90-day stand down

[Finn]

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]

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]

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Nothing to do with the outdated, gas guzzling, resource sucking SUV's that dominated their production, and that no one could afford to run or buy one thanks to the the credit crunch.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]

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?

[RantyDave]

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]

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]

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

[slowpoke]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[rphenix]

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.

When your a contractor you usually get better conditions (contractor rates, less micro-management). Ive worked for some companies that I actually quite liked the boss's but a few of them had some dodgy HR practices. One in particular used to do the good old lets make this person "redundant" then a few weeks/months later they all of a sudden hire a replacement.

Although there is definitely new hires who turn out to be lemons so I do see the need for this law change, we just need to consider how it can be abused. People should still be able to claim unfair dismissal if they are let go in the first 90 days I think the employer shouldn't have to go through the whole 3 strikes your out, but should still need a sufficient reason.

[Headbanger]

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]

Could the poor people please stop whining.