90-day stand down

[Finn]

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.

9 years of "cash for babies policies" meant that all the dead beats would breed like rabbits producing more dead beats. I mean why would they work when they could get paid to sit on their fat arses and breed? This cost the taxpayer too much and was a significant burden on businesses, especially small businesses who weren't allowed to replace the dead beat. If a woman gets pregnant, that's her business. Why should it be a burden on an employer? Extreme socialist thinking. However, if the bitch is half decent, then the employer could always take her back if there's a position.

As for your arm, that depends. An employer can usually tell very quickly if an employee is worth what they are being paid. If you are worthless, your broken arm would be a great reason to sack your arse. After all, it would of happened anyway once your trial period was up. However, if you showed that you could be a valuable asset to the company, any smart employer would say tough luck son, when can you come back to work?

NZ's productivity is extremely low. Relaxing our one sided employment laws is good.

[Max Headroom]

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.

I for one value my staff. I wouldn't have a business without them, and I recognise that every way that I can. I have a shortlist of people who have approached me to let them know if a vacancy opens up.

The only employees who would be fearful of this new legislation will be those who have oversold themselves on their CV, demonstrate a poor work ethic, or simply don't fit the workplace culture. Remember, the three month trial period is also an opportunity for new employees to assess their employers and work environment too.

[MisterD]

James, you're also neglecting to consider that it actually costs money to recruit employees - it's in an employer's interest that they get someone who is value for that money.

In the OECD there are precisely two countries without similar legislation, NZ and Denmark...it works very well in the UK and it isn't abused, even without the specific provisions in our legislation.

[nigel]

It's incredibly hard to fire someone these days.. Ignoring obvious stuff like employees breaking rules, you have to be prepared to prove that the person is unable to perform their job _and_ that you tried to help them with training, and that kind of assistance, else you get slapped with a PG.

Right now, employers absolutely have to get the interview process right, else they're stuck with a lemon that they have to 'micromanage' out of a job. That's a pain for everyone involved. It would be nice if everyone was an expert at interviewing people and always did all the correct checks, but that's simply not realistic.

Sounds to me like 90 days gives you a trial period to find out what people are _really_ like. Sure some people might abuse that, but that won't happen at most workplaces, and I'm sure word would get around pretty fast about joe's motors where joe only hires & fires. In industries like IT, this is an godsend - demand for skilled workers is high but supply of them is low.

[James Deuce]

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.

Yes it does. That has largely been my experience. My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem with assuming the association of intelligence, economic or otherwise, with any policy change in the employment laws in NZ is that there's precious little of that commodity available in NZ's job market. On both sides of the fence. This policy won't be employed to raise the productivity of Kiwis or reduce the exposure inherent in unsuitable employees, it will simply provide an out for an employer who needs a short term fix without long term financial exposure or having to pay contract rates for a decent contract worker. In my industry the vast majority of the good contractors capable of providing a satisfactory outcome for an employer have moved overseas. Simple economics. Pay is already crap in the IT sector in NZ and given the mentality of the majority of employers in that field it's only going to get worse.

[Robert Taylor]

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.

For bad employers yes but we often forget that there are many bad employees! 90 days is an excellent opportunity for a new employee to prove him / herself and to be a valuable asset to the business. So often also many think that owning a business is a license to print money.

''National Government'', I rather like the sound of that after 9 dark years.

[Robert Taylor]

Yes it does. That has largely been my experience. My current employer is effectively demanding a 50 hour working week of its employees and there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem with assuming the association of intelligence, economic or otherwise, with any policy change in the employment laws in NZ is that there's precious little of that commodity available in NZ's job market. On both sides of the fence. This policy won't be employed to raise the productivity of Kiwis or reduce the exposure inherent in unsuitable employees, it will simply provide an out for an employer who needs a short term fix without long term financial exposure or having to pay contract rates for a decent contract worker. In my industry the vast majority of the good contractors capable of providing a satisfactory outcome for an employer have moved overseas. Simple economics. Pay is already crap in the IT sector in NZ and given the mentality of the majority of employers in that field it's only going to get worse.

Try 80 hour weeks. Ive got the flu big time at present but having a stake in its business and being very busy Im here!

[Robert Taylor]

i for one value my staff. I wouldn't have a business without them, and i recognise that every way that i can. I have a shortlist of people who have approached me to let them know if a vacancy opens up.

The only employees who would be fearful of this new legislation will be those who have oversold themselves on their cv, demonstrate a poor work ethic, or simply don't fit the workplace culture. Remember, the three month trial period is also an opportunity for new employees to assess their employers and work environment too.

ditto ditto ditto

[Jantar]

29 years ago, with a new wife, I moved from one end of the country to the other to start a new job, on a 90 day trial. I was confident that I would be acceptable, and so it proved.

The only people who need fear are those who have applied for a job that is above their ability, and BSed their way through the interview process.

[James Deuce]

James, you're also neglecting to consider that it actually costs money to recruit employees - it's in an employer's interest that they get someone who is value for that money.

In the OECD there are precisely two countries without similar legislation, NZ and Denmark...it works very well in the UK and it isn't abused, even without the specific provisions in our legislation.

I've worked in the UK and I was treated with respect. I enjoyed the experience tremendously because it was the first time an employer looked like they enjoyed me turning up. My broad experience in NZ is that I have to be watched because I will be stealing time, money, equipment, and making poor decisions. Employees are not to be trusted.

My knowledge is experiential. Arguing that I don't understand that there are poor employees (I've had to work with them for goodness sake!) or that employers deserve protection isn't the issue I'm raising. I KNOW that NZ employers will manipulate this policy change to their own advantage.

I've never been fired. I've not given anyone reason too. I've not had an employer that made me feel part of a team or valued, or an asset to be protected. You sink or swim on your own, and that's cool because I can do that. I'm not "scared" of this change because I expect to never be able to complete a probation period. I do know that the industry I work in willbe rubbing its hands in glee.

[James Deuce]

Try 80 hour weeks. Ive got the flu big time at present but having a stake in its business and being very busy Im here!

Yes, I've been there too. I've worked at a wage-slave job while failing to make a go of a couple of businesses. I'm not belittling the experience of dedicated businessmen at all. I'm not contracted to work more than 37.5, but I frequently exceed 70 hour working weeks without being paid for it. This is just another nail that will exploit people like me who believe their employer deserves respect, for nothing other than the simple reason they pay me.

[Boob Johnson]

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.

Damn straight, try having to work with some of these farking microwave generation kids these days, fucking over expectant morons AND they can drag your ass through employment court with no real risk or cost to themselves. The thing I like about JK is he is a businessman first, he thinks like a businessman, unlike uncle Helen (still gotta pinch myself that she is FINALLY fucked off). The economy is in a very volatile state, Labour has blown the 9 year cream gathering opportunity that was before us & now its time to shape this government back into a (reasonably) efficient model again. JK seems (so far) to totally understand what needs to be done.

[Beemer]

For bad employers yes but we often forget that there are many bad employees! 90 days is an excellent opportunity for a new employee to prove him / herself and to be a valuable asset to the business. So often also many think that owning a business is a license to print money.

Too true. When I first started work in 1980 I am pretty sure I was on a three or six month trial period. I was then placed on permanent staff after that time. I moved to Wellington in 1986 and I am also pretty sure every job I took on since then had the same terms and conditions. I've never been asked to leave during the trial period, but I did opt to leave one job myself as it didn't turn out to be what I expected. No, the work wasn't too hard - I'd turn up at 8.30am and open the mail, my boss would roll in about 10am (and leave at 4pm) and for the bulk of the day I had very little to do. They didn't have a proper office for me so I was in the waiting area of the other business we shared a floor with. Anyone coming to visit them would dump their stuff on my desk, use my phone or sit on the couch next to my desk and make calls on their mobile that I would be forced to listen to. I was bored out of my skull and soon realised he hated delegating and all he really needed was a part-time assistant - and that wasn't what I was looking for so I left.

I have heard so many horror stories of employers who take on new staff, only to find they are lazy, incompetent, rude, deceitful - and worse. They have to give them warnings before they can get rid of them - and many times the offences are not quite bad enough to fire someone over, so they are stuck with them. If you are a good employee and do what you are employed to do, I doubt you will have any trouble with this new rule. If, however, you are a lazy prick who thinks an employer owes him something other than a fair wage for a job well done, then yes, you probably will be fucked over - and you won't get much sympathy from me!

I'm self-employed and I basically have a probation period for every new client who offers me work - if I don't perform and impress them, they probably won't hire me again. It hasn't been a problem so far, and it also allows me to turn down future work from them if I didn't enjoy working for them the first time. And best of all, I don't have any employees so I won't have to worry about firing their sorry arses if they turn out to be useless!

[Boob Johnson]

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.

Nouse? Ever owned a business? Ever had an employee who after just a month of steller performance decides its ok to suddenly do fuck all, sit in the back yard reading a book all afternoon & almost completely ignore the tasks set down for the day & then have the cheek to complain about being caught out? That's fun to deal with. Its even more fun when hourly rate staff who do 40 hours a week compare their work load to the boss who lives on site & does 100 hours a week, even more fun when they come into your office & say "hey im off to such n such concert next month".......not "im mad keen, is it possible to get the time off".

JK is trying to protect small to medium businesses from being fucked over by asshole staff, which they can easily do under current laws. Due to THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL CRISIS TO EVER HIT OUR PLANET it may be a good move to protect small businesses who are about to be put under a lot more pressure.

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.

Some people just need to be on the other side of the fence for 5 mins & experience the shit the current laws produce.

[Boob Johnson]

Yes, I've been there too. I've worked at a wage-slave job while failing to make a go of a couple of businesses. I'm not belittling the experience of dedicated businessmen at all. I'm not contracted to work more than 37.5, but I frequently exceed 70 hour working weeks without being paid for it. This is just another nail that will exploit people like me who believe their employer deserves respect, for nothing other than the simple reason they pay me.

You work TWICE the time for no extra pay?

Don't mean to be rude but that seems a little strange.