That 90 day employment thing

[eelracing]

aren't the policies and procedures currently in place good enough for the removal of "unruly" employees?

I am of the same opinion as they are more than adequate if followed correctly.

Make no mistake the 90 day bill and sick day requirement are open to be abused by a bullying employer and will be used (by some) to cower employees into crap wages and conditions.

[yachtie10]

My last two employment contracts have included a six month out clause.

It didn't bother me.

Wouldn't have stood up in court so worthless

Personally I wouldn't want to work for someone who didnt want me there so not really an issue for me

Although having been unemployed for a while I applaud anything that might create some jobs

[Motu]

Having been an employer,I like to be able to fire someone on the spot,no questions asked.As an employee I have no problem with being fired...if I was in that situation,I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work there anyway.I have asked to be fired...because then I got holiday pay rather than just walking out on the spot.I like Unions,without them we would still be living in feudal times.I enjoyed the strikes...but back then I didn't mind a few days holiday without pay.

I am trying out a job next week - I am taking annual leave,and working for them for a week.This way they get to see if I'm up to the task,and I get to see if I want to work there....without burning my bridges.Win win for both sides.

[Oakie]

Points:

90 days. I put an advert in the Press today for a new employee. 3 insertions cost me nearly $2000. I'll then spend hours going through interviews and reference checking. I'm not therefore going to sack that person within 90 days lightly and have to go through it all again. If I did have to though, I would tell the person why they got biffed as that seems the ethically correct thing to do. That is something I would like to see written into the Act as it seems to be natural justice.

Medical Certs for 1 or 2 days absence My understanding is that the employer will have to pay for these, not the employee so it won't be done willy-nilly. Really there is not much change to the current legislation as under the current Act I can demand a med cert if I suspect that the sick provision is being abused. The difference is that currently I must tell the employee of my suspicion.

Union Access If I am an employee, my wife, my lawyer or my religious leader (if I had one) cannot just expect to walk onto my workplace and to see me. Why should a union official have the ability to do this?

[Motu]

My wife,lawyer,kids,friends,insurance salesmen,cute girls...and even you can just walk into my workplace and see me.If they couldn't I wouldn't work there.

[Woodman]

How can anyone enforce the med cert rule?? Its just pedantic bollocks if you ask me. Most employers will know when someone is genuinely sick and will not bother.
I sent a guy home today cos he was obviously crook. Don't need a certificate for that.

Rules are made to be broken.

[Oakie]

My wife,lawyer,kids,friends,insurance salesmen,cute girls...and even you can just walk into my workplace and see me.If they couldn't I wouldn't work there.

Actually we allow it at my workplace too within reason as long as it doesn't compromise the care of our residents. Funny thing though, we have a workforce of 72 and not a trade union member amongst them. We do look after our workforce though and we have quite a family atmosphere.

[Oakie]

How can anyone enforce the med cert rule?? Its just pedantic bollocks if you ask me. Most employers will know when someone is genuinely sick and will not bother.
I sent a guy home today cos he was obviously crook. Don't need a certificate for that.

You don't have to get a med cert. It's just that the option will be there for you to ask for one. God! I put a girl off on paid sick leave for a month the other day (personal meltdown) and didn't even mention the medical certificate.

[Indiana_Jones]

... the unions just effectively got some people fired...
.

Where have we seen this before...









-Indy

[Oscar]

Wouldn't have stood up in court so worthless

Sez who?

And notwithstanding any legal intervention, I read it, understood it, I signed and am honour bound to keep my word.

[mashman]

Almost 2 years to the day since the OP aaaaaaaaand

New research has been released on the Government's 90 day trial period for new employees.

A Department of Labour report says around 60 percent of employers are using the scheme.

The findings say employers use it to mitigate risk when hiring staff, and it's being used to hire younger workers and the long term unemployed.

Nineteen percent of employers say they'd dismissed an employee during the trial period.

However Labour MP Darien Fenton says the research is missing an important area.

"In all the research they've done they haven't been able to find a single worker to give feedback on it, and especially those who've been sacked without reason and without recourse to justice."

The survey canvassed over 1,900 employers - around 36 percent of whom took part in the study.

They can't find 1?

[Winston001]

The main point to draw from that report is that employers are now willing to take on new employees with both parties understanding there is a 90 day trial. The law looks like an outstanding success. The report implies 81% of employees are kept on after 90 days.

[avgas]

Do you think the Unions are an outdated concept?

Yes.

Recent studies have indicated that employee satisfaction is paramount to running a business effectively. Any employer whom does not understand this usually looses employees.
Companies that have high-turnover generally do not get good candidates applying.......and get bad names in the press.
They then shut down because losing employees = loosing customers.

All of this happens without someone threatening
"Oi, don't tread on the snake cobber!".

Unions are just another form of government. And like any form of government, I would believe them if they stated they were working for the benefit of others...........if they didn't rape said "others" of all their money.

[mashman]

The main point to draw from that report is that employers are now willing to take on new employees with both parties understanding there is a 90 day trial. The law looks like an outstanding success. The report implies 81% of employees are kept on after 90 days.

If an employer needs an employee, the employer is willing irrespective of the laws that protect them surely? Wouldn't that 81% of employees have worked out anyway irrespective of the law change? As a contractor there's sometimes 1 weeks notice from either party written into the contracts. I sign it and accept it and we all move forwards. I do not see the 90 day law as having achieved anything and I would imagine that not being able to find a single person to comment on its usefulness backs that up to a degree.

[Usarka]

It can be very hard for employer to get rid of someone that they don't want working for them.

Only if the employer is stupid.