I didn’t say that laziness and stupidity are the sole cause of all workplace accidents, only the one’s I’ve witnessed.

“One size fits all’ that IS kind of how most laws work.

For a few examples of where you are wrong about ‘how most laws work’ think about tax laws, Shop trading hours (I can buy petrol but not plants or alcohol on Easter Sunday!), speed limits, parking fines, postal rates, freight charges, RUC, assault laws, private property laws, drug laws.

I agree everybody should be treated equally under the law (I’m an idealist I know) but I don’t agree the law should homogenise the things it controls into as few rules as possible or just one.

Badly drafted laws or laws drafted to distort ideologically unpleasant natural orders (eg progressive tax laws) is what invites the sharp men in sharp suits to work the angles. Simple identification of different circumstances under the law IS the law reflecting the real world, which is the way it should be. No good will come from attempting to change the real world because political parties haven’t got the balls to back down on a belligerent ideological stance taken years ago to defeat the oppositions policy.

None of them have come from fundamental safety issues, they’ve all come from worker stupidity or laziness.

If worker ‘laziness and stupidity’ is the SOLE cause of industrial accidents; then why has the workplace death rate dropped over 60% in the last few decades since the introduction of comprehensive H&S systems? If your claim were true, then all those new safety measures and systems put in place by employers in that time would have made very little difference.

Or are you claiming that workers have gotten less lazy and stupid in that time? And if this is true would you be happy for them to be paid more as a result?

Protections will still apply, if a worker is pressured to take shortcuts they can just contact OSH.

And a week later… bye bye job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9IMYbt5UuE

I’ve been around a few workplace accidents in my time. None of them have come from fundamental safety issues, they’ve all come from worker stupidity or laziness.

Protections will still apply, if a worker is pressured to take shortcuts they can just contact OSH.

Safety laws may well apply; but the useful application of them still requires that both employer and employee act in good faith to make them work.

The kind of employer that worries me will pressure people to take shortcuts and take risks when they think no-one will notice. 99.99% of the time they get away with it.

It’s only when Mum or Dad doesn’t come home one night that the penny drops. But then it’s too late isn’t it?

Bollocks, safety laws will still apply. As I said earlier you’ll look pretty silly in a year or so, just ask people with actual experience of probationary laws.

I’d be very loath to have this available if there wasn’t any type of comeback on unprofessional idiots that abuse it. For preference make it a criminal act akin to fraud with a mandatory prison sentence if convicted. Some safeguard like that would probably satisfy me.

Because you are so sure it wouldn’t be a problem, then there would be no real hassle adding abuse of this provision to the crimes act?

6. There’s no evidence that people are being barred from the workforce solely by lack of a probationary period in which they can be fired for no reason (probationary periods with protection against unjustified dismissal are already legal). Incidentally, less than 0.3% of the workforce has been on the unemployment benefit for over a year.

5. Employers innately have the power in the employer/employee relationship – they own the means of production, they are the gatekeepers to employment, workers need to work to make a livable income. Workers rights law only goes some way to balancing the odds.

4. I’m not a fan of unpaid internships either – they prevent anyone who dons’t have another means of support from getting their foot in the door to many professions. In other countries the probatioanry period is not a no rights period, you still ahve protection against unjustified dismissal.

1, 2, & 3. I’m not saying that a significant number of workers will be churned every 89 days. Rather, this law gives licence to a few bad employers to exert great power over new employees (you can be fired for joining a union, refusing to do unpaid overtime, refusing unsafe work etc) and will be exploited by the same kind of people currently exploiting triangular employment relationships to avoid the costs of workers’ rights like sick pay.

This is just patch protection from the EPMU and their bloggers.”

[lprent: I wearily point out yet again. You are attributing an opinion to a lump of software running on some hardware. Now I realise this may come as a shock to you, but software doesn't think.

Direct your criticism to the writer of the post, and I'd suggest that you read the About and Policy sections at the top of the site. It appears you are ignorant about how this site runs.]

Sorry for the lazy typing.

In my defence, my guesss would that be that every contributer on the standard would buy into the business owners/baby eaters are mainly into this this legislation so they can strip worker of their rights and churn them every 89 days argument.

My points still stand, and I will direct them at Steve in the first instance…

1. It is uneconomic to continually churn employees every 3 months. Advertising, Interviewing and Training all cost time and money. I don’t know one employer who likes the interview and recruitment process.

2. If you churn employees for no good reason you are just as likley to end up with worse employees every time you churn. Your existing employees are going to get very tired of this very quickly, continually “helping the new guy”.

3. Recruiters are not going to work with you if you churn employees every 89 days.

4. The sky hasn’t fallen in, in countries where this has been tried. This is a little like a paid internship. My guess is that Steve would reel in horror at the idea of the overseas unpaid intership and proclaim it to be nothing more than slave labour.

5. Employees can walk away from a job whenever they feel like it (I was just talking to a friend who did that very thing), while employers have far less freedom.

6. There are large benefits to the long term unemployed and new job starters in this law. They get a chance to prove themselves in the workplace and the employer can take a calculated risk on them.