Written By: - Date published: 11:11 am, December 9th, 2008 - 51 comments
Categories: national/act government, workers' rights -
Tags: 90 day bill, fire at will
I’ve just been informed that the National/ACT Government has put its 90 day fire at will bill on the Order Paper and could ram it through under urgency as early as tomorrow.
This is frankly an astonishing abuse of our democracy. A piece of legislation that will remove basic work rights from hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in any one year is being rammed through Parliament without any discussion or debate.
As Phil Goff points out, this really is an outrageous act of arrogance that bodes very badly for the future of this government, especially given the noise they made when they claimed the EFA and the ETS – two of the most widely debated pieces of legislation in the last term – had been “rushed”.
Let’s hope National has the good sense to pull back from the brink.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
WTF?
There is no possible way this can be true.
Waited ages until giveing them a copy, not long before the first reading debate, sure, that’s possible. But no copy during the debate (!), I can’t believe that.
I see a book (?) you’ve quoted, but do you have a Hansard reference or something similar to back this up?
George – by the member in whose name that bill stands (i.e. for government bill, the appropriate minister) informing the Clerk that it is to be discharged – see Standing Order 71(1).
Tane:
If you think im wasting your time, perhaps I should be banned?
I don’t think its been 90 days since I have first started posting?
Secondly if your going to ban me, can I consult a third party who has never been here to back up my case not to be banned?, I want meetings, I want a strike by other posters.
The fact is, NO EMPLOYER is going to sack a worker that is producing great results, if they do, then you really wouldn’t want to work for them.
An employer should have the right to let someone go who isnt pulling their weight and who isnt going to in the future.
I have no problem with the 90 day bill and never should good workers.
BD: I have no problem with the 90 day bill and never should good workers.
You have nothing to hide, so you have nothing to fear, right? I recommend a move to Singapore.
L
Why would I want to move to Singapore?
If your good at your job, then the 90 day bill shouldn’t be a worry.
Brett Dale: Because Singapore is both wealthier and safer than NZ – I mean, sure, it’s a police state, but if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
L
“If your good at your job, then the 90 day bill shouldn’t be a worry”
So why have any workplace protections at all? Why have annual leave? Your boss will give you a holiday if you’re good at your job, eh?
Felix:
Your just being silly now, this bill is not taking away work place protections, but it is protecting employers.
BD: this bill is not taking away work place protections
It quite clearly and explicitly removes the right of an employee to take a personal grievance case for unfair dismissal within the first 90 days. That’s practically the only purpose of the bill and means that an employee can be fired for any reason or for no reason at all during that time.
If that isn’t removing a workplace protection, what would, in the Peoples’ Republic of BrettDalestan, constitute such a removal?
L
Brett…. your arrogance and stupidity surrounding this issue is just breathtaking!
Usually you at least make sense, even when I disagree with you. But this time you take the cake, pal.
What would you say to the poor people who ARE wrongfully dismissed with no right to take it up once this law is passed? ‘Tough shit’ seems to be your stand?
Very decent of you.
Or are you contending that it just won’t happen? In which case I would have to call you delusional….
Brett I have to agree with what DeeDub wrote.
I too generally respect what you have to say whether I agree or not but I don’t think you have a clue about this issue.
Lew has explained the point better than I have (as usual) so I won’t repeat it.
I will say, however, I think these next few years are going to be challenging for you if you plan on becoming a cheerleader for Key instead of the independent thinker that you usually seem to be.
What employer is going to fire a good worker?
BD: They don’t necessarily need to fire them – the threat of being fired is powerful enough to circumscribe protected behaviour such as insisting on proper breaks, leave, working conditions, safety and training, overtime pay, union organisation and complaints about conduct, especially personal conduct on the part of those who have the power to fire at will. It’s a chilling effect, similar to what the Electoral Commission found the EFA had upon the election campaign.
The differing responses between this issue and that issue are to do with situational utility, viz. who benefits, by how much, and at cost to whom?
L
Well who would stay in the place that treats you like that anyway?
So Brett you ARE arguing for a removal of all workplace rights from law.
That means no breaks in law, no leave in law, no minimum wage in law, no health and safety in law.
Because who would stay working somewhere if you didn’t get those things anyway?
Just admit it mate, you’ve said it a few times now whether you realise it or not.
Felix:
There has to be a balance, an employer should have the right to fire a new worker who isnt up to scratch.
Do you really think all these workers are all of a sudden going to be fired just for the sake of it???