90-day stand down

[James Deuce]

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.

[TimeOut]

Spot on.

I'm sure any decent employer can opt out of the trial period (Tui anyone)

[Finn]

It also means we can fire dumb arses like you who lack logic, common sense and any signs of intelligence.

You really need to stop thinking like a kiwi James. Change your ways boy.

[Deano]

I thought short term contracts for specific projects were already legal.

I have heard a lot of hard luck stories from employers who have struggled to get rid of a poor performing employee though, but maybe they went about it the wrong way.

[James Deuce]

It also means we can fire dumb arses like you who lack logic, common sense and any signs of intelligence.

You really need to stop thinking like a kiwi James. Change your ways boy.

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

If I fall off a bike and break an arm in the first 90 days of a new job, I'd be out the door.

Stop thinking like a Kiwi employer. We don't all come to work to steal your money.

I thought short term contracts for specific projects were already legal.

I have heard a lot of hard luck stories from employers who have struggled to get rid of a poor performing employee though, but maybe they went about it the wrong way.

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.

I've also heard a lot of hard luck stories from stupid employers who don't have the nouse to follow a process to rid themselves of an employee. I've watched my current employer throw 100s of thousands away because some manager loses their temper and "fires" someone.

[davereid]

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.

Its already legal to take on an employee for a temporary project or to cover a peak in workload and then end employment when the project ends.

This is different. Its so you can get rid of someone who simply doesnt pull their weight.

I think it will genuinely help good workers find jobs.

Smaller employers will not be scared to take on a worker, who may be difficult to fire if they underperform.

Of course, if you are a slacker, this will not be good news, as you won't be able to keep you job by merely being present. You will actually have to be useful as well.

[jrandom]

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.

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

[SixPackBack]

Starting to like John Key......certainly starting out well

[James Deuce]

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

You have got to be kidding me.! They're not firing anyone, simply not taking an option up to continue employment. This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved. I can't believe that anyone in this day and age thinks that an employer actually values their staff.

[Swoop]

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

Absolutely spot on! Could not have put it better.

[Headbanger]

Oh, what rubbish. If you want someone for 90 days, you need to get them to sign a 90 day contract.

The new law applies to 'permanent' positions, where the contract specifically states that it's a permanent ongoing role.

And it's a great idea. If someone can't convince an employer of their worth within 90 days, they should be out on their ear without the rigmarole of a three-step process. If a job needs doing, why would an employer keep firing people who were doing it perfectly well?

This law constitutes economic stimulus. Smart move in troubled times. You want the barriers for employers hiring people to be as low as possible.

Right on.

Its a great move.

[davereid]

...This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved...

Thats exactly the point.. ! well spotted !

[slofox]

Women who fall pregnant in the first 90 days of a job are fucked.

You mean have been fucked don't you James?

[jrandom]

You have got to be kidding me.! They're not firing anyone, simply not taking an option up to continue employment. This is a provision that will allow employers to fill an urgent need without going through the bother of filing a contract through their lawyer or legal department, time, money,, or both saved.

It's really not at all hard to have a contract that says "this job lasts 10 weeks" or whatever, and there are always plenty of people keen to take on stuff like that. Offer a 'fake permanent position', and you'll miss out on some of the best contract workers in the market.

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.

[Devil]

I think it's a great idea.

I work at a council. There are people who would have been completely incompetant when they started... and they're still here 10 years later. I dont think it would have been possible for them to have gotten worse.

I however, haven't seen the fine print.