90-day stand down [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 07:10

It also means we can fire dumb arses like you who lack logic, common sense and any signs of intelligence.

You really need to stop thinking like a kiwi James. Change your ways boy.

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

If I fall off a bike and break an arm in the first 90 days of a new job, I'd be out the door.

Stop thinking like a Kiwi employer. We don't all come to work to steal your money.

I thought short term contracts for specific projects were already legal.

I have heard a lot of hard luck stories from employers who have struggled to get rid of a poor performing employee though, but maybe they went about it the wrong way.

We're not talking short term contract, we're talking someone hired for a full or part time position has no protection for the first 90 days of a job. If I applied for a short term contract (and I've worked at several in my working life) then the expectations are clear, and it is will be a contractually spelled out on both sides of the equation. A professional relationship.

I've also heard a lot of hard luck stories from stupid employers who don't have the nouse to follow a process to rid themselves of an employee. I've watched my current employer throw 100s of thousands away because some manager loses their temper and "fires" someone.

davereid

10th December 2008, 07:10

jrandom

10th December 2008, 07:11

If you like being in full time employment, don't get a new job. Once you move you'll spend the rest of your life on a series of 90 day contracts.

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

SixPackBack

10th December 2008, 07:11

Starting to like John Key......certainly starting out well:cool:

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 07:18

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

You have got to be kidding me.! They're not firing anyone, simply not taking an option up to continue employment. This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved. I can't believe that anyone in this day and age thinks that an employer actually values their staff.

Swoop

10th December 2008, 07:22

Headbanger

10th December 2008, 07:23

davereid

10th December 2008, 07:23

...This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved...

Thats exactly the point.. ! well spotted !

slofox

10th December 2008, 07:28

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

You mean have been fucked don't you James?

jrandom

10th December 2008, 07:28

You have got to be kidding me.! They're not firing anyone, simply not taking an option up to continue employment. This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved.

It's really not at all hard to have a contract that says "this job lasts 10 weeks" or whatever, and there are always plenty of people keen to take on stuff like that. Offer a 'fake permanent position', and you'll miss out on some of the best contract workers in the market.

IMHO, your logic assumes malice and stupidity on the part of employers, rather than a simple desire to make a profit and/or a modicum of common sense, and says more about your overly jaundiced view of reality than about the economic intelligence of this policy.

Devil

10th December 2008, 07:29

I think it's a great idea.

I work at a council. There are people who would have been completely incompetant when they started... and they're still here 10 years later. I dont think it would have been possible for them to have gotten worse.

I however, haven't seen the fine print.

Finn

10th December 2008, 07:30

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

If I fall off a bike and break an arm in the first 90 days of a new job, I'd be out the door.

Stop thinking like a Kiwi employer. We don't all come to work to steal your money.

9 years of "cash for babies policies" meant that all the dead beats would breed like rabbits producing more dead beats. I mean why would they work when they could get paid to sit on their fat arses and breed? This cost the taxpayer too much and was a significant burden on businesses, especially small businesses who weren't allowed to replace the dead beat. If a woman gets pregnant, that's her business. Why should it be a burden on an employer? Extreme socialist thinking. However, if the bitch is half decent, then the employer could always take her back if there's a position.

As for your arm, that depends. An employer can usually tell very quickly if an employee is worth what they are being paid. If you are worthless, your broken arm would be a great reason to sack your arse. After all, it would of happened anyway once your trial period was up. However, if you showed that you could be a valuable asset to the company, any smart employer would say tough luck son, when can you come back to work?

NZ's productivity is extremely low. Relaxing our one sided employment laws is good.

Max Headroom

10th December 2008, 07:37

You have got to be kidding me.! They're not firing anyone, simply not taking an option up to continue employment. This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved. I can't believe that anyone in this day and age thinks that an employer actually values their staff.

I for one value my staff. I wouldn't have a business without them, and I recognise that every way that I can. I have a shortlist of people who have approached me to let them know if a vacancy opens up.

The only employees who would be fearful of this new legislation will be those who have oversold themselves on their CV, demonstrate a poor work ethic, or simply don't fit the workplace culture. Remember, the three month trial period is also an opportunity for new employees to assess their employers and work environment too.

MisterD

10th December 2008, 07:37

nigel

10th December 2008, 07:37

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 07:44

IMHO, your logic assumes malice and stupidity on the part of employers, rather than a simple desire to make a profit and/or a modicum of common sense, and says more about your overly jaundiced view of reality than about the economic intelligence of this policy.

Yes it does. That has largely been my experience. My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem with assuming the association of intelligence, economic or otherwise, with any policy change in the employment laws in NZ is that there's precious little of that commodity available in NZ's job market. On both sides of the fence. This policy won't be employed to raise the productivity of Kiwis or reduce the exposure inherent in unsuitable employees, it will simply provide an out for an employer who needs a short term fix without long term financial exposure or having to pay contract rates for a decent contract worker. In my industry the vast majority of the good contractors capable of providing a satisfactory outcome for an employer have moved overseas. Simple economics. Pay is already crap in the IT sector in NZ and given the mentality of the majority of employers in that field it's only going to get worse.

Robert Taylor

10th December 2008, 07:45

Robert Taylor

10th December 2008, 07:46

Yes it does. That has largely been my experience. My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem with assuming the association of intelligence, economic or otherwise, with any policy change in the employment laws in NZ is that there's precious little of that commodity available in NZ's job market. On both sides of the fence. This policy won't be employed to raise the productivity of Kiwis or reduce the exposure inherent in unsuitable employees, it will simply provide an out for an employer who needs a short term fix without long term financial exposure or having to pay contract rates for a decent contract worker. In my industry the vast majority of the good contractors capable of providing a satisfactory outcome for an employer have moved overseas. Simple economics. Pay is already crap in the IT sector in NZ and given the mentality of the majority of employers in that field it's only going to get worse.

Try 80 hour weeks. Ive got the flu big time at present but having a stake in its business and being very busy Im here!

Robert Taylor

10th December 2008, 07:47

i for one value my staff. I wouldn't have a business without them, and i recognise that every way that i can. I have a shortlist of people who have approached me to let them know if a vacancy opens up.

The only employees who would be fearful of this new legislation will be those who have oversold themselves on their cv, demonstrate a poor work ethic, or simply don't fit the workplace culture. Remember, the three month trial period is also an opportunity for new employees to assess their employers and work environment too.

ditto ditto ditto

Jantar

10th December 2008, 07:48

29 years ago, with a new wife, I moved from one end of the country to the other to start a new job, on a 90 day trial. I was confident that I would be acceptable, and so it proved.

The only people who need fear are those who have applied for a job that is above their ability, and BSed their way through the interview process.

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 07:51

James, you're also neglecting to consider that it actually costs money to recruit employees - it's in an employer's interest that they get someone who is value for that money.

In the OECD there are precisely two countries without similar legislation, NZ and Denmark...it works very well in the UK and it isn't abused, even without the specific provisions in our legislation.

I've worked in the UK and I was treated with respect. I enjoyed the experience tremendously because it was the first time an employer looked like they enjoyed me turning up. My broad experience in NZ is that I have to be watched because I will be stealing time, money, equipment, and making poor decisions. Employees are not to be trusted.

My knowledge is experiential. Arguing that I don't understand that there are poor employees (I've had to work with them for goodness sake!) or that employers deserve protection isn't the issue I'm raising. I KNOW that NZ employers will manipulate this policy change to their own advantage.

I've never been fired. I've not given anyone reason too. I've not had an employer that made me feel part of a team or valued, or an asset to be protected. You sink or swim on your own, and that's cool because I can do that. I'm not "scared" of this change because I expect to never be able to complete a probation period. I do know that the industry I work in willbe rubbing its hands in glee.

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 07:56

Try 80 hour weeks. Ive got the flu big time at present but having a stake in its business and being very busy Im here!

Yes, I've been there too. I've worked at a wage-slave job while failing to make a go of a couple of businesses. I'm not belittling the experience of dedicated businessmen at all. I'm not contracted to work more than 37.5, but I frequently exceed 70 hour working weeks without being paid for it. This is just another nail that will exploit people like me who believe their employer deserves respect, for nothing other than the simple reason they pay me.

Boob Johnson

10th December 2008, 07:57

It also means we can fire dumb arses like you who lack logic, common sense and any signs of intelligence.

You really need to stop thinking like a kiwi James. Change your ways boy.
Damn straight, try having to work with some of these farking microwave generation kids these days, fucking over expectant morons AND they can drag your ass through employment court with no real risk or cost to themselves. The thing I like about JK is he is a businessman first, he thinks like a businessman, unlike uncle Helen (still gotta pinch myself that she is FINALLY fucked off). The economy is in a very volatile state, Labour has blown the 9 year cream gathering opportunity that was before us & now its time to shape this government back into a (reasonably) efficient model again. JK seems (so far) to totally understand what needs to be done.

Beemer

10th December 2008, 08:05

For bad employers yes but we often forget that there are many bad employees! 90 days is an excellent opportunity for a new employee to prove him / herself and to be a valuable asset to the business. So often also many think that owning a business is a license to print money.

Too true. When I first started work in 1980 I am pretty sure I was on a three or six month trial period. I was then placed on permanent staff after that time. I moved to Wellington in 1986 and I am also pretty sure every job I took on since then had the same terms and conditions. I've never been asked to leave during the trial period, but I did opt to leave one job myself as it didn't turn out to be what I expected. No, the work wasn't too hard - I'd turn up at 8.30am and open the mail, my boss would roll in about 10am (and leave at 4pm) and for the bulk of the day I had very little to do. They didn't have a proper office for me so I was in the waiting area of the other business we shared a floor with. Anyone coming to visit them would dump their stuff on my desk, use my phone or sit on the couch next to my desk and make calls on their mobile that I would be forced to listen to. I was bored out of my skull and soon realised he hated delegating and all he really needed was a part-time assistant - and that wasn't what I was looking for so I left.

I have heard so many horror stories of employers who take on new staff, only to find they are lazy, incompetent, rude, deceitful - and worse. They have to give them warnings before they can get rid of them - and many times the offences are not quite bad enough to fire someone over, so they are stuck with them. If you are a good employee and do what you are employed to do, I doubt you will have any trouble with this new rule. If, however, you are a lazy prick who thinks an employer owes him something other than a fair wage for a job well done, then yes, you probably will be fucked over - and you won't get much sympathy from me!

I'm self-employed and I basically have a probation period for every new client who offers me work - if I don't perform and impress them, they probably won't hire me again. It hasn't been a problem so far, and it also allows me to turn down future work from them if I didn't enjoy working for them the first time. And best of all, I don't have any employees so I won't have to worry about firing their sorry arses if they turn out to be useless!

Boob Johnson

10th December 2008, 08:08

We're not talking short term contract, we're talking someone hired for a full or part time position has no protection for the first 90 days of a job. If I applied for a short term contract (and I've worked at several in my working life) then the expectations are clear, and it is will be a contractually spelled out on both sides of the equation. A professional relationship.

I've also heard a lot of hard luck stories from stupid employers who don't have the nouse to follow a process to rid themselves of an employee. I've watched my current employer throw 100s of thousands away because some manager loses their temper and "fires" someone.
Nouse? Ever owned a business? Ever had an employee who after just a month of steller performance decides its ok to suddenly do fuck all, sit in the back yard reading a book all afternoon & almost completely ignore the tasks set down for the day & then have the cheek to complain about being caught out? That's fun to deal with. Its even more fun when hourly rate staff who do 40 hours a week compare their work load to the boss who lives on site & does 100 hours a week, even more fun when they come into your office & say "hey im off to such n such concert next month".......not "im mad keen, is it possible to get the time off".

JK is trying to protect small to medium businesses from being fucked over by asshole staff, which they can easily do under current laws. Due to THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL CRISIS TO EVER HIT OUR PLANET it may be a good move to protect small businesses who are about to be put under a lot more pressure.

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.
Some people just need to be on the other side of the fence for 5 mins & experience the shit the current laws produce.

Boob Johnson

10th December 2008, 08:29

Yes, I've been there too. I've worked at a wage-slave job while failing to make a go of a couple of businesses. I'm not belittling the experience of dedicated businessmen at all. I'm not contracted to work more than 37.5, but I frequently exceed 70 hour working weeks without being paid for it. This is just another nail that will exploit people like me who believe their employer deserves respect, for nothing other than the simple reason they pay me.
You work TWICE the time for no extra pay?

Don't mean to be rude but that seems a little strange.

Murray

10th December 2008, 08:40

James, its like your beloved labour party, you are getting seriously out voted here

marioc

10th December 2008, 09:41

You work TWICE the time for no extra pay?

Don't mean to be rude but that seems a little strange.

More like complete bollocks,who in there right mind does that?

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 09:42

More like complete bollocks,who in there right mind does that?
People who need to keep their jobs. If I don't do it, shit breaks and I get in the crap.

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 09:44

James, its like your beloved labour party, you are getting seriously out voted here
My what? I'm really getting tired of that assumption.

I also think the people who are"voting" against me, have never worked for an IT corporate in NZ. I think the majority of Kiwis work in small firms, and I reckon this policy change isn't an issue for them. From my perspective, large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 09:46

You work TWICE the time for no extra pay?

Don't mean to be rude but that seems a little strange.

I am ina position of all responsibility and no authority. You should try it some time. You might stop thinking that all employees are useless arseholes who do nothing,

Murray

10th December 2008, 09:48

My what? I'm really getting tired of that assumption.

I also think the people who are"voting" against me, have never worked for an IT corporate in NZ. I think the majority of Kiwis work in small firms, and I reckon this policy change isn't an issue for them. From my perspective, large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.

The law only applies to companys with less than 20 employees!! Not to many large NZ corporates with less than 20 employees!!!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4787849a11.html

Brett

10th December 2008, 09:51

As Jrandom put it, if after 90 days you still can't do the job, why should you be an anchor on the business? (the proverbial you, of course)

Tank

10th December 2008, 10:04

If the dismissal is unjust even within the 90 day period the employer will still be accountable.

I have been taken to the cleaners for unfair dismissal twice. (actual situations below)

Employee One: Seemed like a nice smart guy, unfortunately he was a bigot and racist - and was quite open with his comments to people not of his colour. Do I fire him or get done by (and lose the respect of) the other poor hard working employees who have been with me for years?

I fired his ass 3 days into the job. Cost the company $8000

Employee Two: Was late for work by 3 to 4 hours a day generally 4 days per week (for months). Caught using a password hacking tool on the CEO's
account.

Went thru the process to get him fired - all boxed ticked, all T's crossed, all i's dotted - yet he took us with a no-win no-fee lawyer and cost us $10,000

Ixion

10th December 2008, 10:22

It's incredibly hard to fire someone these days.. Ignoring obvious stuff like employees breaking rules, you have to be prepared to prove that the person is unable to perform their job _and_ that you tried to help them with training, and that kind of assistance, else you get slapped with a PG.

No. It's not. Unless your reasons for wanting to fire them are not such as can stand the light of day.

Right now, employers absolutely have to get the interview process right, else they're stuck with a lemon that they have to 'micromanage' out of a job. That's a pain for everyone involved. It would be nice if everyone was an expert at interviewing people and always did all the correct checks, but that's simply not realistic.

So, get the process right. Listening to all these people bleat on about how they have to have they right to sack workers because they are this that or the other, I cannot help thinking that many employers simply should not employ anyone. I've hired probably several hundred people in my lifetime. I can't recall one of those who turned out so bad that I've have wanted to sack them in the first few months. If you're such a poor judge of character that you can't tell the good from the bad, get someone who can to do it.

Sounds to me like 90 days gives you a trial period to find out what people are _really_ like. Sure some people might abuse that, but that won't happen at most workplaces, and I'm sure word would get around pretty fast about joe's motors where joe only hires & fires. In industries like IT, this is an godsend - demand for skilled workers is high but supply of them is low.

Why do you suppose that it "won't happen at most workplaces" ? Blind faith? I'd say the reverse. It *will* happen at most small workplaces.

And why do you suppose that someone is is already in a permanent role is going to chuck it in for a 90 day fixed term contract (which is all the offer of permanent employment would amount to) at non-contract rates. The job on offer would have to be *fantastically* good. So all that small shops will get now will be the people who don't have a job and have nothing to lose. They may be out of work for valid reason (redundancy, return form overseas). or they may not. This law just cripples the chances of small employers getting good staff.

If you need 90 days to find out what someone is _really_ like (And I'll repeat, if you're that bad at the hiring process, get someone else to do it) , then take them on on a 90 day fixed term contract at contract rates.

Not to mention it being a wonderful Christmas present to the ratbags who will hire young girls : then let them know that if they don't put out they're down the road. And trust me, there are a shed load of such out there. The ratbags charter, I'd call it.

Fatjim

10th December 2008, 10:32

Jim, I think you're on a hiding to nothing here.

I HAVE been in the IT industry for over 25 years (ouch). I know what you mean but there isn't in industry apart from MacDonalds that has to on a daily basis have to deal with muckupsa and fuckups. The IT industry is ridled with people who aren't bright enough to be a road sweeper (no offence Finn), let alone manage the data of companies that depend on it. You just have to do a CCNA, or a MS cert and you in. Any retard can make 60k+ a year in the industry and most of the retards in NZ are in the IT industry doing just that. I'd be shit scared to be an IT employer in NZ because of this.

This legislation is good news, if you can't impress your employee in 90 days then tuff.

Also, if I employed someone and they got pregnant in 90 days then I sure as hell would fire her. I've got three kids of my own that I have to bring up. I'm not paying for someone elses as well.

Jim, you're bright enough and skilled enough to go out on your own. If you did, and you wanted to hire a sidekick, wouldn't you like some protection from making a hiring mistake, say someone who lied about their experience, convitction or body odour.

As per you work hours mate, for a company to continiously expect you to work over your contracted hours is not reasonable. Tell them you will only work passed you 7.5 hours a day twice a week, and one weekend a month. If work needs doing over and above this then let your boss know about it in an email and put the responsability on him to find resource. You've just got to learn to say NO, its fun.

BOGAR

10th December 2008, 10:33

I must admit I do have sympathy for the small business owners. Someone I know is trying to get rid of an employee who basically goes from job to job ripping their employer off. They (he) have enough knowledge of the employment laws to be able to push as far as he can without actually giving reason to be fired. It is proving very had to get rid of him and costing this small business a small fortune. The guy had the cheek to say he would leave for a small payout.

On the other side of the coin, I may be looking for a new job soon myself and hope that I don’t get shafted by a company that would do this but I know I am a good employee and if it does happen then I will simply have to look elsewhere. If they did that to me they certainly are not someone I would wish to work for anyway. It is the fear of the unknown that keeps me in a job where I don’t get respect I deserve, but in reality if you are a good employee then you should not have too much trouble getting a new job (depending on what you do I guess). Time will tell for me I guess.<O:p</O:p

Tank

10th December 2008, 10:47

No. It's not. Unless your reasons for wanting to fire them are not such as can stand the light of day.

Not 100% correct there. Even if you are totally in the right they can still take a PD against you. First step is mediation - if you cannot agree there you have to go to court - with all the associated legal and lost business time cost - that is why there are so many "settlements"

They have nothing to lose - they get a no-win no-fee lawyer - they are never going to be out of pocket.

I've hired probably several hundred people in my lifetime. I can't recall one of those who turned out so bad that I've have wanted to sack them in the first few months. If you're such a poor judge of character that you can't tell the good from the bad, get someone who can to do it.

I have also hired many, many people - but people DO lie in interviews and put on their best face - you are either lucky that you never hit a single 'bad one' or you may be blind to their quality once you had them in place?

Not to mention it being a wonderful Christmas present to the ratbags who will hire young girls : then let them know that if they don't put out they're down the road. And trust me, there are a shed load of such out there. The ratbags charter, I'd call it.

People like that will always be out there - the 90 day period isn't going-to change that behaviour.

imdying

10th December 2008, 10:47

Well I work for an IT corporate (a reasonably big one) too, and they treat us great.

Nobody is expected to work horrible hours. I've seen the boss ask people to work on weekends for urgent jobs (generally to win a contact) before, but it's rare, optional, and they're paid accordingly (generally by being able to take the Monday Tuesday off or whatever suits the employee).

They buy us all sorts of toys to keep us amused, feed us a couple of times a week, pad our salaries with perks etc, so can't complain much. They pay for us to take additional training during work hours etc, so we don't stagnate, in fact they even encourage it.

37.5 hours is all we're contracted for, any more than that is at your own discretion. I never make promises to customers on delivery dates that aren't attainable during my own working week, and I cut down anyone that tries to impose such ridiculous situations on me.

Jim, if you're finding you have to work crazy hours to do your work, then perhaps it's because you fuck around on this site too much :rolleyes:

/edit: Wife is the production team lead for a small IT company (50 people in NZ, the dev arm of a larger US company)... she too is only expected to work 40 hours, although she is more likely to work later than I am... however they do look after them well too... iPods and other IT related presents aren't unusual.

xwhatsit

10th December 2008, 10:50

So the bland, cookie-cutter, money-making businessmen stepped into parliament the other day and already laws are popping out to favour themselves.

What is it about the `business' attitude with all their funny words and jargon and disregard for people that is quite so repulsive?

Swoop

10th December 2008, 10:53

So the bland, cookie-cutter, money-making businessmen stepped into parliament the other day and already laws are popping out to favour themselves.
After watching phill goff on the morning TV today, all I can say is "thank fuck JK is PM!".
What a knob end.

vifferman

10th December 2008, 11:05

After watching phill goff on the morning TV today, all I can say is "thank fuck JK is PM!".
What a knob end.
After watching the usual silly schoolboy name-calling and posturing that went on in Parliament yesterday, I see nothing's actually changed.
Do these guys forget they're civil servants, paid by us to run the country?

Winston001

10th December 2008, 11:25

After watching the usual silly schoolboy name-calling and posturing that went on in Parliament yesterday, I see nothing's actually changed.
Do these guys forget they're civil servants, paid by us to run the country?

A bit OT but I had a look at Parliament TV (channel 94?) last night and was pleasantly surprised. I thought I've give it 2 minutes and ended up watching for half an hour.

Michael Cullen (whom I did not vote for!!) eloquently and passionately attacked the National Government tax plans for 15 minutes, never lost the thread of what he was saying, and made some pretty valid points. Not that I agreed with him but it was damned impressive.

So were other MPs from all sides who spoke.

Of course we only see snippets on TV news and usually they are out of context so I think we get a skewed impression of the actual quality of debate.

Swoop

10th December 2008, 11:28

Do these guys forget they're civil servants, paid by us to run the country?
They are neither "civil" nor do they "serve"...
Well, not for the last 9 years.:shifty:

Winston001

10th December 2008, 11:42

Who is John Key kidding?

This is quite simply a mechanism for employers to get over the hump of a short term project that they over committed to.

If you like being in full time employment, don't get a new job. Once you move you'll spend the rest of your life on a series of 90 day contracts.

James - I respect your views which come from your real-life experience. I disagree strongly with you but understand your points. If you haven't been treated well by employers in NZ then your concerns are justified.

One worry is that employers will deliberately roll over a series of 90 day jobs with different employees, just to avoid having a permanent staff member.

Ok, it might happen, but rarely and unions can attack that sort of cynical process - the good faith rule is still in place.

Employers want to operate a successful business. Having happy staff is important to achieve that. Finding new workers is a pain and distracts from operating the business so they won't end the 90 days just to be pricks.

Despite Ixion's impassioned view that the fair procedure to discipline and fire a bad employee is easy - it ain't. Even employment lawyers cannot be certain about the procedure. There was a case a few years ago where the Employment Authority decided the fair procedure had been followed so correctly that it was a jack-up and therefore unfair. :eek:

Oakie

10th December 2008, 11:55

Despite Ixion's impassioned view that the fair procedure to discipline and fire a bad employee is easy - it ain't. Even employment lawyers cannot be certain about the procedure.

More PGs are upheld through flaws in procedure than through the merits of the case ... so yeah, it is not an easy process. To back this up, we have an employment relationship case going at work at the moment (that I obviously can not talk about) where the employee's representative has not even tried to argue the merits of the case and seems only interested in trying to find flaws in our process.

I haven't read this whole thread or seen the proposed legislation but I would have thought that there would at least be a requirement to advise an employee of any shortcomings during that 90 day period so they don't get to day 90 and have a nasty surprise.

Winston001

10th December 2008, 12:21

I haven't read this whole thread or seen the proposed legislation but I would have thought that there would at least be a requirement to advise an employee of any shortcomings during that 90 day period so they don't get to day 90 and have a nasty surprise.

Agreed, its fair that the employee is told from day one that they are in a 90 day trial. If there are obvious issues then some sort of warning is also fair but whether that happens.......?

I was involved with a PG by a volunteer coach against the kids sports club she used to be with. She'd been paid a bit of money to compensate for her voluntary services - but that was later argued by her lawyer to be wages = PG claim!! There was no merit in the claim, just nastiness and vindictiveness, but it cost this club $3000 in legal fees and compensation to make her go away. I was sickened by the whole experience, particularly as the kids parents had to sell raffles and do barbeques to find the money.

alanzs

10th December 2008, 12:21

What amazes me is how many employers have almost no skill in hiring people in the first place. I learned a long time ago, "hire slow, fire fast..."

Naki Rat

10th December 2008, 12:36

What amazes me is how many employers have almost no skill in hiring people in the first place. I learned a long time ago, "hire slow, fire fast..."

Problem with that system is that for the last while skilled employees have been a bit thin on the ground causing the reverse to be adopted, or at least the "hire fast" part. And to make the situation worse for employers those same employees are just as likely to jump ship or just bail out at will unless the employment contract stipulates measures / penalties to prevent this.

The way I see it the 90 day stand down will help level the playing field in favour of the employer which is much needed as many small companies struggle to stay afloat while forced to employ an often decreasingly loyal workforce.

Genestho

10th December 2008, 12:38

I havent read the whole thread, excuse me if I repost..
It costs money each time you hire an employee, and its very difficult to get rid of the fragile types unable to pull their weight.

We end up with underskilled useless, sometimes difficult to train - employees in the wrong jobs, unable to move them on.
The only ones affected here will be the ones who have bullshitted their way through and get caught out.

As has been mentioned here its also a little forethought to protect small businesses who will suffer badly under the current economic crisis.

Yay, theres some good thinking coming out already from JK, just read the cutbacks on DIY regulations gone mad/extreme via leaky home sagas. Mint!
Sanity rules

SPman

10th December 2008, 13:08

SPman

10th December 2008, 13:21

NZ's productivity is extremely low. Relaxing our one sided employment laws is good.
US workers were continually told their productivity was very high - yet their wages in real terms, declined 15% over 8 yrs. Now they're all being sacked!
Obviously, productivity figures mean different things to different people......

So the bland, cookie-cutter, money-making businessmen stepped into parliament the other day and already laws are popping out to favour themselves.
Did you expect otherwise - the disturbing thing is they are using urgency to ram stuff through - an undemocratic abuse of Parliament, not generally seen since the bad old days of Douglas and Richardson, and you know where that got us......

They are neither "civil" nor do they "serve"...
Well, not for the last 9 years.:shifty:

Have they ever - not in most of my lifetime!

Ixion

10th December 2008, 13:25

Problem with that system is that for the last while skilled employees have been a bit thin on the ground causing the reverse to be adopted, or at least the "hire fast" part. And to make the situation worse for employers those same employees are just as likely to jump ship or just bail out at will unless the employment contract stipulates measures / penalties to prevent this.

.

That is simply a reflection of the very prevalent attitude of NZ employers, who expect the country to be filled with a huge pool of highly skilled workers, trained at someone else's expense. But are never willing to contribute anything whatsoever to training or upskilling their own workers. parasites, in fact.

And surprise surprise, yes, those same employers, to whom everything is a one way street , going their way, find they have difficulty retaining good workers. Gee whizz.

Whereas good employers have a very low turnover. I work in IS. For a good employer . Our turnover is very low. And almost entirely due to pregnancy and such like causes. No-one wants to leave, because we are treated fairly. The same rather radical notion will work for any employer. Treat workers fairly. Pay them a fair rate for the job. Remember they have personal lives as well as work ones. Help make the job challenging and help expand their skills. And they will have so many people applying for the rare openings that they will have no problem at all selecting candidates who will not disappoint.

Someone mentioned an increasing disloyal workforce. Loyalty is a two way thing. When employers do not see any reason why they should be loyal to workers (and the very existence of this bill emphasises that overwhelmingly, they don't) why should they expect the worker to be loyal to them?

Maha

10th December 2008, 13:32

Ixion

10th December 2008, 13:35

An interesting point- will this provision also apply to the contracts of senior executives, civil servants and such like. Who are usually hired on fixed term ,'cant be sacked' contracts. Where if the employer does want to get rid of them they have to buy out the contract. Or will it only apply to Bill Battler.

Will we be able to sack John Key after 90 days? I'm all for it if we can.

short-circuit

10th December 2008, 13:37

Great start: Three policies which make 90% of the population worse off....

Extreme (only one of two countries in the world) pro-employer legislation being rammed through without following normal parliamentary process.

Kiwisaver - something this lot would have never had the foresight nor the inclination to set up is being bastardised: The most important change barely mentioned in TV news last night: EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE CAPPED AT 2%

ACC - About to be privatised

Time for a change - No matter how expensive eh?

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 13:37

It also means we can fire dumb arses like you who lack logic, common sense and any signs of intelligence.

You really need to stop thinking like a kiwi James. Change your ways boy.

ouch! who pulled YOUR chain, boyo? ...... not our usual, sunny self today, are we? :laugh:

.... suggest that if you have dumb, illogical arses working for YOU then your advertising/recruitment/hiring process and powers of observation are up to maggots ..

... and if, once you've been stupid enough to hire them, you can't find a reasonable way to let them go under present workplace arrangements then your life-skills and backbone are deficient ....

but hey - i'm having a bad day too! :laugh:

davereid

10th December 2008, 13:37

..... large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.

No they wont. It is not available to companies with more than 20 staff.

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 13:40

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked..................

:confused: ... well - erm - OBVIOUSLY??

Murray

10th December 2008, 13:41

I will post it again because obviously many have not followed the thread. It applies to businesses with less than 20 employees as attached

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4787849a11.html

Currently I think the Government employs more than 20 people so Keys job is safe??

Joe the panelbeater now has a chance when he gives jack a go and finds out he's a plonker/thief/falsifyed qualifications etc...

so far about 80%+ in favour for the law in this thread

Finn

10th December 2008, 13:47

Obviously, productivity figures mean different things to different people......

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

short-circuit

10th December 2008, 13:51

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

Nothing to do with cheaper labour costs in developing nations then eh?

The Stranger

10th December 2008, 13:52

short-circuit

10th December 2008, 13:52

No they wont. It is not available to companies with more than 20 staff.

That's an easy fix - once joe public forgets about the first raft of changes, just a few minor tweaks and ram it through again

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 13:54

It's really not at all hard to have a contract that says "this job lasts 10 weeks" or whatever, and there are always plenty of people keen to take on stuff like that. Offer a 'fake permanent position', and you'll miss out on some of the best contract workers in the market. it's been my experience that contract workers cost significantly more than permanent employees ?

IMHO, your logic assumes malice and stupidity on the part of employers, rather than a simple desire to make a profit and/or a modicum of common sense,

employers may have that view
unfortunately they quite often have less committed people working for them in a hire/fire position .......... perhaps a genial but less-than-ept family member who hires because he [or she] [I]likes someone then will use this legislation to fire to prevent his [or her] lack of proper skills and reference checks coming to the notice of the owner

we've had a variety of this legislation for some time
i've seen it happen

in many cases it's just a bandaid for sloppy hiring procedures to cover the backs of inept managers who should, themselves, be let go

and says more about your overly jaundiced view of reality than about the economic intelligence of this policy.

don't know why you people have to get so personal when responding to posts -- it's - erm - nasty...... [besides which it gives real nasties like moi an opportunity to spank you back :innocent:]

Finn

10th December 2008, 13:55

ouch! who pulled YOUR chain, boyo? ...... not our usual, sunny self today, are we? :laugh:

.... suggest that if you have dumb, illogical arses working for YOU then your advertising/recruitment/hiring process and powers of observation are up to maggots ..

... and if, once you've been stupid enough to hire them, you can't find a reasonable way to let them go under present workplace arrangements then your life-skills and backbone are deficient ....

but hey - i'm having a bad day too! :laugh:

Today, about 8 people pulled my chain.

Generally, we hire very good people and have a great team but it's a numbers game. Sometimes people mislead info on CV's, references can't be trusted and you can advertise for a role and not even get half decent responses. Seems all the good ones have GONE TO AUSTRALIA!!!

I've made 1 hiring mistake in 12 years. This person was a prize prick. Out of principle I said they wouldn't get a cent out of us and they didn't. In fact they owed us in the end cause we nailed them. Still, we shouldn't have needed to go through all the shit we did.

If people are useless, they should be able to be fired. Full stop. Out the door. Don't come Monday. Hand's up all those with a job... not so fast you. You're SO fired...

Clockwork

10th December 2008, 13:55

Joe the panelbeater now has a chance when he gives jack a go and finds out he's a plonker/thief/falsifyed qualifications etc...

so far about 80%+ in favour for the law in this thread

Pretty sure you can fire anyone for the last two items, with or without this law change. Of course, with the law change a "plonker" could just be some one who refused to wash the bosses car over the weekend!

The reality is that this law won't hurt those of use working for large companies who by and large are responsible employers. But those poor sods who end up worikng for the cowboys.... better luck next time.

Finn

10th December 2008, 13:57

Nothing to do with cheaper labour costs in developing nations then eh?

That too. Wonder why NZ didn't get any of that?

Clockwork

10th December 2008, 13:58

[QUOTE=Finn;1844801
Generally, we hire very good people and have a great team but it's a numbers game. Sometimes people mislead info on CV's, references can't be trusted and you can advertise for a role and not even get half decent responses. Seems all the good ones have GONE TO AUSTRALIA!!![/QUOTE]

I'm sure if you paid enough they'd come back. Of course you may have to promise not to sack them if you're having a bad hair day!

Murray

10th December 2008, 13:58

Pretty sure you can fire anyone for the last two items, with or without this law change. Of course, with the law change a "plonker" could just be some one who refused to wash the bosses car over the weekend!

Yep you can fire someone for theft, cost us $7k for the lawyer to attend mediation etc etc etcr

Clockwork

10th December 2008, 14:03

Yep you can fire someone for theft, cost us $7k for the lawyer to attend mediation etc etc etcr

Guess it would have been cheaper to call the Police

Swoop

10th December 2008, 14:03

US workers were continually told their productivity was very high - yet their wages in real terms, declined 15% over 8 yrs. Now they're all being sacked!
Obviously, productivity figures mean different things to different people..
Rapidly and efficiently manufacturing overpriced and under performing vehicles like fords or harleys... Quite understandable really.:blip:

That is simply a reflection of the very prevalent attitude of NZ employers, who expect the country to be filled with a huge pool of highly skilled workers, trained at someone else's expense. But are never willing to contribute anything whatsoever to training or upskilling their own workers. Parasites, in fact.
:clap:
Correct. It is simpler to go "headhunting" rather than actually training someone.
I see it all the time.

I understand his government will also start fucking with Kiwibank soon.
About fucking time! Have you tried to post a letter recently? The queue is full of retards who want to do their Kiwiwanking, pay a bill or register a cage.
Why dosen't Kiwiwank buy their own premises instead of buggering up the postal system?

Work?
At a council?
Don't you mean you're employed there?
Please do not expect a swift response... He is either at "a meeting" or having an extended lunch break.:rofl:

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:03

9 years of "cash for babies policies" meant that all the dead beats would breed like rabbits producing more dead beats. ...............
this is something i CAN agree with you on ..... it happens here too

personally i have always thought that the generally lower wage paid to women [please DON'T insult my intelligence by waving 'equal pay' legislation in front of me ..... i don't believe in the easter bunny either ...] is a tacit [although illegal] market reaction to the fact that a fulltime female employee of child-bearing age has the potential to be a significant cost to an employer ....

fatmonkey

10th December 2008, 14:05

i reckon its all good, have had some shocking buggers working for me, they always seem to drive away the good staff to

short-circuit

10th December 2008, 14:06

That too. Wonder why NZ didn't get any of that?

Exactly my point. Here comes a government that can make wages in NZ's already low wage economy even lower...just watch

SixPackBack

10th December 2008, 14:07

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

Union mindset is to look after all, with the result being the fastest pace is that of the slowest worker. Business is by and large the opposite, the fastest business being the most successful................the two attitudes are diametrically opposed.
Evolution dictates who wins [kinda obvious really!]

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:08

I think it's a great idea.

I work at a council. There are people who would have been completely incompetant when they started... and they're still here 10 years later. ...........................

that, fella, is the result of incompetent MANAGEMENT,
not inadequate legislation.

Murray

10th December 2008, 14:10

Guess it would have been cheaper to call the Police

Did that but then the arguements arose over whose goods they were and they had been purchased elsewhere and they were also gifts from suppliers and sponsorship etc etc etc (soliciting gifts for personal use is also a sackable offence) but hello ring 0800 SACKED and it costs the employee nothing!!!

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:11

I for one value my staff. I wouldn't have a business without them, and I recognise that every way that I can. I have a shortlist of people who have approached me to let them know if a vacancy opens up.

The only employees who would be fearful of this new legislation will be those who have oversold themselves on their CV, demonstrate a poor work ethic, or simply don't fit the workplace culture. Remember, the three month trial period is also an opportunity for new employees to assess their employers and work environment too.

the only employees in YOUR organization mebbe
...... but there are many companies which are not like yours ... and those are the employees most at risk from this

The Stranger

10th December 2008, 14:12

Maha

10th December 2008, 14:16

About fucking time! Have you tried to post a letter recently? The queue is full of retards who want to do their Kiwiwanking, pay a bill or register a cage.
Why dosen't Kiwiwank buy their own premises instead of buggering up the postal system?

Im not bothered by it, and who the hell posts letters in these modern times? :(
Not a Kiwibanker either, never will be. They done really need premises do they?, I very rearly visit my bank, maybe twice a year? Most transactions can be done online...ahhhhhh thats what Kiwibank need, an online service!!

Ixion

10th December 2008, 14:16

i reckon its all good, have had some shocking buggers working for me, they always seem to drive away the good staff to

Who hired the shocking buggers?

Swoop

10th December 2008, 14:21

Im not bothered by it, and who the hell posts letters in these modern times?
There has been an upsurge in postal usage since TardMe came into being.
You cannot get a good size parcel into a postbox, either...:rolleyes:

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:22

James, its like your beloved labour party, you are getting seriously out voted here

we have free speech
he has one opinion - a product of HIS life experience, others have differing opinions, a product of theirs.

i can't help but notice, though, that it's some of the OTHERS that are using personal abuse and derogoratory comment [a bit like yourself here]rather than straight counter-arguement

i'm by no means an expert - but in my experience people that do that usually think their arguements are inadequate to the point they are losing or going to lose:rolleyes:................ no, don't shoot me, i'm merely expressing MY opinion - the product of MY life experience :)

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:32

.....................................
Not to mention it being a wonderful Christmas present to the ratbags who will hire young girls : then let them know that if they don't put out they're down the road. And trust me, there are a shed load of such out there. The ratbags charter, I'd call it. .... an employer actually tried that one on my daughter ........ he regretted it of course [as anyone would who's attention had been diverted by the resultant sharp pain in the testicles] but she obviously had to leave after that

unfortunately many young girls are not taught to be assertive .... mebbe they are the ones that stay employed in many small businesses?
All you who are saying that only incompetent employees will be affected - think on - is YOUR daughter employed in small business? - could YOUR daughter end up being one of them?

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:36

Murray

10th December 2008, 14:45

more to the point, under this new legislation can you fire them within 90 days for incompetence?? :clap:

I think we have more than 20 employees in parliament so the answer is no

RantyDave

10th December 2008, 14:48

Who hired the shocking buggers?
I've done this, hired a shocker. Good CV, good previous placement, good references, interviewed well ... well paid, good environment, clearly defined tasks ... couldn't do his fucking job. Haven't hired anyone since, just not worth the risk and I'm happy to beaver along on my own. For now.

Hiring software engineers is extremely hard and very hit and miss. Having three months to test the little buggers out means I now feel inclined, once again, towards actually giving someone a shot. It also means it's easier to take a punt on a recent graduate. Y'know, giving someone hard working and keen a leg up. Remember that?

All the people bitching about this are terrified because they know they don't stack up. Worried about it? So negotiate. "I don't want to move my family until we're past the 90 day trial so I want you to pay for me to fly up, stay in a motel, whatever".

Dave

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:49

Who hired the shocking buggers?

:clap:

*you must spread some reputation around before ...............*

RantyDave

10th December 2008, 14:50

I've also heard a lot of hard luck stories from stupid employers who don't have the nouse to follow a process to rid themselves of an employee.
Right. Now theses processes include offering to retrain for a position of similar importance, money etc. So I'm supposed to take a $100k but hopeless software engineer and retrain them to be a $100k but hopeless sysadmin?

Dave

RantyDave

10th December 2008, 14:52

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.
Ahh, jesus I'm going to be here all day.

You don't "fall" pregnant. Either that or I "fall" hungover from time to time.

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 14:52

..........
All the people bitching about this are terrified because they know they don't stack up. ........

'all' ???
you have much to learn, grasshopper! ;)

RantyDave

10th December 2008, 14:54

My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.
Other than go work somewhere else you mean?

Murray

10th December 2008, 14:57

i can't help but notice, though, that it's some of the OTHERS that are using personal abuse and derogoratory comment [a bit like yourself here]rather than straight counter-arguement

'all' ???
you have much to learn, grasshopper! ;)

Sorry missed the counterarguement bit here???? and is calling someone grasshopper derogatory or personal abuse!!!! or neither????

mstriumph

10th December 2008, 15:06

Sorry missed the counterarguement bit here???? and is calling someone grasshopper derogatory or personal abuse!!!! or neither????

no problem --- there WASN'T actually any counter-arguement in the post i responded to ..... that was my point, actually :msn-wink:

'grasshopper', in the given context and used by moi, is a term of endearment

[the reference was from the old TV series 'Kung Fu' with the actor David Carradine]

RantyDave

10th December 2008, 15:20

From my perspective, large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.
Large NZ corporates don't get even a snifter of it - the law only applies to companies with less than 20 employees. But don't let facts get in the way of a good witch burning.

Dave

Brian d marge

10th December 2008, 15:22

in many cases it's just a bandaid for sloppy hiring procedures to cover the backs of inept managers who should, themselves, be let go...

Snip

Try working over here , ,,,Jobs for life ,,! yeeehaa and you will get put in a basement counting paper clips until you decide to leave !

Responsibility , now theres a word

A worker has the Responsibility to perform the tasks given to the best of their ability.

The Employer has the Responsibility to the tools and an environment in which to carry out those tasks.

If either one of those isnt being met.... then one of the parties is at fault.

Simple

90 % of the people I have met are good honest people , who if treated in a supportive way, give back what they received.

A few are truly distructive ,to the work place ...( and maybe incapable of a simple task. Sandshoes and tree planting is the best for them ,,,)

MOST Managers I have met are truly awful, Failing to either set out clear guidelines, expectations and a lot of the time with out the relevant skill set being given to the worker. Finally the consequenses of not meeting those expectations ( they are never said , just posted on the wall or written in the contract, just above the small print.)

On the other end of the scale I wonder how businesses manage to stay afloat ! once you start factoring in Wages ,,, the final cost goes throught the roof !

As a worker , my current part time job, treats me well, as long as I dont stuff up ( no body dies , or the police turn up ) and customer goes away happy ! then all is well............. So if they ask me to work chistmas day , fine no probs there...Saturdays and sundays , have always worked them , Overtime , whats that ,, Bonuses , nope Sick pay ,,,only ever had one day when I couldnt go in ,,, I mean it was physically impossible .;.. not even if i was strapped to a pallet truck !

Reason , my employer treat me well, So I have his back ! ( covered his backside , thats my responsibility !)

Now I have my wee business in the mornings, ..Try ... I dont work , it dont happen , Period ( and it isnt happening cause I am on KB ... when I should be working ! ,,, Just like the rest of you !:Oi:)

Back on topic , a while back they did something , a lot of the jobs became part time , the employment figures looked good but people had two or three part time Jobs to make ends meet ,,,,Same WILL happen with this law , it has its merits BUT the cowboyz are out there !!! and there will be some truly sad cases !

WHY THE F$%%'(% are we following the American model of Economics , its FLAWED and sqewed ( sp) towards a few HAVES ,,,, and you and me and even the business man who pretends he is rich .. are just Minions beholdent to the Bank. Try spending on pubic works with long term ROI, instead of borrowing from the investment pool ( at how much interest ??? our overseas debt would almost dissapear over night ) !

Oh look suddenly Keynsian economics ,,,is back in fashion , The philosopher should gaze upon the hungry child before playing with ideas.. The idiots.

Stephen

slowpoke

10th December 2008, 15:51

I dunno, the hairs are standing up on the back of my neck after seeing this legislation. This is scary shit.

To all those employers saying "Yaaaay, look at my flexibility!", this is going to stop the exodus of workers to Australia and parts further afield how exactly? Newsflash #1, good workers are leaving NZ because conditions are declining. Newsflash #2, this is not improving working conditions.

Employers in NZ seem to consistently forget one of lifes basic tenets: you get what you pay for. You pay incredibly shit wages, with lousy annual leave and working conditions and you still moan when you can't compete against neighbours like Australia who pay workers 30% more. How much more stacked in your favour do you want this deck? Lift your own bloody game, 'cos with the cheap labour advantage you've got the only "productivity problem" is staring back at you in the mirror.

I live in NZ but work in Oz and every now and then (read: all the time) I get the shits with the travel and contemplate working closer to home. Those thoughts have well and truly left my head now. I can control my own performance and have no doubt I can prove myself....but I can't control my boss's performance (I've worked for a few "wooden frying pan's" in my time) or my new companies performance, so who's to say they aren't going to fuck up and I'll no longer be "convenient". As per motorcycling, why take a risk (even if it's a small one) if you don't have to?

To all those who think this legislation is a good thing: why stop at 90 days? Why put a time limit on it? Why not make it "fire at will" indefinitely? If this is good legislation that surely that would be better legislation? (tui ad)

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 16:22

Large NZ corporates don't get even a snifter of it - the law only applies to companies with less than 20 employees. But don't let facts get in the way of a good witch burning.

Dave

There's already talk about splitting this place into separate business entities. You tell me if it's a witch hunt.

Maki

10th December 2008, 16:23

The 90 day rule is good, because it will make employers more willing to hire people. If everything works out the last thing the employer would want to do is sack the person after 90 days, good people are hard to find.

If you are being payed to work 37.5 hours, then work 37.5 hours. If you are asked to work more, then make your employer pay you overtime. If he does not, then look for another job. Working without pay is slavery and that was abolished long ago...

Boob Johnson

10th December 2008, 16:23

James Deuce

10th December 2008, 16:24

Ahh, jesus I'm going to be here all day.

You don't "fall" pregnant. Either that or I "fall" hungover from time to time.
Yeah you do. The only way to avoid is abstain altogether. We'll have tohave a talk about this because you're making assumptions that are incorrectly based in an expectation,not reality.

Skyryder

10th December 2008, 17:23

Who is John Key kidding?

This is quite simply a mechanism for employers to get over the hump of a short term project that they over committed to.

Not me . This is being touted, among things, as means of raising productivity. So a small employer wants to increase production and advertises for the positions. What fool is going to apply for these positions and expose his livelihood for three months under this legislation knowing that they can be sacked with no recourse to natural justice. No wonder Key want this passed under the emergency provisions. NZ is still in the euphoria mode from Clarkes defeat and kiwis they have not understood the full implications of this.

Skyryder

Brian d marge

10th December 2008, 17:32

SNIP ....If everything works out the last thing the employer would want to do is sack the person after 90 days, good people are hard to find.

If you are being payed to work 37.5 hours, then work 37.5 hours. If you are asked to work more, then make your employer pay you overtime. If he does not, then look for another job. Working without pay is slavery and that was abolished long ago...

I work over my alloted time because I want to and I like to ,,and quite happy to do so without pay because I have a good working relationship with customers and employer ,

Stephen

but dont ever take it for granted.........

SPman

10th December 2008, 17:34

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

According to the latest figures from the U.S. Commerce Department, every worker in Big Three factories could work for free and only shave 5 percent off the cost of their cars. The auto companies pay as much for hubcaps and fenders as they do in wages.
..........
Data from the Harbour Report - the industry's gold standard - reveal that even including their benefits, labour costs in the Big Three's plants account for less than 10 percent of the sticker price.

http://www.truthout.org/120908LA

kiwifruit

10th December 2008, 17:42

Yeah, I think its a good idea.
Give some power back to the employers, things have been geared toward protecting the employee at the employers expense for a long time. Yes, it will be used by some bad employers to shaft employees.... but not as much as bad employees have been shafting good employers :done:

Winston001

10th December 2008, 17:46

US workers were continually told their productivity was very high - yet their wages in real terms, declined 15% over 8 yrs. Now they're all being sacked! Obviously, productivity figures mean different things to different people......

Despite that the GDP of the USA rose and relative cost of living fell. Leave aside the Americans, the Europeans and the Aussies all earn far higher wages than we do, and manage to be more productive.

Productivity is tough to agree on and ultimately it is measured by our exchange rate. That is the real world judgement and unfortunately NZ has been slipping backwards since the 1960s. I'm not a fan of blaming workers because I think the whole nation needs to be involved with understanding what we need to do to improve. Bosses vs workers just distracts from much more fundamental issues.

cs363

10th December 2008, 17:50

I sympathise with those that do work for these alleged 'Bastard Corporation' type companies that would supposedly abuse this law, however I would wager that if these companies/employers are indeed such arseholes then even if this law didn't exist they would find other ways of fucking over their hard done by employees - which begs the question why these people don't leave and go elsewhere?
From my point of view I welcome this return to the old fashioned system of proving yourself rather than having a job by right as some seem to expect.
I've always been employed under this system until the law made it otherwise and also never had an employment contract until it was made compulsory and have never had an issue getting or retaining a job.
I've experienced first hand how difficult it is to get rid of a (for want of another word) useless employee and also the damage these people do to the employers psyche and how the ongoing effects of this can make it harder for the remaining employees and for future new employees.

Even Goff admitted this morning that there was only around 5% or less that would be detrimentally affected by this law and as we are in a democracy surely this is acceptable?
Of course the last government would have applied the rule that would make it good for the 5% and penalise the remainder, so I'm not sorry to see that lot gone!

FROSTY

10th December 2008, 17:57

cs363

10th December 2008, 18:01

MadDuck

10th December 2008, 18:22

Its the small operators that only hire a few that abuse their employees rights more because they dont understand or give a toss about the laws.

I went to a contract once and walked out within 4 hours because the conditions were crap and the boss wanted more than was agreed in the contract. He went to my agency and said I was useless and was incapable of doing my job. He could have made it difficult for me to get another assignment.

I truely hope the gummint puts in some protection like an "appeals process" of some kind as a back stop.

Ixion

10th December 2008, 18:41

I must be missing summat here.
I need staff and take on a new salesman. He can't sell cars or is dishonest. Current system I can't fire him Ive got a process to work through.
Keys system means if he doesnt perform I fire him.
I believe if all staff were on that basis productivity would increase.
Reward performance not slackers
Logic says it has to have a trickle down effect

Or, you take on a new salesman. And a week after you take him on , you come into work after being away a few days, notice that a couple hundred bucks that was in the desk drawer is gone. "Oh shit, it's that new guy, he's dishonest. Right he goes out the door this minute. No , I don't want to hear it, just get out, no, I'm not going to tell you why you're sacked, I don't have to "

That afternoon, your wife/boyfriend/mechanic/partner/goat mentions "Oh, Frosty, we needed a bit of cash, and there was a couple of hundred in the desk drawer, so I took that rather than going to the bank".

Maybe *you* wouldn't do that. There's a shed load can, and will.

Shadows

10th December 2008, 18:44

It is a great idea. This is aimed at the smaller employers who have a lot more on the line like a family home etc. than a larger limited liability company does. One person out of say five makes 20% of an employers workforce. If he is a useless cunt he could effectively sink the ship along with the proprietor's family home. The small business owner will now be able to employ extra staff where he may have been reluctant before because of the risks and costs associated with useless cunts and employment court proceedings if he needs to get rid of them, stifling opportunity for expansion. This will stimulate growth and reduce unemployment.

Admittedly "small employers" actually employ 87% of the workforce so it will affect a lot of people, but no matter, the useless fucks can go and work for CYFS or something like they do already.

Anybody sacked under these circumstances will avoid the stand down period for the dole, and there is still the facility for proceedings related to unjustified dismissal / personal grievance in the case of discrimination etc. Only useless fucks need worry about this legislation.

I willingly signed up to a 90 day probationary period in my last job when it was mooted in the interview. No hesitation whatsoever. I'm not even sure that was 100% legal but the idea suited me. I knew I could do the job and put my money where my mouth was. That secured me the position over others, and I was still there 13 years later earning over 350% of my starting rate.

slowpoke

10th December 2008, 18:45

Productivity is tough to agree on and ultimately it is measured by our exchange rate.

Say what? So a few months ago our productivity was at an all time high (NZ$ at 77c vs greenback) and now it's dropped off by 20%? Sorry mate, doesn't compute.

Ixion

10th December 2008, 18:46

..
Anybody sacked under these circumstances will avoid the stand down period for the dole, and there is still the facility for proceedings related to unjustified dismissal / personal grievance. ...

No there's not. The whole point of it is that NO dismissal will be unjustified.

SixPackBack

10th December 2008, 18:52

..........
Data from the Harbour Report - the industry's gold standard - reveal that even including their benefits, labour costs in the Big Three's plants account for less than 10 percent of the sticker price.

http://www.truthout.org/120908LA

Cafe fuel standards fucked the big three.

The only way to satiate the desire for powerful vehicles was via the loop hole that pick up trucks provided, no surprise that excessive time and money was spent developing these vehicles to the detriment of other smaller vehicles-the japs galloped ahead with far more effective smaller vehicles while the yanks had the pick up truck market cornered, 'corse when fuel goes up and cash runs out guess who gets bent over??...........if the American government had not interfered [as they continue to pointlessly do] and left market forces to sort things out the big three would conceivably be far healthier.
For what its worth I agree SPman, labour issues might not help but they are a long way from the major issue that affects the 3.

Ixion

10th December 2008, 18:55

Productivity is tough to agree on and ultimately it is measured by our exchange rate. That is the real world judgement and unfortunately NZ has been slipping backwards since the 1960s. .

No it's not. Some countries have a 'high' exchange rate because , f'instance they ahve a lot of mineral or oil depositis. Some countriesw (like the USA until recently) have a high exchange rate because other countrioes are willing to build up credit balances in that country. The exhange rate has very little at all to do with labour productivity .

Arguably, such a scheme will REDUCE productivity.Because it will increase churn in the workforce , shortsighted employers will focus on turning over work force numbers within the ninty days (having gotten 90 days of cheap labour with the usual rorts about training periods and such like); the constantly changing workforce never becomes properly skilled , quality goes to hell (most employers don't give a shit about that).

And of course ,what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When Jack is hired on a "90 days and you're out , mate" basis, he's not going to stop looking for another job when he signs on with you. Mayhap he'll phone in on day 60: "Sorry mate, won't be in any more, I've been offered 50 cents an hour more at the opposition, start today . Yeah I know that leaves you in the shit with that contract you're committed to. Sucks , eh". That's the nature of a casualised industry . Nobody gives a shit about anybody but themselves.

Such a scheme in the IS industry would be disaster for employers: nothing better than a coder quitting half way through a project , with zero notice.

Shadows

10th December 2008, 18:59

No there's not. The whole point of it is that NO dismissal will be unjustified.

Yes I put that across wrong. Specifically there can still be no dismissal for reasons of discrimination etc. and there is provision for PG on those kinds of grounds. I've edited my post.

However, it is not in the employers best interest to sack somebody in the first 90 days without a good reason any way. They get a bad name, and have to spend more time and money recruiting and training a new employee.

Why go through the grief unless you're dealing with a useless cunt?

FROSTY

10th December 2008, 19:01

Or, you take on a new salesman. And a week after you take him on , you come into work after being away a few days, notice that a couple hundred bucks that was in the desk drawer is gone.

Hole in that logic--me actually spending more than an hour away from here and 2)Anybody that leaves money lying around in a draw would get their ass kicked.
But Ixion thats not how it works. before dismissing someone even under the new rules an employer would have to be really stupid not to be sure he has his facts right.
Theres simple economic reasons you want a new employee to work out
Youve invested your money and time into recruiting them you sure as heck dont want to go through the process again

kiwi cowboy

10th December 2008, 19:02

More like complete bollocks,who in there right mind does that?

You would be suprised how many employers would expect that.

Ixion

10th December 2008, 19:05

..

Why go through the grief unless you're dealing with a useless cunt?

Or, unless you yourself are a useless cunt ?

EDIT: Not "you" you - the hypothetical 'you'

Shadows

10th December 2008, 19:07

Or, unless you yourself are a useless cunt ?

EDIT: Not "you" you - the hypothetical 'you'

Then your business is probably going to sink anyway - so your employee is better off elsewhere in the long run.

Ixion

10th December 2008, 19:09

Maybe so. But the long run can be a long run of pain. And I know of no reason to suppose that a business will sink just because the boos is a vindictive cunt . Probably the reverse in fact.

jrandom

10th December 2008, 19:20

The only way to avoid is abstain altogether.

Dunno about that. My vasectomy's proven fairly effective. References provided on request, etc.

:laugh:

jrandom

10th December 2008, 19:34

Hiring software engineers is extremely hard and very hit and miss.

I've found the principles in this article (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html) enormously helpful over the years.

Probably applicable to areas other than computer programming, too.

reofix

10th December 2008, 19:36

I employ 25 people... make yourself invaluable and you will have a job for life ... act like the weakest link and you will be the first gone ... this is not rocket science!!

jrandom

10th December 2008, 19:40

it's been my experience that contract workers cost significantly more than permanent employees ?

I guarantee you that the second time any employer abuses the 90-day rule will be the last time any recruiting agent agrees to work for them, because betcha bottom dollar the commissions will only be payable after that period expires.

I strongly suspect that any dumbfuck small-business owner trying shit on with this new law will give himself a foot full of commercial bullets in no time flat.

don't know why you people have to get so personal when responding to posts

Sometimes pointing out the obvious is a more correct response than remaining po-faced while attempting to debate an issue with someone who's not approaching it entirely rationally.

jrandom

10th December 2008, 19:41

I employ 25 people...

Well then, this law doesn't apply to you.

Next.

slowpoke

10th December 2008, 20:22

Haha, I can just see employers shooting themselves in the foot:
"Nah, don't worry 'bout checking those references, if he's no good we'll just sack 'em", thereby ensuring they eventually fill the place with dross. If they are stupid and inept enough to hire unsuitable staff now then they are going to be even worse when there's less incentive to get it right.

Again I ask: how is it that with the cost of an employee at a hugely discounted rate compared to Australia etc that our employers require even more "help"? How much easier do you want it?

Employers should be ashamed of the working conditions much of NZ's workforce are forced to endure if they want to stay in the country, yet you bleat that all the good ones have left. How obvious is the answer yet conditions keep being eroded.

People talk about the past government creating a Nanny State, yet JK is spoon feeding employers who are already playing with the deck loaded in their favour. Clean up your own mess: treat people as they should be treated and you'll find people coming back or staying in NZ. But no, instead you choose to force people away. You reap what you sow.

reofix

10th December 2008, 20:38

random ...if you stop the substance abuse that nasty bitter cloud in your head will drift away to reveal a beautiful sunrise

cs363

10th December 2008, 20:39

Only useless fucks need worry about this legislation.

:done: :apint:

RT527

10th December 2008, 21:02

Yes it does. That has largely been my experience. My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem with assuming the association of intelligence, economic or otherwise, with any policy change in the employment laws in NZ is that there's precious little of that commodity available in NZ's job market. On both sides of the fence. This policy won't be employed to raise the productivity of Kiwis or reduce the exposure inherent in unsuitable employees, it will simply provide an out for an employer who needs a short term fix without long term financial exposure or having to pay contract rates for a decent contract worker. In my industry the vast majority of the good contractors capable of providing a satisfactory outcome for an employer have moved overseas. Simple economics. Pay is already crap in the IT sector in NZ and given the mentality of the majority of employers in that field it's only going to get worse.

Ummm but your still here ....working ...in the IT sector......ummmm lol given your mental state it was worse some time ago :whistle::laugh::scratch:

BTW I tried ringing you couple of times....Happy Birthday Old fella.

jrandom

10th December 2008, 21:27

random ...if you stop the substance abuse that nasty bitter cloud in your head will drift away to reveal a beautiful sunrise

'Random'?

<img src="http://i33.tinypic.com/214twjk.jpg"/>

Semper Fidelis
Dawn star flares on disk of night
I fall, sun rises.

Winston001

10th December 2008, 21:42

No it's not. Some countries have a 'high' exchange rate because , f'instance they have a lot of mineral or oil depositis. Some countries (like the USA until recently) have a high exchange rate because other countries are willing to build up credit balances in that country. The exhange rate has very little at all to do with labour productivity .

Really? Consider.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. Yet despite that they are an economic powerhouse. There has to be something we can learn from that.

Attack the yanks??? :laugh:

Ixion

10th December 2008, 21:50

jrandom

10th December 2008, 21:54

Really? Consider.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. Yet despite that they are an economic powerhouse. There has to be something we can learn from that.

Breed a hundred million crazy obsessive-compulsive weirdos and pack them into Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and everywhere in between, move New Zealand ten thousand kilometres closer to the rest of the world, and then spend three decades turning it into a giant factory that sucks in raw materials and sprays out consumer goods?

Brilliant idea!

You can go first.

Boob Johnson

11th December 2008, 00:04

I've done this, hired a shocker. Good CV, good previous placement, good references, interviewed well ... well paid, good environment, clearly defined tasks ... couldn't do his fucking job. Haven't hired anyone since, just not worth the risk and I'm happy to beaver along on my own. For now.

Hiring software engineers is extremely hard and very hit and miss. Having three months to test the little buggers out means I now feel inclined, once again, towards actually giving someone a shot. It also means it's easier to take a punt on a recent graduate. Y'know, giving someone hard working and keen a leg up. Remember that?

All the people bitching about this are terrified because they know they don't stack up. Worried about it? So negotiate. "I don't want to move my family until we're past the 90 day trial so I want you to pay for me to fly up, stay in a motel, whatever".

Dave
Dave, some people just need to be on the other end of the stick to understand that sometimes, or maybe, just maybe they will read the above & the penny will drop.

No law is perfect & no law will protect all wrong doings from either side, but right now, at this point in time, I strongly believe its in the best interests of ALL of us.

Unemployment figures are heading which way?

Should we encourage employers to employ or lay off?

Pixie

11th December 2008, 01:59

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

If I fall off a bike and break an arm in the first 90 days of a new job, I'd be out the door.

Stop thinking like a Kiwi employer. We don't all come to work to steal your money

So you've worked for me for 10 weeks,now you're off work,pregnant.I'm expected to pay you while you wait to welp also employ a replacement.

Sounds like stealing to me.

Fuggin pinkos

stanko

11th December 2008, 05:54

My what? I'm really getting tired of that assumption.

I also think the people who are"voting" against me, have never worked for an IT corporate in NZ. I think the majority of Kiwis work in small firms, and I reckon this policy change isn't an issue for them. From my perspective, large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.

This law change probably doesnt apply to ou anyway, it only applies to companies with 20 or less employees. Seems you chose a crap job, a bit like the pineapple lumps ad

Murray

11th December 2008, 07:55

I know! Let's apply the ninety day stand-down thingy to the new intake of MP's.........

I think this has been said about 5-6 times in this thread already

I will say it again!!! I am 100% sure the government has more than 20 employees, therefore the law does not apply!!!

Headbanger

11th December 2008, 08:29

Breed a hundred million crazy obsessive-compulsive weirdos and pack them into Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and everywhere in between, move New Zealand ten thousand kilometres closer to the rest of the world, and then spend three decades turning it into a giant factory that sucks in raw materials and sprays out consumer goods?

Brilliant idea!

You can go first.

You missed out the part where you drop a nuclear bomb on them to scar em for life and kick-start the economy.

Apart from that, Its all good.

pritch

11th December 2008, 09:23

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

Well excluding immaculate conception that's generally a given... :laugh:

Lucy

11th December 2008, 09:28

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

Toyota has built heaps of factories in the US, and is making snotpiles of profit.

slofox

11th December 2008, 09:30

I think this has been said about 5-6 times in this thread already

I will say it again!!! I am 100% sure the government has more than 20 employees, therefore the law does not apply!!!

So I deleted it already.......

Finn

11th December 2008, 09:40

Toyota has built heaps of factories in the US, and is making snotpiles of profit.

That's because Toyota understands automation.

Lucy

11th December 2008, 09:56

That's because Toyota understands automation.

So labour saving devices helped, rather than move the factories to low wage countries like the yanks did? Fair enough. Then the Yanks flew in jets to DC asking for a bail out.

In my experience, as others have said, good employers get good employees who stay, bad ones don't. Unfortunately, there are some wage slaves who will work well, but who won't stand up for themselves, and they can easily be taken advantage of.

I know a guy who has been a factory manager for years and years, he mentioned one day how he didn't know how anyone could live on $23,000 a year. Obviously had never done his own maths, as at the time his workers on the (then) minimum wage were earning about $18,000.

Finn

11th December 2008, 09:58

So labour saving devices helped, rather than move the factories to low wage countries like the yanks did? Fair enough. Then the Yanks flew in jets to DC asking for a bail out.

In my experience, as others have said, good employers get good employees who stay, bad ones don't. Unfortunately, there are some wage slaves who will work well, but who won't stand up for themselves, and they can easily be taken advantage of.

I know a guy who has been a factory manager for years and years, he mentioned one day how he didn't know how anyone could live on $23,000 a year. Obviously had never done his own maths, as at the time his workers on the (then) minimum wage were earning about $18,000.

Until the financial crisis hit, workers in US motor vehicle factories were earning $70 per hour. No wonder they failed.

Ixion

11th December 2008, 09:58

I think this has been said about 5-6 times in this thread already

I will say it again!!! I am 100% sure the government has more than 20 employees, therefore the law does not apply!!!

MPs are not employed by the government.

slowpoke

11th December 2008, 10:32

Until the financial crisis hit, workers in US motor vehicle factories were earning $70 per hour. No wonder they failed.

Nothing to do with the outdated, gas guzzling, resource sucking SUV's that dominated their production, and that no one could afford to run or buy one thanks to the the credit crunch. Or the corporate jets, or the multi-million dollar bonuses being paid to management despite a failing business. Noooooo, nothing to do with that, couldn't possibly be could it?

Who cares how much employees are being paid, I bet you could hire or pay a shitload of 'em for the cost of one senior executive. Yet again, workers are gonna be the ones suffering for management ineptitude.

Get real, fella.

slowpoke

11th December 2008, 10:43

RantyDave

11th December 2008, 11:09

if this is such good legislation why not bring it in across the board, indefinitely?
Because current employment legislation is designed to protect the poor workers from the evil pit owner and not the other way round.

While it might be all very jolly for Carter Holt Harvey to have to retrain an under performing green button pusher to be a red button pusher, for many small businesses the combined effects of a slacker employee, the long drawn out "little chat to which you may bring a friend" phase followed by retraining and subsequent still being a slacker has a very real chance of killing the business entirely. Everybody knows this, so they find themselves extremely disinclined to give anyone a job - particularly those already on welfare. No new job creation, no economic growth, a steadily rising welfare bill (with associated taxes) results in everybody being skint all the time and every man and his dog threatening to leave for Aussie.

Not across the board because big employers *can* afford to hand-hold and retrain a small percentage of their workforce. Not indefinitely because once competency has been established there is no reason why a worker should not expect some semblance of job security.

Dave

Skyryder

11th December 2008, 11:17

No one answered my previous question so I'll ask it again: if this is such good legislation why not bring it in across the board, indefinitely? Fuck off the 90 day limit and the 20 employee limitation. Hire and fire at will.

If this is good legislation then it should be good for all, all the time, right?

And let's not stop with employment. Why not put this idea into rental properties and give land lords the same 90 day option to toss your belongings out into the street.............. I wonder just how many here who are in rentals believe in this shit that the Nats are ramming under emergency would be so keen if this was to happen to them. "Sorry sunshine pack ya bags and fuck off."

There is an important principal that everyone seems to have forgotten about. And that’s right to address a grievance. It is one of the fundamental principals that we live under. Key is imposing exactly the same philosophy that was applied to serfs who were tossed off the manor at the whim of the landowner. Who, if you know your history, had no rights.

Well there are more than employers watching this so if you rent and believe that this is good then I don’t expect to hear the whining when this employment principle is applied to your selves and the property that you rent. Wake up guys. Key was not called the Silent Assassin for nothing. He’ll stab ya in back and grin doing it.

Skyryder

SPman

11th December 2008, 12:43

"Oh, and as a bonus: employers can now sack you or dock your pay if you join KiwiSaver. Merry Christmas!"

slowpoke

11th December 2008, 13:10

Because current employment legislation is designed to protect the poor workers from the evil pit owner and not the other way round.

How so? Employers have skilled workers at a 30% discount to Australia and they need yet another advantage to compete? I wonder what the next excuse will be.

While it might be all very jolly for Carter Holt Harvey to have to retrain an under performing green button pusher to be a red button pusher, for many small businesses the combined effects of a slacker employee, the long drawn out "little chat to which you may bring a friend" phase followed by retraining and subsequent still being a slacker has a very real chance of killing the business entirely. Everybody knows this, so they find themselves extremely disinclined to give anyone a job - particularly those already on welfare. No new job creation, no economic growth, a steadily rising welfare bill (with associated taxes) results in everybody being skint all the time and every man and his dog threatening to leave for Aussie.

Given that Australia has none of this legislation and higher wage bills, and compulsory employer superannuation contributions (which shit all over JK's 2% capped) why are they in a better position than NZ? Could it be that it's seen as a much better place to work and hence people want to go there, thus growing the economy? NZ in comparison is becoming more attractive for small numbers of business owners while large number of workers have been given another reason to leave.

Not across the board because big employers *can* afford to hand-hold and retrain a small percentage of their workforce. Not indefinitely because once competency has been established there is no reason why a worker should not expect some semblance of job security.

Dave

But surely it would promote economic growth, with people more inclined to take on extra staff? Would it not ensure optimum productivity as people are more inclined to perform for years rather than just months?

Skyryder

11th December 2008, 14:08

"Oh, and as a bonus: employers can now sack you or dock your pay if you join KiwiSaver. Merry Christmas!"

Yep and it is the employers changes to the Kiwi Saver scheme that is paying for the tax cuts. You watch the employers use this as a device to reduce wage increases.

I tells ya I've seen this before in the Muldoon era. Vote for the Nats then in six months when it became obviouse what Muldoon was up to, the working class, white collar and middle NZ realised they had been conned.

Skyryder

Tank

11th December 2008, 14:47

Goodness the way some people are reacting you would think National was passing a law allowing every worker to be fired for Christmas. In reality the law - which was an explicit election pledge - is extremely modest, and merely catches us up to the rest of the developed world.

Here’s a few things you may now know:

A probation period is not automatic for new jobs in small businesses. It only occurs if the employer and employee agree to it. Try offering me a job with a probation period, and I’ll tell you where to stick it! Mind you as a business owner any of my clients can sack me at any time without any notice!
The 90 days is a maximum, and it can be less.

All employment rights such as good faith, non-discrimination, non-harrassment, holidays, leave, OSH are maintained during a probation period.

It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance. If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.

There can be only one trial period per employer. An employer can not have a trial period for an employee who has worked for them previously.

If you leave a benefit to take up a job terminated within the 90 day probation period, there is no stand down returning to the benefit.

While small businesses (less than 20 staff) make up 97% of enterprises, they only employ 31% of employees.

The law only applies to new jobs, and can not affect any existing employee in their current job.

I suspect those who have never worked in a small business, will never understand the need for this law change.

One bad staff appointment can wipe out the entire firm’s profitability. Many small businesses owners have periods where they are paying themselves less than the staff.

Most business owners will do almost anything to keep a good staff member on. It is expensive and a hassle to have to find a replacement. If they do use the provisions of the new law (to be) it will be because they relucantly have concluded the person is unsuited for the job. You can’t always tell in advance from a CV and 60 minute interview.

Lucy

11th December 2008, 15:36

Until the financial crisis hit, workers in US motor vehicle factories were earning $70 per hour. No wonder they failed.

Wow! That's a lot. I agree the unions have stuffed a lot of things up, that's because power corrupts.

How much do the people in the Toyota factories get paid?

Employers like Fast food outlets in the States employ lots of people and get paid for doing so by the govt, they don't care about churn cos the higher the churn, the more 'welfare' they get from the Govt.

Lots of people are in lots of crap situations, it the bad eggs on both sides that have f**ked things up for the normal person, employer and employee.

I too have heard horror stories about people making a living by taking grievance cases and winning, for jobs they lied to get. But there are also a lot of employers exploiting a lot of people. I don't know how to fix it. I don't think anyone does, as it's such a personal and emotive issue, especially in our land of SMEs.

CB ARGH

11th December 2008, 15:39

Anybody with power over me is a cock. Therefore John Key is a cock.

Even my dog is a cock.

Not to mention my boss. :nono:

This new idea is reallllllly bad. Great for the employer though.

rphenix

11th December 2008, 16:31

Headbanger

11th December 2008, 16:45

Until the financial crisis hit, workers in US motor vehicle factories were earning $70 per hour. No wonder they failed.

It was my understanding that is the amount it cost the company, not what the worker earned.

Mr Skid

11th December 2008, 20:15

Could the poor people please stop whining. :cold:

roy.nz

11th December 2008, 20:34

Hey people might not like it because they are still in the soft labour run government mind set, but good on John Key for getting some things done, thats what we pay him for, right. And its only for small business's under 20 staff. So if you are in a big company and perform or even a small one you should be sweet. Stop finding things to windge about. :Playnice:

pete376403

11th December 2008, 21:27

Because current employment legislation is designed to protect the poor workers from the evil pit owner and not the other way round.

While it might be all very jolly for Carter Holt Harvey to have to retrain an under performing green button pusher to be a red button pusher,...

CHH just close the entire mill, putting the whole lot out of work (read this weeks Listener article about Putaruru) No worries about retraining. Evil pit owner Hart carries on life as usual in his $20M mansion on Waiheke and goes for a sail on his multi million dollar yacht

Boob Johnson

11th December 2008, 21:32

I must be missing summat here.
I need staff and take on a new salesman. He can't sell cars or is dishonest. Current system I can't fire him Ive got a process to work through.
Keys system means if he doesnt perform I fire him.
I believe if all staff were on that basis productivity would increase.
Reward performance not slackers
Logic says it has to have a trickle down effect
Its a pretty simple concept to a pretty simple issue, not all folks is taught common sense unfortunately.

Despite that the GDP of the USA rose and relative cost of living fell. Leave aside the Americans, the Europeans and the Aussies all earn far higher wages than we do, and manage to be more productive.

Productivity is tough to agree on and ultimately it is measured by our exchange rate. That is the real world judgement and unfortunately NZ has been slipping backwards since the 1960s. I'm not a fan of blaming workers because I think the whole nation needs to be involved with understanding what we need to do to improve. Bosses vs workers just distracts from much more fundamental issues.
Wise words Winston :sherlock:

Winston001

12th December 2008, 10:30

Say what? So a few months ago our productivity was at an all time high (NZ$ at 77c vs greenback) and now it's dropped off by 20%? Sorry mate, doesn't compute.

Have a look at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FOREX_USD_vs_AUD_and_NZD.png which shows a steady down-trend since 1970. That's 38 years. The recent high value against the $US makes it hard to comprehend the fact NZ is going down - but the reality of wages and standard of living in the US, Australia, and Europe shows it is true.

The one thing we do have is an enviable lifestyle and thats worth a lot.

Winston001

12th December 2008, 10:39

Uh huh. and , notoriously, that economic powerhouse is based on principles the exact reverse of "sack 'em after 90 days". Based in fact on principles of high two way employer and worker loyalty, of very long employment periods (the 'job for life'); on a VERY high level of in house training.

I very much doubt that Japan would be the powerhouse you extoll had they adopted Mr Key's "hire 'em and sack 'em after 90 days" principle.

Japan is a totally bad example for your argument. It is everything that this bill is opposed to, and this bill is opposed to all the principles that made the Japanese economy so strong.

jrandom: Breed a hundred million crazy obsessive-compulsive weirdos and pack them into Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and everywhere in between, move New Zealand ten thousand kilometres closer to the rest of the world, and then spend three decades turning it into a giant factory that sucks in raw materials and sprays out consumer goods?

Brilliant idea!

You can go first.

Neither of these words of wisdom answers the question so I'll ask again:

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

One thing - it sure isn't because grandad still has a job in the basement counting paperclips. It doesn't matter what way you cut it, no business can employ staff for life without making profits to pay them year after year.

Ixion

12th December 2008, 11:06

Neither of these words of wisdom answers the question so I'll ask again:

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

One thing - it sure isn't because grandad still has a job in the basement counting paperclips. It doesn't matter what way you cut it, no business can employ staff for life without making profits to pay them year after year.

For the reasons I already referred to.

Because they have (had) a fanatical focus on quality . Which necessitates highly trained workers, highly committed and loyal workers . Ain't going to get either of those in a "90 day hire them and fire them" economy

Because they take a (very) long term approach. Recognising that sometimes keeping a worker on for years may pay off in years+1 when he comes up with an idea that makes millions

And a business can afford to employ a percentage of staff "counting paperclips" if the rest of the workers are so skilled and so motivated that the profits they generate pay the cost of the paperclip counter. Most businesses, staff costs are small part of the total cost of the product (often only about 10%). Having even 10% of the staff counting paperclips means a cost addition of 1%. That's a VERY small price to pay for a loyal dedicated highly trained workforce that take a long term view of their own employment "I'm going to be working for this company for years and years, so it makes sense to really commit myself to it"

As opposed to "The cunt will sack me after 89 days anyway so why should I give a fuck. If he goes bust on day 100 because of some stuff up I made , so much the better. Karma like"

I cannot believe that anyone can expect to hire somone on a "90 days and you're out basis" and get any sort of motivation commitment or effort.

IN reality of course a good many workers will walk out before the 90 days, because they've lined up the next job (either with another 90 day employer, or, better, with a big company). And if that leaves the boss in the shit, tough titty. Boss says he doesn't owe the worker anything, why should it be any different the other way round.

This law is going to make it INBCREDIBLY hard for small companies to get good staff.

Sure, MAYBE if you accept a job with a small company , you'll still have it on day 91. Maybe. But why take the chance. Good workers will almost always have choices. The choice in future will be the 20+ company.

Finn

12th December 2008, 11:07

It was my understanding that is the amount it cost the company, not what the worker earned.

Yip, the burden rate. Remove that employee and it doesn't cost you $70 per hour.

Max Preload

12th December 2008, 11:13

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

Lifestyle?

Finn

12th December 2008, 11:38

CHH just close the entire mill, putting the whole lot out of work (read this weeks Listener article about Putaruru) No worries about retraining. Evil pit owner Hart carries on life as usual in his $20M mansion on Waiheke and goes for a sail on his multi million dollar yacht

You just don't get it do you.

Winston001

12th December 2008, 12:19

For the reasons I already referred to.

Because Japan have (had) a fanatical focus on quality . Which necessitates highly trained workers, highly committed and loyal workers . Ain't going to get either of those in a "90 day hire them and fire them" economy

Because they take a (very) long term approach. Recognising that sometimes keeping a worker on for years may pay off in years+1 when he comes up with an idea that makes millions

And a business can afford to employ a percentage of staff "counting paperclips" if the rest of the workers are so skilled and so motivated that the profits they generate pay the cost of the paperclip counter. Most businesses, staff costs are small part of the total cost of the product (often only about 10%). Having even 10% of the staff counting paperclips means a cost addition of 1%. That's a VERY small price to pay for a loyal dedicated highly trained workforce that take a long term view of their own employment "I'm going to be working for this company for years and years, so it makes sense to really commit myself to it"

Are we having fun or whut! :bash: Can't agree about the wage costs percentage. Even in low wage jobs like McDonalds and supermarkets, wages can amount to 19% of business costs. Actually the really efficent businesses are in IT and NZ doesn't have much of that.

Generally wages as a business cost run from 20% - 50%.

As opposed to "The cunt will sack me after 89 days anyway so why should I give a fuck. If he goes bust on day 100 because of some stuff up I made , so much the better. Karma like"

I cannot believe that anyone can expect to hire somone on a "90 days and you're out basis" and get any sort of motivation commitment or effort.

IN reality of course a good many workers will walk out before the 90 days.....And if that leaves the boss in the shit, tough titty. Boss says he doesn't owe the worker anything, why should it be any different the other way round.

I guess here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I simply do not believe that the average Kiwi would gain a job with the intention beforehand of slacking around and walking out after 90 days. Its dishonest and against human nature.

We all need security of income. A job is much more than wages - it gives a sense of satisfaction, self-worth, camaraderie, and stability. Why would any person jepordise that by jumping every 90 days? The tiny tiny number of people who would do that aren't people the average employer wants anyway.

mstriumph

12th December 2008, 12:20

...................
90 % of the people I have met are good honest people , who if treated in a supportive way, give back what they received.

A few are truly distructive ,to the work place ...( and maybe incapable of a simple task. Sandshoes and tree planting is the best for them ,,,)

MOST Managers I have met are truly awful, Failing to either set out clear guidelines, expectations and a lot of the time with out the relevant skill set being given to the worker. Finally the consequenses of not meeting those expectations ( they are never said , just posted on the wall or written in the contract, just above the small print.).........................

and therein lies the problem
to coin a phrase, people rise to their level of incompetence

---- my observations are much the same as yours - so what turns a well-intentioned, hard-working employee into a truly DREADFUL manager? .... one can only suppose the process that transformed them from one to the other

---- in most companies, the assumption is that a good - say - mechanic will automatically make a good supervisor

WRONG WRONG WRONG - the skillset has similarities but it doesn't end there by a long way

unfortunately our system of rewards, our systems of career progression, are mostly based on this erroneous principal

- you have a magnificent mechanic - you 'reward' him by making him workshop manager ..... it may work out for a while but what will likely happen is that you will have sentenced your magnificent mechanic to a daily drudge of administrative and customer contact tasks he [or she] is ill-equipped for and loathes and the frustration of having to supervise and coach people with less ability than he [she] has to do the actual job s/he loves whilst all s/he REALLY longs to do is do the job him/herself

what the economy, the country and human happiness REALLY needs is to get RID of this 'promotion' thingy ...... let's strip the 'reward' money and status from what are, essentially ADMIN positions for which some specialised industry knowledge is needed .......

let's build a culture where we hire really great ADMIN people with primarily ADMIN and PEOPLE skills and average mechanical knowledge to do the workshop manager positions and let's reward our exceptional mechanic with money and status, sure - a voice on the company council, sure - BUT for pity's sake let him/her go on doing the job they love .... let's build a structure where he can progress WITHOUT having to leave it

could be, they may want a change ... but how much better, more profitable, for EVERYONE if they don't have to change to progress.

ok
rant over

[I]*waits for everyone to throw rotton tomatoes and tell me how silly i am ...*<_<

mstriumph

12th December 2008, 12:23

Originally Posted by RantyDave
Large NZ corporates don't get even a snifter of it - the law only applies to companies with less than 20 employees. But don't let facts get in the way of a good witch burning.
DaveThere's already talk about splitting this place into separate business entities. You tell me if it's a witch hunt. This actually happened in Aus when similar legislation was enacted .....

mstriumph

12th December 2008, 12:32

Dunno about that. My vasectomy's proven fairly effective. References provided on request, etc.

:laugh: oh :no: no little randoms to go forth and populate??.... have you no regard for the future of your bloodling?? :no:

Tank

12th December 2008, 12:45

Its dishonest and against human nature.

Sadly - its only against the nature of some people. There are plenty of people out there who only want everything given to them on a plate, and are unwilling to work to better themselves and their family.

They are also generally bitter against those who DO work hard and get their shit together.

RantyDave

12th December 2008, 12:45

people rise to their level of incompetence
This is an entirely separate problem and one that can only be solved by not having pay rates reflect the hierarchical structure. Yes, that means workers being paid more than bosses; bosses being promoted to actually working (if capable); and a change in corporate culture that means managers get seen as part of the support infrastructure for the workers and not the other way round.

Dave

Ixion

12th December 2008, 12:46

Are we having fun or whut! :bash: Can't agree about the wage costs percentage. Even in low wage jobs like McDonalds and supermarkets, wages can amount to 19% of business costs. Actually the really efficent businesses are in IT and NZ doesn't have much of that.

Generally wages as a business cost run from 20% - 50%.

See post 109 .

Data from the Harbour Report - the industry's gold standard - reveal that even including their benefits, labour costs in the Big Three's plants account for less than 10 percent of the sticker price.

http://www.truthout.org/120908LA

You were talking Japan. The general nature of Japanese industry is not McDonalds. Wage costs as a percentage of total will be far lower in a complex automated manufacturing industry than in McDonalds, which is a service industry. In general prime cost (which is materials PLUS labour) in a manufacturing industry will run around 30% odd. Materials is usually around 25%.Obviously there may be considerable variations.

I guess here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I simply do not believe that the average Kiwi would gain a job with the intention beforehand of slacking around and walking out after 90 days. Its dishonest and against human nature.

We all need security of income. A job is much more than wages - it gives a sense of satisfaction, self-worth, camaraderie, and stability. Why would any person jepordise that by jumping every 90 days? The tiny tiny number of people who would do that aren't people the average employer wants anyway.

But you would willing accept that the average Kiwi would offer someone a job with the intention of getting all he can from them for 90 days then kicking them into touch? (If that's not the intention, then why are they demanding the law allow them to?) . Why would they jepordise that by jumping every 90 days? Better to jump than be pushed. And "90 days and fire 'em" employers are hardly like to engender much of "satisfaction, self-worth, camaraderie, and stability"

mstriumph

12th December 2008, 12:47

This is an entirely separate problem and one that can only be solved by not having pay rates reflect the hierarchical structure. Yes, that means workers being paid more than bosses; bosses being promoted to actually working (if capable); and a change in corporate culture that means managers get seen as part of the support infrastructure for the workers and not the other way round.

Dave ... :confused: is there an echo in here?

Brian d marge

12th December 2008, 13:03

and therein lies the problem
to coin a phrase, people rise to their level of incompetence
.*<_<

hear hear !

Now on to the Japanese , The reason why Japans business culture works is because the good lord wired the little buggers all wrong ,,

Its hard wired into them that everything has its place and must be done in that way...

Thats why those Kan ban or just in time or what ever the latest catchphrase is floating around in manufacturing at the moment gets lost in translation

A production line, I do my job , finish then wait , until the next job arrives , I work well as an individual. ,,line speed and quality drops ,,( Quality drops because I have a bad day and slap things together ,,)which isn't picked up by the next individual , but picked up at the end of the line ..expensive ..

Meanwhile over in Toyodas factory , the workers actually NEED to work together its because of the up bringing , they need to form relationships with people and within that tight social world there are A LOT of rules .which should be OBEYED

So If there are two people waiting on an empty Jetty and you tell the young Japanese girl to use the loud hailer to tell everyone to get on the boat ,,She will do that

Even if its plainly obvious that there are only two people and they can hear you well enough ,,,,:bash::crybaby:them is the rules that is the way its done and I will do it that way ... Even though I think it is stupid

Great designs come from free thinkers , sweden has its designs because of wood , and the shapes you can make from wood ...England ,,umm eerr the austin Maxi ,,,yes well ,,,we drink alot ...

Japan , Details ...no design form , japans culture is in the details .....

Stephen

BTW there are some Shocking managers here too !

jrandom

12th December 2008, 14:42

oh :no: no little randoms to go forth and populate??

I decided that two was enough.

:niceone:

slowpoke

12th December 2008, 20:07

Have a look at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FOREX_USD_vs_AUD_and_NZD.png which shows a steady down-trend since 1970. That's 38 years. The recent high value against the $US makes it hard to comprehend the fact NZ is going down - but the reality of wages and standard of living in the US, Australia, and Europe shows it is true.

Uh uh, that graph mentions nothing of productivity which is what was predicated as driving the exchange rate. There is simply no relationship between the way the NZ$ can plummet 5c overnight against the greenback and any causal effect of productivity or lack of.

Yip, the burden rate. Remove that employee and it doesn't cost you $70 per hour.

Yup, and they also aren't able to contribute towards the many vehicles/products produced in that hour which would make you a shitload of cash.

Treat people as a liability and that's exactly what they'll be and vice versa.

R6_kid

12th December 2008, 20:25

Could the poor people please stop whining. :cold:

no, they're being efficient workers... cant you tell!

McJim

12th December 2008, 20:33

I worked under this rule from 1988 to 2004 and never actually saw it invoked. Once it was threatened and the fella bucked up his ideas and became a really good worker.

There is a benefit to the employee too in that he/she can LEAVE the job without fear of facing a 'breach of contract' lawsuit. (As an employer if anyone had walked out on me I WOULD have sued the arse off of them if I could).

It works well and is not the bogeyman some people here make it out to be.

SixPackBack

13th December 2008, 08:03

and therein lies the problem
to coin a phrase, people rise to their level of incompetence

---- my observations are much the same as yours - so what turns a well-intentioned, hard-working employee into a truly DREADFUL manager? .... one can only suppose the process that transformed them from one to the other

---- in most companies, the assumption is that a good - say - mechanic will automatically make a good supervisor

WRONG WRONG WRONG - the skillset has similarities but it doesn't end there by a long way

unfortunately our system of rewards, our systems of career progression, are mostly based on this erroneous principal

- you have a magnificent mechanic - you 'reward' him by making him workshop manager ..... it may work out for a while but what will likely happen is that you will have sentenced your magnificent mechanic to a daily drudge of administrative and customer contact tasks he [or she] is ill-equipped for and loathes and the frustration of having to supervise and coach people with less ability than he [she] has to do the actual job s/he loves whilst all s/he REALLY longs to do is do the job him/herself

what the economy, the country and human happiness REALLY needs is to get RID of this 'promotion' thingy ...... let's strip the 'reward' money and status from what are, essentially ADMIN positions for which some specialised industry knowledge is needed .......

let's build a culture where we hire really great ADMIN people with primarily ADMIN and PEOPLE skills and average mechanical knowledge to do the workshop manager positions and let's reward our exceptional mechanic with money and status, sure - a voice on the company council, sure - BUT for pity's sake let him/her go on doing the job they love .... let's build a structure where he can progress WITHOUT having to leave it

could be, they may want a change ... but how much better, more profitable, for EVERYONE if they don't have to change to progress.

ok
rant over

[I]*waits for everyone to throw rotton tomatoes and tell me how silly i am ...*<_<

A rant indeed!.............while the 'Peter's principal' [rising to the level of incompetence] is a real and measurable effect, promotion is needed within every industry. The analogy you present about a mechanic becoming a manager and performing badly is so generic that it has no real substance. Nothing is better in the practical trades than having an individual that is capable of providing mentoring, facilitating, customer service, feedback up the chain, solving technical issues, and rolling thier sleeves up when needed etc etc.
A Mechanic [in this analogy] is the very best person to become the workshop manager, the problems that you describe come from promotion without training, back-up or mentoring. The very worst person to facilitate a workshop is the person with very little mechanical knowledge-ask any mechanic!

Rising to the level of incompetence is a double edged sword. Our collective knowledge of this phenomenon can and does prevent suitable individuals progressing [when good employee's are hard to find]. I believe where we are currently going off the rails is due to a lack of correctly implemented HR practices when hiring, and also with training-to often training does not happen.

jrandom

13th December 2008, 08:44

'Peter's principal'

The best software development managers I've seen have been guys who (often reluctantly) moved into that role after many years as a coder.

The absolute worst ones are always those who come to the job with generic 'management' training and/or experience.

Domain-specific professional knowledge is vital for anything more complicated than banging bricks together.

mstriumph

13th December 2008, 11:18

A rant indeed!.............while the 'Peter's principal' [rising to the level of incompetence] is a real and measurable effect, promotion is needed within every industry. The analogy you present about a mechanic becoming a manager and performing badly is so generic that it has no real substance. Nothing is better in the practical trades than having an individual that is capable of providing mentoring, facilitating, customer service, feedback up the chain, solving technical issues, and rolling thier sleeves up when needed etc etc.
A Mechanic [in this analogy] is the very best person to become the workshop manager, the problems that you describe come from promotion without training, back-up or mentoring. The very worst person to facilitate a workshop is the person with very little mechanical knowledge-ask any mechanic!

Rising to the level of incompetence is a double edged sword. Our collective knowledge of this phenomenon can and does prevent suitable individuals progressing [when good employee's are hard to find]. I believe where we are currently going off the rails is due to a lack of correctly implemented HR practices when hiring, and also with training-to often training does not happen. well done on recognising the reference ... unfortunately it ages both of us ........
and yes, of course you are right about my mechanic .. provided of course he WANTS to be an administrator (and i did cover that idea in my post) but you are straying off the point? my point is that our current 'rewardthink' has ended up with a hierarchical structure where (in most instances) people HAVE to get promoted to supervisory positions in order to 'progress' ... and this has the potential to be totally detrimental both to the organisation and to the individual?

oh - and i can't agree that all my mechanic would need would be training and mentoring .... there has to be THE DESIRE TO CHANGE FIELDS ... [and, just as with any other field, there has to be the raw material to work with or you will have turned an excellent mechanic into a hohum administrator - yet ANOTHER lose/lose .... no?]

we need to grow a mindset that bypasses this hierarchical nonsense?

Winston001

13th December 2008, 20:32

.....my point is that our current 'rewardthink' has ended up with a hierarchical structure where (in most instances) people HAVE to get promoted to supervisory positions in order to 'progress' ...

....we need to grow a mindset that bypasses this hierarchical nonsense?

Can you suggest anywhere in the world today, or historically, where people co-operated successfully without an hierarchy?

Even ants and bees which are highly evolved with shared communal objectives, have hierarchies.

What you are longing for MsT, has already been tried by the disciples of Marx and Engels. It is an absolutely laudable aim - everyone working together, cooperating, doing the best each is capable of. Everyone paid much the same, from floor sweeper to accountant. No bosses.

Sounds good to me too. I'd be happy to sweep the floor and you do the accounts. :D

Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)

13th December 2008, 22:03

I haven't read all the posts, or the "new legislation" But I know I have often wished there was a 3 month trial period for me - I have done alot of contract work as well as permanent full time and at times the job was misrepresented to me - or the environment was so not my scene - as you find out quite quickly really. In the past I have left these jobs and they just go in my CV as temp positions.

Also I have been on the other side of the fence and co-owned a business - trying to fire an incompetent employee is a bloody nitemare.

I just heard today of a friend's daughter who is pregnant with her third child - all different fathers, hardly ever worked, Just turning 22 next week. Not on the pill, wants natural, don't like rubbers well ffs one's a mistake, two's stupidity - three - get sterilised and not be paid for the third child by the state.

Pascal

14th December 2008, 00:22

Quoting from Kiwiblog, because it seems a lot of people are missing some of the basic facts of this thing.

1. A probation period is not automatic for new jobs in small businesses. It only occurs if the employer and employee agree to it. Try offering me a job with a probation period, and I’ll tell you where to stick it! Mind you as a business owner any of my clients can sack me at any time without any notice!
2. The 90 days is a maximum, and it can be less.
3. All employment rights such as good faith, non-discrimination, non-harrassment, holidays, leave, OSH are maintained during a probation period. It is only if you are sacked for non performance, that you can not take a personal grievance. If you are sacked because you are pregnant (for example), you can still take a grievance.
4. There can be only one trial period per employer. An employer can not have a trial period for an employee who has worked for them previously.
5. If you leave a benefit to take up a job terminated within the 90 day probation period, there is no stand down returning to the benefit.
6. While small businesses (less than 20 staff) make up 97% of enterprises, they only employ 31% of employees.
7. The law only applies to new jobs, and can not affect any existing employee in their current job.

mstriumph

15th December 2008, 15:47

.......What you are longing for MsT, has already been tried by the disciples of Marx and Engels....... unfortunately their efforts have a tendency to end up like 'animal farm' [where all are equal, but some are more equal than others ..]

seriously - i'm not sure ANYTHING we've tried so far has any hope of working - in fact i'm not sure that there's not something in the human psyche that actually wants or NEEDS to subordinate itself to a system - irrespective of how detrimental that system may be to the individual concerned ..... *sigh*

scracha

15th December 2008, 16:24

This is quite simply a mechanism for employers to get over the hump of a short term project that they over committed to.

Nope, it's a mechanism for employers to be able to employ hard working individuals and grow the economy without worrying about the risk of taking on a lazy fucktard. In my little town I can rattle off a dozen employers who have been too scared to take on any new starts before this law.

Winston001

16th December 2008, 20:32

unfortunately their efforts have a tendency to end up like 'animal farm' where all are equal, but some are more equal than others

seriously - i'm not sure ANYTHING we've tried so far has any hope of working - in fact i'm not sure that there's not something in the human psyche that actually wants or NEEDS to subordinate itself to a system - irrespective of how detrimental that system may be to the individual concerned ..... *sigh*

You are on the right track - and there are sound reasons for joining a system = greater security in the group than the individual can provide for him/herself. A group allows complementary skills to be shared.

See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12326787_ITM

"The propensity to organize appears to be an innate human behavior. Without the skill to organize into productive units, our species would not have survived changes in the environment. Additionally, without the support of the family, the tribe, or community, one would have found it difficult to compete for food, to barter, or to trade. Isolation tends to be a death sentence as it attracts predators (human or animal), and more often than not leads to extinction."

mstriumph

17th December 2008, 10:04

You are on the right track - and there are sound reasons for joining a system = greater security in the group than the individual can provide for him/herself. A group allows complementary skills to be shared.

See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12326787_ITM

"The propensity to organize appears to be an innate human behavior. Without the skill to organize into productive units, our species would not have survived changes in the environment. Additionally, without the support of the family, the tribe, or community, one would have found it difficult to compete for food, to barter, or to trade. Isolation tends to be a death sentence as it attracts predators (human or animal), and more often than not leads to extinction."

i wasn't exactly thinking of family units .... extended family units .... tribes .. things you more or less get pitched into without much choice in the matter ...

i was pondering more on - erm - religious cults ....the jim jones thing, for instance ..... or even mainstream religions where membership seems to be detrimental to some of the individuals willingly subordinating themselves to it ..... i can't rationalise good, observant catholic women denied birth control and having baby after baby after baby after ...........:wacko: [no disrespect to observant catholics intended]

Clockwork

17th December 2008, 10:23

Nope, it's a mechanism for employers to be able to employ hard working individuals and grow the economy without worrying about the risk of taking on a lazy fucktard. In my little town I can rattle off a dozen employers who have been too scared to take on any new starts before this law.

So now the lazy fu**tard just has to keep his head down for 3 months and then its "game on" again.

Winston001

17th December 2008, 11:25

i was pondering more on - erm - religious cults ....the jim jones thing, for instance ..... or even mainstream religions where membership seems to be detrimental to some of the individuals willingly subordinating themselves to it ..... i can't rationalise good, observant catholic women denied birth control and having baby after baby after baby after ...........:wacko: [no disrespect to observant catholics intended]

Or observant Hindus, Muslims, etc etc.

Forget religion, the poorer the community, the larger the families. That is because in poverty, your best chance of survival is a large family who can all work for the good of each other. It sounds kind of counter-intuitive - having more children when you can't feed the ones you already have, but that is what happens.

Group oppression of members can only occur when people allow it. To do so they need to believe that giving up some rights, subordinating themselves etc, is balanced by other compensating benefits.

For example, as a society we grant special powers to police officers, military personnel, doctors, etc. In doing so we gain the rule of law and a secure community.

Belonging to any group involves compromise - and in your anti-contraception example, if the compromise is too great, then people opt out. Not many modern Catholics in Western countries observe this doctrine, but otherwise respect the church.

scracha

17th December 2008, 12:09

So now the lazy fu**tard just has to keep his head down for 3 months and then its "game on" again.

A lot of the lazy tards can't manage to drag their asses out of bed on time during their first 2 weeks at a new job so 3 months should weed out most of them

SPman

17th December 2008, 13:40

Until the financial crisis hit, workers in US motor vehicle factories were earning $70 per hour. No wonder they failed.

That wage figure - widely used by opponents of the auto industry bailout - is not in fact the wage paid to current workers. It is an approximation of the costs of salaries and benefits for current and retired workers. After wage concessions in recent contracts, the UAW says its workers at GM, Ford and Chrysler plants range from $33 an hour for skilled trades to $14 an hour for new hires.
How much do the people in the Toyota factories get paid? "Precise wages and extrapolated benefits costs for U.S. workers at non unionized foreign companies, such as Honda and Toyota, are difficult to ascertain, but estimated salaries for current workers are approximately the same"

chrisso

17th December 2008, 13:47

Skyryder

17th December 2008, 15:39

Howdy all!
Ive been semi seriously thinking of returning to NZ after nearly 18 yrs here; Ive just been laid off here after 18 mths at 1 job. The economy here seems to be slowly falling apart ---ppl losing jobs everywhere; Is it any better there??.Whats the unemployment rate??. Im in Warehousing--are these type of jobs usually short term contract, casual or full time?? What sort of hourly rate is the go? Cheers.

At the risk of sounding flippant you should give Key a bell and let him know that his policy of the 90 day stand down is working. They trotted the excuse that this would encourage expats to return to NZ. Might cost ya bit of media spin but shit who knows ya might just score a job out of it.

Skyryder