90-day stand down

[vifferman]

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]

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]

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.

[Winston001]

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.

[Oakie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

He has a valid point - I have met some incredibly stupid employers out there as well as a couple who would screw their own grandmother if they could make a few bucks and get away with it.
Whilst I can see the reasoning behind it, like all laws, it'll be thrashed as far as people can get away with it - employers are no more golden saints than employees.........

[SPman]

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.

Have they ever - not in most of my lifetime!

[Ixion]

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]

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.

Hes a turncoat....I understand his government will also start fucking with Kiwibank soon?....mmmm not exactly what he said prior the election, god bless all those who voted National!

They can do whatever the hell they like now, well at least for the next 3 years.

[Ixion]

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]

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?