Employment Relations Authority

[Oakie]

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

How sad is that ...

Cameras work both ways. We had allegations against a staff member so put a camera in and a week's worth of footage showed the allegations were unfounded. Potentially saved us all a lot of heartache.

[Ocean1]

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.

In what way does dismissing someone attribute blame? It's simply terminating the contract, exactly the same contract the employee can terminate by resigning, exactly the same result, why would blame enter into consideration for one side and not for the other.

If an employee can resign simply because they have the opportunity to work for better conditions then why shouldn't an employer dismiss an employee because they have an opportunity to hire someone offering better services?

If you see a difference there then you have a clear bias against employers. You could clear that up by hiring someone, does wonders for your perspective.

[Dangsta]

Wow is this still going on??

[Oakie]

It'll never end until someone gets the sack from KB ... without due process of course.

[Woodman]

In what way does dismissing someone attribute blame? It's simply terminating the contract, exactly the same contract the employee can terminate by resigning, exactly the same result, why would blame enter into consideration for one side and not for the other.

If an employee can resign simply because they have the opportunity to work for better conditions then why shouldn't an employer dismiss an employee because they have an opportunity to hire someone offering better services?

If you see a difference there then you have a clear bias against employers. You could clear that up by hiring someone, does wonders for your perspective.

Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.

I think you should continue working with yourself.

[Gremlin]

It'll never end until someone gets the sack from KB ... without due process of course.

Happens regularly... they join, they spam, they're banned.

Process of course

[Ocean1]

Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.

I think you should continue working with yourself.

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other.

As long as such attitudes predominate NZ will continue to be short of employers. As for working with myself; I don't work alone.

[oneofsix]

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other.

As long as such attitudes predominate NZ will continue to be short of employers. As for working with myself; I don't work alone.

"Enforced loyalty is only required of an employer" sorry but that is the natural order of things, not an enforcement. If you don't like it opt out. If you want people to work for you and care about what you want to achieve then you have to treat them right, starts at the top and that is the employer. You sound like a typical wally that wants to blame everyone else for your failings. "they should bow down to me just because I am offering them a job", guess that is why you require a high unemployment, to make people that disparate. Sorry but people have feelings and unless you treat them right they will only begrudgingly work for you for the money, the situation unemployment sets up, not out of loyalty. You want loyalty from your staff you have to be loyal to them and most employers aren't where it's all about the money.

[Oakie]

So enforced loyalty is only required of an employer? Seriously, how is that an equitable arangement? Nobody has yet come up with a valid ethical reason why summary termination should be OK for one party but not the other. .

The argument is nothing to do with loyalty though. It's about fairness.

[Ocean1]

"Enforced loyalty is only required of an employer" sorry but that is the natural order of things, not an enforcement. If you don't like it opt out. If you want people to work for you and care about what you want to achieve then you have to treat them right, starts at the top and that is the employer. You sound like a typical wally that wants to blame everyone else for your failings. "they should bow down to me just because I am offering them a job", guess that is why you require a high unemployment, to make people that disparate. Sorry but people have feelings and unless you treat them right they will only begrudgingly work for you for the money, the situation unemployment sets up, not out of loyalty. You want loyalty from your staff you have to be loyal to them and most employers aren't where it's all about the money.

No, a natural order wouldn’t involve lawyers and contracts, it’d be a handshake, as would any change in that relationship. And if you don’t think the existing employment legislation represents enforcement then I can only suggest that you haven’t read it.

As for my failings, they’re mine, I pay for them, never blamed anyone else for them in my life. I’ve rarely had an employee offer to pay for theirs.

And far from requiring high unemployment I’m pointing out the simple fact that positions vacant are driven by the terms and conditions of employment. Nothing else. If there’s more people unemployed than you personally like then I suggest you hire some of them, because the rest of the country obviously doesn’t see much attraction in the prospect. There's a few expenses along the way, there but I'm sure a man with the conviction of his beliefs wouldn't mind losing a bit of cash in support of such a noble enterprise.

And if your observations about current employers is based on the same prejudice as the rest of your post I’ll take it with a grain of salt.

The argument is nothing to do with loyalty though. It's about fairness.

I was responding to Woodman, below.

Geeez, what an environment that would create. No loyalty whatsoever both ways. Disaster.

And according to most dictionaries fairness equates to equity. Same thing. So yet again, how can summary termination for an individual who’s an employee be fair when it’s not an option available to an individual who’s an employer?

So far you guys have nothing, and it seems that’s related to some fairytale perception of an employer as some nebulous entity with endless resources that’s there to lean on as much as possible.

[Dangsta]

No, a natural order wouldn’t involve lawyers and contracts, it’d be a handshake, as would any change in that relationship. And if you don’t think the existing employment legislation represents enforcement then I can only suggest that you haven’t read it.

As for my failings, they’re mine, I pay for them, never blamed anyone else for them in my life. I’ve rarely had an employee offer to pay for theirs.

And far from requiring high unemployment I’m pointing out the simple fact that positions vacant are driven by the terms and conditions of employment. Nothing else. If there’s more people unemployed than you personally like then I suggest you hire some of them, because the rest of the country obviously doesn’t see much attraction in the prospect. There's a few expenses along the way, there but I'm sure a man with the conviction of his beliefs wouldn't mind losing a bit of cash in support of such a noble enterprise.

And if your observations about current employers is based on the same prejudice as the rest of your post I’ll take it with a grain of salt..

You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change

Keep on trying to convince us all that its okay for an employer to make an arbitrary decision one day and just start sacking people......use big words and "compelling arguments" and then look all confused when you get ass-raped by the Employment Relations Authority for unjustified dismissal

Also, when you attempt to respond to what I've written here (which no doubt you will), please note that instead of giving this thread (read you) any more time by actually replying, I'll just refer you back I'm writing now. You can cut and paste it below whatever you write from now on, I think it will be an adequate response to anything further you have to say.

[oneofsix]

You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change

Keep on trying to convince us all that its okay for an employer to make an arbitrary decision one day and just start sacking people......use big words and "compelling arguments" and then look all confused when you get ass-raped by the Employment Relations Authority for unjustified dismissal

Also, when you attempt to respond to what I've written here (which no doubt you will), please note that instead of giving this thread (read you) any more time by actually replying, I'll just refer you back I'm writing now. You can cut and paste it below whatever you write from now on, I think it will be an adequate response to anything further you have to say.

Thanks Dangsta. The Ocean is all washed up and doesn't understand what laws are versus natural order, and that law is used to either try to re-enforce or alter the same. However to try to get people actually willing work for you and go the extra mile - refer original post. I think I will follow Dangsta's lead, just refer what he wrote.

[Ocean1]

You sir, are the reason that I work in the field of employment law and also the reason why I have an arse-load of disposable income. Don't ever change

I'll take a leaf out of your book and assume you're in HR. I'd as soon admit I was in arftificial insemination, but I guess it takes all sorts, and at least it explains your lack of comprehension.

Just one last clue as to how wrong your assumptions are: I'm not an employer.

Your admission that you've got no adequate answer to my question is also duely noted.

[Oakie]

..........

10 chars

[pete376403]

In the USA it's described as "at will" employment. Steve Joyce would probably like to see this in place here.

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can immediately terminate the relationship at any time with or without any advance warning,[1] and with no subsequent liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[2]

In an October 2000 decision largely reaffirming employers' rights under the at-will doctrine, the Supreme Court of California explained:

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.