Mapp 90 Day Bill

[Ixion]

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

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

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

[Winston001]

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

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

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

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

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

[WINJA]

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

[Winston001]

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

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

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

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

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

[oldrider]

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

I'm a bit confused by your response, I must have expressed my thoughts poorly.
I was condemning the so called management personnel in that workplace. John.

[Timber020]

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

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

[WINJA]

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

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

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

[James Deuce]

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

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

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

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

[BeakerRAT]

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

[chanceyy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Winston001]

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

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

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

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

[Lou Girardin]

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

[James Deuce]

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

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

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

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

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

[Winston001]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ixion]

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

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

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