90-day stand down

[roy.nz]

Hey people might not like it because they are still in the soft labour run government mind set, but good on John Key for getting some things done, thats what we pay him for, right. And its only for small business's under 20 staff. So if you are in a big company and perform or even a small one you should be sweet. Stop finding things to windge about.

[pete376403]

Because current employment legislation is designed to protect the poor workers from the evil pit owner and not the other way round.

While it might be all very jolly for Carter Holt Harvey to have to retrain an under performing green button pusher to be a red button pusher,...

CHH just close the entire mill, putting the whole lot out of work (read this weeks Listener article about Putaruru) No worries about retraining. Evil pit owner Hart carries on life as usual in his $20M mansion on Waiheke and goes for a sail on his multi million dollar yacht

[Boob Johnson]

I must be missing summat here.
I need staff and take on a new salesman. He can't sell cars or is dishonest. Current system I can't fire him Ive got a process to work through.
Keys system means if he doesnt perform I fire him.
I believe if all staff were on that basis productivity would increase.
Reward performance not slackers
Logic says it has to have a trickle down effect

Its a pretty simple concept to a pretty simple issue, not all folks is taught common sense unfortunately.

Despite that the GDP of the USA rose and relative cost of living fell. Leave aside the Americans, the Europeans and the Aussies all earn far higher wages than we do, and manage to be more productive.

Productivity is tough to agree on and ultimately it is measured by our exchange rate. That is the real world judgement and unfortunately NZ has been slipping backwards since the 1960s. I'm not a fan of blaming workers because I think the whole nation needs to be involved with understanding what we need to do to improve. Bosses vs workers just distracts from much more fundamental issues.

Wise words Winston

[Winston001]

Say what? So a few months ago our productivity was at an all time high (NZ$ at 77c vs greenback) and now it's dropped off by 20%? Sorry mate, doesn't compute.

Have a look at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...UD_and_NZD.png which shows a steady down-trend since 1970. That's 38 years. The recent high value against the $US makes it hard to comprehend the fact NZ is going down - but the reality of wages and standard of living in the US, Australia, and Europe shows it is true.

The one thing we do have is an enviable lifestyle and thats worth a lot.

[Winston001]

Uh huh. and , notoriously, that economic powerhouse is based on principles the exact reverse of "sack 'em after 90 days". Based in fact on principles of high two way employer and worker loyalty, of very long employment periods (the 'job for life'); on a VERY high level of in house training.

I very much doubt that Japan would be the powerhouse you extoll had they adopted Mr Key's "hire 'em and sack 'em after 90 days" principle.

Japan is a totally bad example for your argument. It is everything that this bill is opposed to, and this bill is opposed to all the principles that made the Japanese economy so strong.

jrandom: Breed a hundred million crazy obsessive-compulsive weirdos and pack them into Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and everywhere in between, move New Zealand ten thousand kilometres closer to the rest of the world, and then spend three decades turning it into a giant factory that sucks in raw materials and sprays out consumer goods?

Brilliant idea!

You can go first.

Neither of these words of wisdom answers the question so I'll ask again:

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

One thing - it sure isn't because grandad still has a job in the basement counting paperclips. It doesn't matter what way you cut it, no business can employ staff for life without making profits to pay them year after year.

[Ixion]

Neither of these words of wisdom answers the question so I'll ask again:

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

One thing - it sure isn't because grandad still has a job in the basement counting paperclips. It doesn't matter what way you cut it, no business can employ staff for life without making profits to pay them year after year.

For the reasons I already referred to.

Because they have (had) a fanatical focus on quality . Which necessitates highly trained workers, highly committed and loyal workers . Ain't going to get either of those in a "90 day hire them and fire them" economy

Because they take a (very) long term approach. Recognising that sometimes keeping a worker on for years may pay off in years+1 when he comes up with an idea that makes millions

And a business can afford to employ a percentage of staff "counting paperclips" if the rest of the workers are so skilled and so motivated that the profits they generate pay the cost of the paperclip counter. Most businesses, staff costs are small part of the total cost of the product (often only about 10%). Having even 10% of the staff counting paperclips means a cost addition of 1%. That's a VERY small price to pay for a loyal dedicated highly trained workforce that take a long term view of their own employment "I'm going to be working for this company for years and years, so it makes sense to really commit myself to it"

As opposed to "The cunt will sack me after 89 days anyway so why should I give a fuck. If he goes bust on day 100 because of some stuff up I made , so much the better. Karma like"

I cannot believe that anyone can expect to hire somone on a "90 days and you're out basis" and get any sort of motivation commitment or effort.

IN reality of course a good many workers will walk out before the 90 days, because they've lined up the next job (either with another 90 day employer, or, better, with a big company). And if that leaves the boss in the shit, tough titty. Boss says he doesn't owe the worker anything, why should it be any different the other way round.

This law is going to make it INBCREDIBLY hard for small companies to get good staff.

Sure, MAYBE if you accept a job with a small company , you'll still have it on day 91. Maybe. But why take the chance. Good workers will almost always have choices. The choice in future will be the 20+ company.

[Finn]

It was my understanding that is the amount it cost the company, not what the worker earned.

Yip, the burden rate. Remove that employee and it doesn't cost you $70 per hour.

[Max Preload]

.....Japan. No oil. No coal. A small island nation with less natural resources than NZ and 30 times the population to feed. They aren't close to Western markets, yet despite that are an economic powerhouse. Why?

Lifestyle?

[Finn]

CHH just close the entire mill, putting the whole lot out of work (read this weeks Listener article about Putaruru) No worries about retraining. Evil pit owner Hart carries on life as usual in his $20M mansion on Waiheke and goes for a sail on his multi million dollar yacht

You just don't get it do you.

[Winston001]

For the reasons I already referred to.

Because Japan have (had) a fanatical focus on quality . Which necessitates highly trained workers, highly committed and loyal workers . Ain't going to get either of those in a "90 day hire them and fire them" economy

Because they take a (very) long term approach. Recognising that sometimes keeping a worker on for years may pay off in years+1 when he comes up with an idea that makes millions

And a business can afford to employ a percentage of staff "counting paperclips" if the rest of the workers are so skilled and so motivated that the profits they generate pay the cost of the paperclip counter. Most businesses, staff costs are small part of the total cost of the product (often only about 10%). Having even 10% of the staff counting paperclips means a cost addition of 1%. That's a VERY small price to pay for a loyal dedicated highly trained workforce that take a long term view of their own employment "I'm going to be working for this company for years and years, so it makes sense to really commit myself to it"

Are we having fun or whut! Can't agree about the wage costs percentage. Even in low wage jobs like McDonalds and supermarkets, wages can amount to 19% of business costs. Actually the really efficent businesses are in IT and NZ doesn't have much of that.

Generally wages as a business cost run from 20% - 50%.

As opposed to "The cunt will sack me after 89 days anyway so why should I give a fuck. If he goes bust on day 100 because of some stuff up I made , so much the better. Karma like"

I cannot believe that anyone can expect to hire somone on a "90 days and you're out basis" and get any sort of motivation commitment or effort.

IN reality of course a good many workers will walk out before the 90 days.....And if that leaves the boss in the shit, tough titty. Boss says he doesn't owe the worker anything, why should it be any different the other way round.

I guess here is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I simply do not believe that the average Kiwi would gain a job with the intention beforehand of slacking around and walking out after 90 days. Its dishonest and against human nature.

We all need security of income. A job is much more than wages - it gives a sense of satisfaction, self-worth, camaraderie, and stability. Why would any person jepordise that by jumping every 90 days? The tiny tiny number of people who would do that aren't people the average employer wants anyway.

[mstriumph]

...................
90 % of the people I have met are good honest people , who if treated in a supportive way, give back what they received.

A few are truly distructive ,to the work place ...( and maybe incapable of a simple task. Sandshoes and tree planting is the best for them ,,,)

MOST Managers I have met are truly awful, Failing to either set out clear guidelines, expectations and a lot of the time with out the relevant skill set being given to the worker. Finally the consequenses of not meeting those expectations ( they are never said , just posted on the wall or written in the contract, just above the small print.).........................

and therein lies the problem
to coin a phrase, people rise to their level of incompetence

---- my observations are much the same as yours - so what turns a well-intentioned, hard-working employee into a truly DREADFUL manager? .... one can only suppose the process that transformed them from one to the other

---- in most companies, the assumption is that a good - say - mechanic will automatically make a good supervisor

WRONG WRONG WRONG - the skillset has similarities but it doesn't end there by a long way

unfortunately our system of rewards, our systems of career progression, are mostly based on this erroneous principal

- you have a magnificent mechanic - you 'reward' him by making him workshop manager ..... it may work out for a while but what will likely happen is that you will have sentenced your magnificent mechanic to a daily drudge of administrative and customer contact tasks he [or she] is ill-equipped for and loathes and the frustration of having to supervise and coach people with less ability than he [she] has to do the actual job s/he loves whilst all s/he REALLY longs to do is do the job him/herself

what the economy, the country and human happiness REALLY needs is to get RID of this 'promotion' thingy ...... let's strip the 'reward' money and status from what are, essentially ADMIN positions for which some specialised industry knowledge is needed .......

let's build a culture where we hire really great ADMIN people with primarily ADMIN and PEOPLE skills and average mechanical knowledge to do the [in this example] workshop manager positions and let's reward our exceptional mechanic with money and status, sure - a voice on the company council, sure - BUT for pity's sake let him/her go on doing the job they love .... let's build a structure where he can progress WITHOUT having to leave it

could be, they may want a change ... but how much better, more profitable, for EVERYONE if they don't have to change to progress.

ok
rant over

*waits for everyone to throw rotton tomatoes and tell me how silly i am ...*

[mstriumph]

Originally Posted by RantyDave
Large NZ corporates don't get even a snifter of it - the law only applies to companies with less than 20 employees. But don't let facts get in the way of a good witch burning.

DaveThere's already talk about splitting this place into separate business entities. You tell me if it's a witch hunt.

This actually happened in Aus when similar legislation was enacted .....

[mstriumph]

Dunno about that. My vasectomy's proven fairly effective. References provided on request, etc.

oh no little randoms to go forth and populate??.... have you no regard for the future of your bloodling??

[Tank]

Its dishonest and against human nature.

Sadly - its only against the nature of some people. There are plenty of people out there who only want everything given to them on a plate, and are unwilling to work to better themselves and their family.

They are also generally bitter against those who DO work hard and get their shit together.

[RantyDave]

people rise to their level of incompetence

This is an entirely separate problem and one that can only be solved by not having pay rates reflect the hierarchical structure. Yes, that means workers being paid more than bosses; bosses being promoted to actually working (if capable); and a change in corporate culture that means managers get seen as part of the support infrastructure for the workers and not the other way round.

Dave