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!
The people spoke they voted in a National-led government. In regards to the article there simply wasn’t the need for opinions from workers. You can sure bet that as the legislation is put in motion etc etc you will get union and worker views in hundreds of articles. Unless of course you go by the analogy that the New Zealand is so bias they are doing all the bidding for National.Which just makes you sound silly.
To be honest the Unions have an influence in this country but they hardly represent the majority of workers. And certainly many don’t support the union views. Many small towns have little in common with unions or even Labour views and those people aren’t rich. They’re still workers but they think differently to the Urbanites.
National have a mandate for this excellent policy, get over it.
It’s not just this article, it’s a general pattern I’ve noticed and it’s particularly bad in the op-ed pages.
Also, winning an election in an essentially two-party representative democracy doesn’t give you a “mandate” to ram through any policy you like without discussion or debate. Claiming as much makes you look like you’re unable to handle scrutiny or criticism.
“Also, winning an election in an essentially two-party representative democracy doesn’t give you a “mandate’ to ram through any policy you like without discussion or debate”
Could have fooled me Tane. Labour did exactly that.
infused, I think you’ll find there was a lot of discussion and debate around Labour’s policies in their last term. And I didn’t see Labour supporters saying “we have a mandate, the people have spoken, stop complaining”. Politics doesn’t start and finish with elections, y’know.
Look Tane – you’re acting like you think you’re a “citizen” in a “democracy” or something. Just accept that the word of “business” is final, and their interests are the same as ours. The Herald gets it, why can’t the authors at the standard?
Roger, is that Slater in your avatar? It’s too small to see…
Perhaps this pic would be better?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Yu6lJst3lkM/SRXcLTJF5rI/AAAAAAAABzA/pRWA1to-I_c/s1600-h/Picture+8.png
ohhh – now that’s hot – who do you reckon picks up more (girls, not pies)? Slater or Farrar?
I’d go with Farrar on account of not being a creep
From the Herald article:
“It certainly reinforces the need for a commonsense policy like this that does give confidence to businesses to employ people, but also gives opportunities to employees to get their foot in the employment door.”
Yep have to agree, pity you union boys can’t see this.
By the way the ‘Results Group’ are business mentors who charge heaps for business coaching.
Granted, slater is the bigger creep, and farrar has toned down the “T and A” aspect of his blog lately, but they’re both still pretty creepy.
(edit) Farrar’s two-tone shirt in that photo is fucking abysmal.
eh.. whats creepy is people who air their obsessions for all to recoil from
CAPTCHA: Needless Sack… aw come on, who doesnt have good use for a sack now and then?
ieuan, I’ve heard all the arguments before, they just don’t make sense. Jobs exist because there is work that needs to be done, not because it’s easy to fire and exploit people. Your argument is based on ideology, not evidence.
djp:
Actually i think they’re both extremely boring people (they live their lives through a computer screen after all). They do have a certain “car crash” quality about them though.
These allegations of National Party bias leveled at the Herald are absurd.
They have taken a bipartisan view on most issues, giving equal and fair treatment to both National and Act.
Darn straight, this is the kind of policy we need to help employees get their feet in the door. Every three months.
I’ve never understood why it is supposedly acceptable for an employee to just up and leave the employer in the lurch at the drop of a hat, but not vice versa.
Same with the landlord tenant relationship.
Methinks some balancing is required. Not necessarily completely equal (esp. re tenants) but the pendulum has required some reverse swing. As the election proved and provided for…
Tane, your point re a journal for the ruling class could equally be applied to Nat Radio during the labour years. Heavily so.
Does this mean the Herald is planning to rotate its staff every 90 days?
Can’t wait for this. I will finally hire someone. Having hired someone originally, recommenced to me, good references, strong skills, total shit after a month.
Capticha: pruyn staff
lol
“Does this mean the Herald is planning to rotate its staff every 90 days?”
I thought they already did, not rotating, just sacking and moving journo and subbing jobs to Australia
I pity the poor prick that has to work for you infused. If you behave anything like you do here when you’re managing I’m not surprised you have problems…
But I guess that’s what this 90-day thing is about – giving useless pricks who don’t have the personal skills to manage staff the ability to compensate at the expense of workers…
vto. The business elite is the ruling class whether labour is in power or not.
So lets get this straight…
You’d have employers employ someone who after 60 odd days proved to be completely ineffective in thier position and then be at their mercy for forever and a day?
Let’s assume that an employer has 8 employees and makes 2 such hires – you’re saying you’d rather place the entire business in jeopardy (including the jobs of the 8 initial staff who are well suited to their job) in order to have 2 people employed who proved out of their depth? Those 2 hires could place enough inefficency pressures on the business to send it down the gurgler but you’re cool with that as long as they aren’t on “probation”.
No one is going to spend time going through the cost and risk of recuiting a new staff member every 90 days either – that’s just dumb. 1. It doesn’t instill any confidence in your workforce and 2. It will cost you more than any conceivable benefit.
The simple fact of the matter is if you can do your job then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. If anything it gives people, who may otherwise have seemed too risky initially, a chance to prove themselves.
I’m sorry but your logic truely defies belief.
You’d have employers employ someone who after 60 odd days proved to be completely ineffective in thier position and then be at their mercy for forever and a day?
See, this is the problem. People calling for this policy don’t even understand the bloody law as it stands. You can remove a non-performing staff member, you just need to follow a fair process and allow them right to appeal. It’s not very hard and good managers don’t have a problem.
If you can’t handle – let alone understand – basic employment law you shouldn’t be managing staff, simple as that.
ah yes SP so it is, silly me. Anyway, similar point.
interesting to see the same sorts of arguments and complaints from the opposition and the same sorts of claims and defences from the victorious as existed prior to the election. it’s like the chess board has simply been turned around for the next game..
true tane true. But there are a couple of problems in that. One, employees who take advantage and effectively extort a payment off a false claim (direct considerable experience a few years ago proved to me this is quite common). Two, not everyone who needs to employ someone is such an employee manager. People always have different skill sets and if, by what you say, you mean that every smaller business owner and employer in the country should have such skills or not be in business then I think that is a little misguided.
Fuckin A. Tane – it’s like Roger Kerr says – the greatest freedom in the free market is the freedom to fail. If you can’t manage staff or employ someone who can then you have no business in business. It’s like if you can’t manage to pay your taxes, invest in plant and machinery or make good choices about investing you fail. If you can’t manage staff you fail. Why should the law be changed to facilitate a bunch of crap employers. Let them fail like the whiny failures they are.
I’d accept some of the justifications from the business community IF when times were good they increased wages to ALLl workers. They dont, they do it when labour legislates a minimum wage increase. 8 times national opposed it.
Robinsod
Kerr also told Max Bradford competition would make for competitive and lower electricity prices. How right did he turn out to be? I mean someone made a shitload, but WE didnt get cheaper electricity.
robinsod from your comment you would appear to have no epxerience in business. and applying your own thesis to commentary it gets a 0/10.
Well Tane the 90 day bill does exactly that. It means you don’t have to go through some stupid process to let go of staff. Saves paperwork, saves mucking around and means you don’t have to worry about appeals etc. It means you don’t go employing someone and then it turns out they weren’t as they seemed. In current law that involves a set way of doing things. This legislation will make the process easier.
Its hardly a problem. You’re just ideologically opposed because you likely have some huge conspiracy about businesses and the ruling elite like others on the left have. If someone is good at their job the vast majority will keep that worker. Its even good for employees because many will be given a chance that they may not have gotten before. Its a trial. It will be abused by some. But those people already abuse the current employment laws. For the vast vast majority of employees and employers it will be good and work well.
I agree that most intelligent employers will not want to keep going through a recuitment process over and over again. They will only use the 90-day clause as necessary. There will be exceptions, there always are, most of us pay our taxes a few pay lawyers and accountants to get them out of paying taxes…
vto:
One, employees who take advantage and effectively extort a payment off a false claim (direct considerable experience a few years ago proved to me this is quite common).
Anecdotes aren’t reliable. The Department of Labour has actually done proper research and found the personal grievance gravy train is a myth.
Two, not everyone who needs to employ someone is such an employee manager.
Nor is everyone who runs a business an accountant either, but the IRD doesn’t let you get away with not paying your taxes. Why should the standard be any different when it comes to the livelihoods of your staff?
gc:
It means you don’t have to go through some stupid process to let go of staff. Saves paperwork, saves mucking around and means you don’t have to worry about appeals etc
That “stupid process” you’re talking about is the right to natural justice. It’s a basic human right. So is the right to appeal. If it means you have to do some more “paperwork” then so be it.
You’re just ideologically opposed because you likely have some huge conspiracy about businesses and the ruling elite
No, I’m opposed because I see on a regular basis people exploited and mistreated by their employers. It doesn’t happen to everyone and I’m not labelling all employers, but there are enough out there who will abuse this law and the human consequences aren’t pretty.