90-day stand down

[mstriumph]

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.

ouch! who pulled YOUR chain, boyo? ...... not our usual, sunny self today, are we?

.... suggest that if you have dumb, illogical arses working for YOU then your advertising/recruitment/hiring process and powers of observation are up to maggots ..

... and if, once you've been stupid enough to hire them, you can't find a reasonable way to let them go under present workplace arrangements then your life-skills and backbone are deficient ....

but hey - i'm having a bad day too!

[davereid]

..... large NZ corporates will milk this for all it's worth.

No they wont. It is not available to companies with more than 20 staff.

[mstriumph]

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

... well - erm - OBVIOUSLY??

[Murray]

I will post it again because obviously many have not followed the thread. It applies to businesses with less than 20 employees as attached

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4787849a11.html

Currently I think the Government employs more than 20 people so Keys job is safe??

Joe the panelbeater now has a chance when he gives jack a go and finds out he's a plonker/thief/falsifyed qualifications etc...

so far about 80%+ in favour for the law in this thread

[Finn]

Obviously, productivity figures mean different things to different people......

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

[short-circuit]

True. To unions (which have destroyed manufacturing in the US i.e. Motor Vehicle industry) is means people are working too hard and should slow down.

Nothing to do with cheaper labour costs in developing nations then eh?

[The Stranger:Me]

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.

Work?
At a council?
Don't you mean you're employed there?

[short-circuit]

No they wont. It is not available to companies with more than 20 staff.

That's an easy fix - once joe public forgets about the first raft of changes, just a few minor tweaks and ram it through again

[mstriumph]

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.

it's been my experience that contract workers cost significantly more than permanent employees ?

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,

employers may have that view
unfortunately they quite often have less committed people working for them in a hire/fire position .......... perhaps a genial but less-than-ept family member [if it's a small business] who hires because he [or she] likes someone then will use this legislation to fire to prevent his [or her] lack of proper skills and reference checks coming to the notice of the owner

we've had a variety of this legislation for some time
i've seen it happen

in many cases it's just a bandaid for sloppy hiring procedures to cover the backs of inept managers who should, themselves, be let go

and says more about your overly jaundiced view of reality than about the economic intelligence of this policy.

don't know why you people have to get so personal when responding to posts -- it's - erm - nasty...... [besides which it gives real nasties like moi an opportunity to spank you back ]

[Finn]

ouch! who pulled YOUR chain, boyo? ...... not our usual, sunny self today, are we?

.... suggest that if you have dumb, illogical arses working for YOU then your advertising/recruitment/hiring process and powers of observation are up to maggots ..

... and if, once you've been stupid enough to hire them, you can't find a reasonable way to let them go under present workplace arrangements then your life-skills and backbone are deficient ....

but hey - i'm having a bad day too!

Today, about 8 people pulled my chain.

Generally, we hire very good people and have a great team but it's a numbers game. Sometimes people mislead info on CV's, references can't be trusted and you can advertise for a role and not even get half decent responses. Seems all the good ones have GONE TO AUSTRALIA!!!

I've made 1 hiring mistake in 12 years. This person was a prize prick. Out of principle I said they wouldn't get a cent out of us and they didn't. In fact they owed us in the end cause we nailed them. Still, we shouldn't have needed to go through all the shit we did.

If people are useless, they should be able to be fired. Full stop. Out the door. Don't come Monday. Hand's up all those with a job... not so fast you. You're SO fired...

[Clockwork]

Joe the panelbeater now has a chance when he gives jack a go and finds out he's a plonker/thief/falsifyed qualifications etc...

so far about 80%+ in favour for the law in this thread

Pretty sure you can fire anyone for the last two items, with or without this law change. Of course, with the law change a "plonker" could just be some one who refused to wash the bosses car over the weekend!

The reality is that this law won't hurt those of use working for large companies who by and large are responsible employers. But those poor sods who end up worikng for the cowboys.... better luck next time.

[Finn]

Nothing to do with cheaper labour costs in developing nations then eh?

That too. Wonder why NZ didn't get any of that?

[Clockwork]

[QUOTE=Finn;1844801
Generally, we hire very good people and have a great team but it's a numbers game. Sometimes people mislead info on CV's, references can't be trusted and you can advertise for a role and not even get half decent responses. Seems all the good ones have GONE TO AUSTRALIA!!![/QUOTE]

I'm sure if you paid enough they'd come back. Of course you may have to promise not to sack them if you're having a bad hair day!

[Murray]

Pretty sure you can fire anyone for the last two items, with or without this law change. Of course, with the law change a "plonker" could just be some one who refused to wash the bosses car over the weekend!

Yep you can fire someone for theft, cost us $7k for the lawyer to attend mediation etc etc etcr

[Clockwork]

Yep you can fire someone for theft, cost us $7k for the lawyer to attend mediation etc etc etcr

Guess it would have been cheaper to call the Police