Employment Relations Authority

[huff3r]

And, as I said, if you can walk away from the agreement that easily then why shouldn't your boss?

Because the whole economy would flop without a little something called "Job Security".

Under your proposal the boss could fire you simply because he was in a bad mood that day, and you happened to bump into him first. Not only is that not fair to anyone involved, but it means that suddenly a large amount of the population, and indeed even those who do work hard and do the right thing, are left fearing for their jobs everyday!

[Ocean1]

Because the whole economy would flop without a little something called "Job Security".

Now, how do you figure that?

Under your proposal the boss could fire you simply because he was in a bad mood that day, and you happened to bump into him first. Not only is that not fair to anyone involved, but it means that suddenly a large amount of the population, and indeed even those who do work hard and do the right thing, are left fearing for their jobs everyday!

It wasn't a proposal, just an observation that the business owner has far more to lose from an under-performing or dishonest employee than any employee has, and yet the terms of any agreement massively favour the employee.

To use your example, it's OK for an employee to walk into work in a bad mood and resign, and the employer has absolutely no say in that, and yet you say that exactly the same option shouldn't be available to the employer, no matter how much the employee is costing the business. The vast majority of kiwi employers are SMEs, businesses employing under 10 people. Those business owners often have their whole net worth tied up in their business, and a bad employee can cost him not just the next few weeks pay but everything he owns. That's pressure few employes are ever aware of, let alone experience every day.

It's well past time legislation reflected that fact, and recognised that every employee needs to be hard working and do the right thing, and that employers have the ethical right to fire those that aren't without fucking around with endless red tape which only ever hurts the business and it's remaining employees.

[huff3r]

Now, how do you figure that?



It wasn't a proposal, just an observation that the business owner has far more to lose from an under-performing or dishonest employee than any employee has, and yet the terms of any agreement massively favour the employee.

To use your example, it's OK for an employee to walk into work in a bad mood and resign, and the employer has absolutely no say in that, and yet you say that exactly the same option shouldn't be available to the employer, no matter how much the employee is costing the business. The vast majority of kiwi employers are SMEs, businesses employing under 10 people. Those business owners often have their whole net worth tied up in their business, and a bad employee can cost him not just the next few weeks pay but everything he owns. That's pressure few employes are ever aware of, let alone experience every day.

It's well past time legislation reflected that fact, and recognised that every employee needs to be hard working and do the right thing, and that employers have the ethical right to fire those that aren't without fucking around with endless red tape which only ever hurts the business and it's remaining employees.

I didn't say that at all. I never said that a useless employee who is not doing their job properly should not be fired, or not be able to be fired. That is why there is a process to follow, to determine whether the employee is actually a problem or the boss is just in a bad mood. The reason an employee can quit anytime they like is because that is unlikely to damage the business, or hurt their employee. Being fired however does some pretty big damage to the other party.

Yes I know it's a prick to have to hire new staff when one quits etc, but the market is favouring the employers at the moment, there are plenty of candidates to replace an employee who quits.

There aren't plenty of jobs for the employee who is fired to move into.

Being fired and quitting are two very different concepts, and as such must be treated very differently. There are many reasons for an employee to quit, and many reasons that are blameless. Firing someone however is an activity driven by blame, the employee is at fault so they are fired. That's why the due process must be followed, as if the employee is to be designated at fault then they deserve a fair hearing to have their say.

Also, when it comes to hiring time the employer has all the power, shouldn't we change that? Shouldn't hard working employees be allowed to choose whether they are hired or not? Otherwise it's just grossly unfair, and through the whole hiring process the potential employee has far more to lose than the business! (Yes, I realise that's ridiculous. So is firing someone without due process).

[Ocean1]

That is why there is a process to follow, to determine whether the employee is actually a problem or the boss is just in a bad mood. The reason an employee can quit anytime they like is because that is unlikely to damage the business, or hurt their employee. Being fired however does some pretty big damage to the other party.

So the employer has to have second opinions in case he's just being a cnut, but the employee doesn't because he never is and besides it doesn't hurt the employer?

I'll take a wild swing at guessing that you've never been responsible for employees.

Yes I know it's a prick to have to hire new staff when one quits etc, but the market is favouring the employers at the moment, there are plenty of candidates to replace an employee who quits.

There aren't plenty of jobs for the employee who is fired to move into.

Being fired and quitting are two very different concepts, and as such must be treated very differently. There are many reasons for an employee to quit, and many reasons that are blameless. Firing someone however is an activity driven by blame, the employee is at fault so they are fired. That's why the due process must be followed, as if the employee is to be designated at fault then they deserve a fair hearing to have their say.

Also, when it comes to hiring time the employer has all the power, shouldn't we change that? Shouldn't hard working employees be allowed to choose whether they are hired or not? Otherwise it's just grossly unfair, and through the whole hiring process the potential employee has far more to lose than the business! (Yes, I realise that's ridiculous. So is firing someone without due process).

No, I'm afraid your ideas about how that shit works are valid only in Lala land. As simply as possible: an agreement to employ someone has two parties, one agrees to provide services and the other agrees to pay for them. There's no ethical reason why the terms and conditions of that agreement should favour either one or the other, and yet they discriminate heavily in favour of employees. No matter what planet you work on that's inequitable.

It's also the reason a lot of small businesses don't hire staff.

[huff3r]

Nobody said it should be equal. There is a difference between equal and fair.

[FJRider]

So the employer has to have second opinions in case he's just being a cnut, but the employee doesn't because he never is and besides it doesn't hurt the employer?

Correct with the first bit ...

However ... on the off chance the employee is not just being a cnut .. they still have the legal right to be heard.

It's the "Legal Right" bit that catches a few employers out ...

[Ocean1]

Nobody said it should be equal. There is a difference between equal and fair.

No. I did say it should be equitable.

characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable

Does that count?


And fair would be having employees paid in terms of the revenue they can claim to have contributed to generating, same as the employer. We're a loooooong way from that.

[Oakie]

So if you turned up for work and your boss called you into his office and said "you're fired". You'd think that's fair?

If my performance was such that he wasn't making enough to cover the cost of employing me then absolutely,

But what this whole question is about is the scenario where you turn up for work, the boss calls you in and says "you're fired" ... you said you're happy for that to happen if your performance isn't up to it ... but what if the boss thinks your performance isn't up to it but you contend- pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

[Ocean1]

But what this whole question is about is the scenario where you turn up for work, the boss calls you in and says "you're fired" ... you said you're happy for that to happen if your performance isn't up to it ... but what if the boss thinks your performance isn't up to it but you contend- pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice.

As long as they've not missed some legal minutae.

[FJRider]

pick one or all of the following:

A) The boss didn't arrange the training I needed even though he said he would
B) The machine I work on has broken down several times and despite promises, has not been properly fixed so only runs at half speed
C) My foreman has been doing the productivity reports but he's been getting the stats wrong because he can't count
D) Our daily target used to be 100 widgets which I've always met but when the target was changed to 120 a day our section wasn't advised. This is the first I've heard of it.

Etc etc

Sure the boss can make the accusation that your performance isn't up to it BUT he must then give you the opportunity to respond to his accusation. It's natural justice. If he then listens to your contention, considers it with an open mind ... explores the issues you raise such as the examples I gave and THEN fires you, that is just fine.

What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

[Edbear]

No. I did say it should be equitable.

Does that count?


And fair would be having employees paid in terms of the revenue they can claim to have contributed to generating, same as the employer. We're a loooooong way from that.

That is leading to more opting for contracting out. I couldn't afford to employ anyone who couldn't cover their wages plus in increased sales and income. Employees should think about how much the employer has to earn to cover their wages and a rough estimate would be at least double what the employee is getting.

[Oakie]

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice. .

Well of course they already have that option and right to resign!

You are pretty close to the mark actually but instead of being 'permitted to resign' they are given the opportunity to improve performance (that's if it's performance related). Absolutely if it's a performance issue the employee needs to listen to the employer, consider what they've been told and then either pull their finger out ... or be sacked.

Other employment problems eg whacking the boss, theft, watching porn - you don't often get the chance 'to improve'. Generally you'll be out after a brief investigation. "Instant dismissal for those" did someone say? No. To be honest there is no such thing as an 'instant' dismissal. Your new salesman punches your best client in the face ... the manager has to at least ask "Why" before sacking him. Who knows ... perhaps the client proposed bottom-sex to the salesman.

[huff3r]

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. As long as an employer has the same right to maintain an employee on staff under the originally agreed contract terms until such time as they listen to your contentions, considers them with an open mind, explore the issues you raise and THEN be permitted to resign.

That'd be natural justice.

As long as they've not missed some legal minutae.

I'm sorry, but you can't tell me quitting is the same as being fired. As I said before, quitting a job is not attributing blame to anyone, so there is no reason for the employer to be heard. Being fired attributes blame to the employee, so they deserve the right to respond and defend themselves.

If you can't see the difference then there is nothing further to say here.

What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

Then due process is followed and you are fired.

[Oakie]

What happens if ...

A) Training WAS arranged ... and on each of the days it was held you were "Off sick" ... but not to sick to attend big note sports events/Music concerts (etc) which you were seen at.
B) The machine broke down/malfunctioned because of repeated failure to follow instructions as to its correct use of operation.
C) Stats entered were as supplied. Figures supplied were put in the incorrect order on the forms.
C) Did you not get the Memo/E.mail .. dated ... ???

Two sides to every story.

Yep, and if the manager can answer to those contentions as you suggest, then fine to move to dismissal ... but he has to at least consider.

People will say all sorts to save a job. You wouldn't believe the story a guy told me during the disciplinary process following him being caught viewing porn for hours at work. Yeah, they bullshit, but they have to be given the opportunity to do so.

[FJRider]

You wouldn't believe the story a guy told me during the disciplinary process following him being caught viewing porn for hours at work. Yeah, they bullshit, but they have to be given the opportunity to do so.

"Security" cameras catch a few ... shit ... some even come on KB in work hours ...

How sad is that ...