Written By: - Date published: 12:36 pm, December 4th, 2008 - 74 comments
Categories: Media, workers' rights -
Tags: 90 day policy, kate wilkinson, nz herald, results group
The Herald continues its campaigning today with a puff piece about a poll that claims business wants National’s 90 day ‘fire at will‘ policy enacted as soon as possible.
The policy would remove the right of any worker in a small business to appeal against unfair dismissal during their first 90 days in a new job. But apparently the Herald didn’t think workers – you know, us, the people whose rights are being taken away – were worth talking to.
Instead, they quoted National’s employment spokesperson Kate Wilkinson – “It certainly reinforces the need for a commonsense policy like this” – and Ben Ridler, the managing director of something called the ‘Results Group’ – “It only takes a couple of bad hires to kill a small business, so this flexibility is urgent.”
The Herald acts like it’s a journal for the ruling class, then they wonder why people aren’t buying their newspapers.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
An interesting post Strathen.
I do like your rules.. automatic dole and database thing is a great idea. Would you expect the database of employers to be publicly available or just to someone like Department of Labour?
My only concern is that:
“Hopefully a consultation process can be followed to protect against these. Transparency of the process would be good”
I cant see a heck of a lot of consulation going on if the 90 day bill is part of Keys “100 Day Plan” – is it?
Plus the fact that you mention 2 forms to fill out (Sounds fine to me)…. but how would it sound to the Minister of Regulatory Reform, Rodney ‘Razor’ Hide?
-
I like the rules you propose, I just cant help but think the likelihood of any such rules to be placed with the bill are very slim. If the nats are smart they will try and make the bill appeal to workers, but I think they’ll naturally just make it appeal to their mates the employers.
The company I work for does a lot of work around the country for several large firms, and due to the nature of the work, a lot of workers are left to work unsupervised with company cars, items, etc. Naturally, this requires a large amount of trust and responsibility for a lot of workers, not to mention the fact that it is 110% essential for our workers to ‘get it right’ first time.
However, due to modern technology, we monitor our workers out in the field extensively, and if anything ‘doesnt look right’ it is very quickly dealt with. (we even hire workers full time to do the monitoring).
My company has had no trouble dismissing workers who consistently mis-perform, or who display flagrant disregard for company rules and procedures, who are dishonest.
We have a robust dissmissal procedure, with clear rules about serious misconduct in our contracts, and while there are hoops to jump through (like a hearing), when it is put in motion, the worker is pretty much gone by lunchtime.
In short, as long as there is clear rules about what warrants a sacking, etc, there is no need for this law.
All this does is promote a throwaway culture where workers are nothing more than warm bodies to be replaced at will, and that the lowest common demoninator becomes hiring a worker solely because you can get rid of them in 90 days if ‘it doesnt work out’. And if all employers think their workers are just going to be lazy ungreatful slackers who will steal anything that is not nailed down, then our business community needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror.
This proposed law is going to hit the people who work in the retail and hospitality the most, the young, single working mothers, the unskilled etc and so on. A lot of them are already treated worse than sweatshop workers in China, and this will make the situation much much more harsh for them. Given that it doesnt take much training to wait tables or operate a till, the whole ‘invest a lot of time and training’ line doesnt wash. A single mother who waitresses, for example, can be sacked merely because she had to pick her sick child up from school, and she can have no comeback, if it is in the 90-day trial period. Down the road, with out any redress. Is this what people want? Its not what I want. Thats why we have such laws, to make sure people are protected from dismissal because the boss doesnt like their tie colour.
I dont see how eroding workers protections and wages and conditions to sweatshop level is going to help anyone. If anything, it will just create more disloyal staff.
Im glad others have taken note of the blatent pro National bias of NZ Herald .This
week our subsciption ran out and for the first time after 40,years of subs my wife and I have had enough of their Right-Wing propogander. We have also had enough
of the incredible hate and lies against Helen Clark from columists Fran O’Sullivan and the near mad ravings of Garth George. Columns from the far right BRT. and the Maxim group now dominate the Herald . Shattering its claim to be independent.
In future my wife and I will read the Standard . Why should we pay an exorbinant
subsciption ( its just gone up 10c) to have ulcers , To quote another Right Wing group “enough is Enough.
Hey there Pinkpostman,
Good on you for actually taking a stand with action instead of empty rhetoric. Apparently the last time the herald showed its right bias it had to retreat because of just such action. Good on you!
In fact you have inspired me. Even though I only read it online, it still contributes to their revenue and rankings. I am going to remove it from my bookmarks now.
If they want to rebrand themselves as a right wing rag, then so be it. I don’t read them.
It ain’t much, but its a start.