days all the normal procedures fall into place.

[Ixion]

And upon what grounds would you invoke the Employment Court? It can hardly be because of the dismissal since that is exactly what the bill prohibits. And it would scarely be logical to argue that an employer cannot reemploy a dismissed worker.

In fact, it would probably be simpler and better just to dismiss each worker at the end of each week. that avoids having to mess around with holiday pay too. And avoids the need to pay for stat days (don't rehire them util after the holiday). Pay out the worker each friday, new employment term starts Monday. So, in fact, the bill potentially casualises all employment.

Nothing in the bill to prevent it. As to fear mongering, given the behaviour of some employers in NZ, fear is well justifed.

[James Deuce]

Nor is the effect of the bill actually limited to 90 days. There is nothing whatsoever to stop an employer taking on a worker, sacking them after 89 days (no reason needed remember) rehiring them the same day, for ANOTHER 90 day "probationary" period, and repeating this cycle indefinately. Indeed it is possible that this could happen and the worker not even be aware it was going on - just a couple of entries in the wages book.

I'd say that all seasonal workers will find this happening. Rather than a short term contract and all the potential issues that go with it, you just hire them for the picking, pruning, or planting, and then boom, gone. Oyster fishermen - deckhands will get the same treatment.

Winston, you seem to suffer from the belief that employers will do the "right thing". Throughout the Western world, employers, particularly Medium sized (50 employees or more) companies on up to Multi-Nationals, have a track record of doing everything they can to avoid doing the "right thing".

[Lias]

The bill is a good thing, as is anything else that helps stop employers being rooted up the arse by unions. Anyone who opposes it is a dirty communist socialist marxist waste of oxygen.

I've sat and rewritten this paragraph about 20 times so far, and I cant find a goddamn thing to say about the communist unions and their relationship with Comrade Clark and her minions that isnt a foul mouthed rant, which would probably offend some of the nambie pambies, which in turn is probably an invasion of their human rights and will see me in jail for 10 years for a thought crime.

Just remember, Big Brother is watching, and big brother is a politically correct communist labour supporter....

[98tls]

[QUOTE=Lias]The bill is a good thing, as is anything else that helps stop employers being rooted up the arse by unions. Anyone who opposes it is a dirty communist socialist marxist waste of oxygen.

What a load of shit....get your head outta your arse ya silly prick....better still stop breathing your a waste of oxygen...and no i dont vote labour and am not a communist...Fucken idiot..post your shit somewhere else.

[chanceyy]

The bill is a good thing, as is anything else that helps stop employers being rooted up the arse by unions. Anyone who opposes it is a dirty communist socialist marxist waste of oxygen.


laffing at your communist union comment,

big brother is what ever govt is in power,

have you had a bad experience luv, or on second thoughts guess your management..

[Ixion]

The bill is a good thing, as is anything else that helps stop employers being rooted up the arse by unions. Anyone who opposes it is a dirty communist socialist marxist waste of oxygen.

I've sat and rewritten this paragraph about 20 times so far, and I cant find a goddamn thing to say about the communist unions and their relationship with Comrade Clark and her minions that isnt a foul mouthed rant, which would probably offend some of the nambie pambies, which in turn is probably an invasion of their human rights and will see me in jail for 10 years for a thought crime.

Just remember, Big Brother is watching, and big brother is a politically correct communist labour supporter....

Goodness. You are wrong on so many levels.

You can't have a communist union in NZ. Membership of the Communist party (indeed any association with Communism) is forbidden by the rules of almost all (probably all) unions. Wimps.

If there WERE communist unions their relationship with the right wing Ms Clark would be exceeding tense and unhappy. They would want very much to shoot her, and she would want very much to throw them into prison. As the "Labour" party did to many Communist union organisers back when Communism and unionism were not incompatible

Big brother can't be "a politically correct communist labour supporter". Firstly, communists are never politically correct.Wouldn't make sense for someone who intends to shoot you being worried about saying something that might offend you, would it? Secondly communists are never Labour supporters if you mean supporters of the present Labour party. Haven't been since 1925 when Labour forced the communists out. Rat finks, a sad state of affairs for the party Billy Banjo started. And the Labour party isn't even socialist, John A Lee was the last Socialist member, until they kicked him out.

If you don't like the Labour party you'd implode at what a Socialist party would do, and what the Communists would do is I fear beyond the reach of your mind.

[98tls]

Goodness. You are wrong on so many levels.

You can't have a communist union in NZ. Membership of the Communist party (indeed any association with Communism) is forbidden by the rules of almost all (probably all) unions. Wimps.

If there WERE communist unions their relationship with the right wing Ms Clark would be exceeding tense and unhappy. They would want very much to shoot her, and she would want very much to throw them into prison. As the "Labour" party did to many Communist union organisers back when Communism and unionism were not incompatible

Big brother can't be "a politically correct communist labour supporter". Firstly, communists are never politically correct.Wouldn't make sense for someone who intends to shoot you being worried about saying something that might offend you, would it? Secondly communists are never Labour supporters if you mean supporters of the present Labour party. Haven't been since 1925 when Labour forced the communists out. Rat finks, a sad state of affairs for the party Billy Banjo started. And the Labour party isn't even socialist, John A Lee was the last Socialist member, until they kicked him out.

If you don't like the Labour party you'd implode at what a Socialist party would do, and what the Communists would do is I fear beyond the reach of your mind. :doobey: :doobey: knew you wouldnt be far away.....

[Winston001]

Winston, you seem to suffer from the belief that employers will do the "right thing". Throughout the Western world, employers, particularly Medium sized (50 employees or more) companies on up to Multi-Nationals, have a track record of doing everything they can to avoid doing the "right thing".

Fair enough. The vast majority of businesses are small employers - 1 to 8 employees. The employers are busy enough just trying to run the show. All this sophistication about dumping someone on day 89 and reemploying on day 91 is far too much trouble for them.

Basically an employer wants a reliable worker. If they find one, they keep him or her. No shagging about.

I acknowledge there are situations where sharp practise could occur but unscrupulous employers exist under the present law as it is. We can't legislate for everything.

Anyway, I'm right, youse jokers are wrong, so there. :blah: :blah: :blah:

[ajturbo]

[quote=Lias]The bill is a good thing, as is anything else that helps stop employers being rooted up the arse by unions. Anyone who opposes it is a dirty communist socialist marxist waste of oxygen.

What a load of shit....get your head outta your arse ya silly prick....better still stop breathing your a waste of oxygen...and no i dont vote labour and am not a communist...Fucken idiot..post your shit somewhere else.

sorry but i agree with "lias" on this...:nya:

[Lou Girardin]

I love the 'reds under the bed' crowd. Trapped in the '50s and 60's still.
NZ's biggest problem is this 'gays IN the bed' Govt.
I'm seriously worried that they'll make homosexuality compulsory.

[Beemer]

I first started work in 1980 and every job I ever worked at in those days (apart from for my parents) had a three month trial period as part of the contract. I've only ever been fired twice in my working life and once was for a technical breach of contract after I'd been working there three years and the other was because they didn't want to pay redundancy (I'd worked there for three years too and took them to the Employment Tribunal and won a redundancy payout). I never looked at the trial period as anything threatening because I always believed if I did a good job, I wouldn't be asked to leave - and I never was. I did leave one job within the three month period as I wasn't enjoying it - and I felt quite relieved I had an 'out' without having to lie about why I was leaving. Most employers actually made a big deal of the day the trial period ended, welcoming me to the permanent staff.

Yes, there are some employers who may well abuse this law if it is (re)introduced but they are the types who would fondle female employees, treat junior staff like shit, sack people because they wanted to, etc, anyway, so I think it's more a case of choosing your employer (and employees) more wisely to avoid any potential conflict. So many times a person is employed to do a specific job and then they either don't have the skills or are bone lazy and won't do a decent day's work for a decent day's pay and the employer is stuck with them unless they do something really bad. There have been so many cases in the courts where an employee has done everything except steal and when the employer sacks them, they take them to the Employment Tribunal and either get their job back or win huge payouts. There should be laws to protect both employers AND employees and the basic fact is, if you do a good job, your employer shouldn't want to fire you.

[Lias]

If there WERE communist unions their relationship with the right wing Ms Clark would be exceeding tense and unhappy.

There's the foundation of our disagreement right there sir.. You think Labour is too right wing, and I think the National Front are too left wing :innocent:


I love the 'reds under the bed' crowd. Trapped in the '50s and 60's still.
NZ's biggest problem is this 'gays IN the bed' Govt.
I'm seriously worried that they'll make homosexuality compulsory.
I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that mandatory 1 in 10 homosexuality was a campaign promise of the Mcgillicuddy Serious party back in the day. Perhaps they outgrew there student activist days and joined the communist errm I mean Labour party :rockon: And I cant be trapped in the '50s or '60's because I wasnt even a twinkle in the old mans eye then :-)

sorry but i agree with "lias" on this...
I'd like to thank the academy, and god, and my record company..

[The Stranger]

did you go to Rally at Govt grounds yesterday Jim ?? Love the bullshit chant

Why bother? Nothing else to do?
It wont pass.

[Finn]

On the other side of the fence, there is little protection for employers in a market where half the workforce are fucken useless. In addition, the government (1/3 unwanted shareholder) does it's best to interfere with businesses.

I have useless people I can't fire and the problem is it effects overall productivity which in turn means I can't / won't give the hard workers the pay rise they deserve.

There is clearly an inbalance in employment law in NZ.

[The_Dover]

But I don't even work for you Finn.

[Pixie]

a new employee slept with the bosses son and regretted it so she called things off. The boss fired her cause his son didnt want her there.
This is called suffering the consequences of ones actions

[The_Dover]

I once screwed the crew.

My boss made my life hell for months because I wouldn't fuck her too.

[Ixion]

But I don't even work for you Finn.
Considering


I once screwed the crew.

My boss made my life hell for months because I wouldn't fuck her too.


Do you wonder?

[The_Dover]

Considering


Do you wonder?

Is that why he wont give me a job? Cos I wont fuck him?:doobey:

[Pixie]

IMHO there is one fundamental thing which gets left out of this debate - where did the job come from in the first place? The employer created the job - and ultimately should have the right to take it away.

As for it being easy to dismiss - unfortunately thousands of employers would disagree.

Eg. New Zealand Aluminium Smelters were today ordered to re-employ a crane driver who was dismissed. He had moved a cage in the carbon-bake room when a man was still inside. Fatal stuff. There was a system including a flashing light to prevent such an incident but he overlooked this.

Fortunately the other workers managed to stop him. He was interviewed, suspended, investigated, and dismissed. But not good enough according to the ERA. Lots of comp and reinstated.


And if he did kill someone, OSH would screw the employer for that too

[Pixie]

Vote Communist, the only party that makes sense.


Communists :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
I wonder why the one remaining communist state in existence,is governed by a tyrant named Menta Lee Ill

[Finn]

Is that why he wont give me a job? Cos I wont fuck him?:doobey:

No, it's because you're lazy.

[chanceyy]

No, it's because you're lazy.

:killingme: :killingme: :rofl: : :moon:

sorry dover .. but finn got ya there :clap:

[The Pastor]

I first started work in 1980 and every job I ever worked at in those days (apart from for my parents) had a three month trial period as part of the contract. I've only ever been fired twice in my working life and once was for a technical breach of contract after I'd been working there three years and the other was because they didn't want to pay redundancy (I'd worked there for three years too and took them to the Employment Tribunal and won a redundancy payout). I never looked at the trial period as anything threatening because I always believed if I did a good job, I wouldn't be asked to leave - and I never was. I did leave one job within the three month period as I wasn't enjoying it - and I felt quite relieved I had an 'out' without having to lie about why I was leaving. Most employers actually made a big deal of the day the trial period ended, welcoming me to the permanent staff.

Yes, there are some employers who may well abuse this law if it is (re)introduced but they are the types who would fondle female employees, treat junior staff like shit, sack people because they wanted to, etc, anyway, so I think it's more a case of choosing your employer (and employees) more wisely to avoid any potential conflict. So many times a person is employed to do a specific job and then they either don't have the skills or are bone lazy and won't do a decent day's work for a decent day's pay and the employer is stuck with them unless they do something really bad. There have been so many cases in the courts where an employee has done everything except steal and when the employer sacks them, they take them to the Employment Tribunal and either get their job back or win huge payouts. There should be laws to protect both employers AND employees and the basic fact is, if you do a good job, your employer shouldn't want to fire you.


Damn straight.

Bring on the trump to nz! You're fired!

Its very hard to get rid of a worker who is just doing a very very average job, turning up late, being irresponsable being a pest etc.

If employers had the ability to get rid of anyone they didnt want to work for them life and profits would be so much higher.

(If a certain minority can get jobs becuase of another minorty they can start up bussiness of them selfs - it wont happen becuase they will get jobs as niggers are cheaper than whites)