Written By: - Date published: 2:38 pm, December 8th, 2008 - 50 comments
Categories: Media, rumour, workers' rights -
Tags: 90 day bill, fire at will, matthew hooton, nine to noon, radio nz
During this morning’s Nine to Noon politics segment Matthew Hooton was saying how he thought the Government’s 100-day action plan would only include policies signalled prior to the election when he
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
:
“And I’m sure while there will be some complaints about one measure… er… some measures…”
I wonder what that one unpopular measure could be?
Rumours abound that National is planning to ram its 90 day fire at will policy into law under urgency before Christmas to mollify its increasingly restless business base. Could this be it?
Certainly if you were a new government having to take people’s rights off them you’d want to do it quickly and with as little time for democratic discussion and debate as possible, then hope the Christmas break helps push it down the memory hole.
Personally I think it’s unlikely smart operators like National would risk the potential backlash from such a transparently undemocratic move, but my usually reliable sources suggest otherwise. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Tim, the rumours I’m basing it on aren’t in the article. They’re based on what I’m being told by several sources who haven’t put me wrong yet. As I can’t reveal my sources, we’ll just have to wait and see.
gc, International Labour Organisation.
burt, I think you accidentally bolded the word retrospective.
Tane
Sorry, I also have a comment in moderation. I think I used the ‘w h a l e’ word. That comment adds some context to the comment where I slipped with html tags.
Oops – my bad.
edit: Cheers.
Tane
Ummm, let me think…. Labour’s employment law allows a catering company to openly say the surcharge helps make up for quieter times of year. F###k me, what BS employment law allows that to happen.
I can see that the situation published for the 7′s will add considerable support to almost anything National do. You see when people get a sniff of the fact that prices are hiked and workers are not getting the benefit. ERA suddenly looks a little tardy under that sort of flouting of it’s intent.
I still don’t support urgency, it smacks of can’t be trusted. Why do you think some people nagged about it here on the standard over the last while?
[Tane: That's a wee campaign the hospitality's been running against the Holidays Act for years. And while it's highly visible I don't see it having a lot of effect. Most people don't begrudge workers being paid extra to work on a public holiday, and if businesses genuinely need to put their prices up to maintain their profit margins then good on them.]
Tane
May I also respectfully suggest that organising a strike at the 7′s would not be a good idea for the unions public relations. That is unless it was swift and effective at delivering the benefit of any price rise to the workers.
[Tane: Burt, they'd have to be unionised and in bargaining for a collective agreement to strike.]
The government just recieved a very strong mandate from the electorate – as for public consultation about the policies thats about as democratic as you can get. JK signaled this was his intention and campaigned on it. I realise you did not vote for it, but a majority of New Zealanders did. Thats called democracy my friend.
For all DPF’s bloody preening and carry on about how destructive Helen Clark has been to parliamentary institutions, conventions and what not, this whole putting parliament into urgency to pass what could be some pretty controversial stuff, seems very very unprecedented. At very least everything passed aught to have a 1 year sunset clause requiring it all to be re passed properly into law with proper consultation and process.
“Strathen
I don’t like perceived rights that exist at the expense of another’s. It’s the classic line a law student gives to the bouncer, ‘I know my rights, I’m doing law’. Most of these law students haven’t quite figured out that the bouncers and the pub have rights as well”
You sound more like you have a chip on your shoulder than something to contribute, but moderately ironically, the student more likely hasn’t worked out that the bouncer knows he won’t ever be legally held accountable for his actions, so a comment like that is likely to get him a bashing.
I realise you did not vote for it, but a majority of New Zealanders did.
Oh don’t be daft. By far the majority of people who voted National would not have had a clue that this policy even existed. It’s on National’s web site, but I don’t recall them “campaigning on it”. More like “tried to keep very quiet about it”.
The 90 day employment law is being drafted at the moment.
Of course, it is being drafted under urgency and, no doubt, will be full of holes – this will create uncertainty. Businesses will end up cursing National as they stave off the inevitable law suits as lawyers test the loopholes.
All in all should be a fun mess to watch unfold.
“Of course, it is being drafted under urgency and, no doubt, will be full of holes – this will create uncertainty. Businesses will end up cursing National as they stave off the inevitable law suits as lawyers test the loopholes.”
Sounds like the EFA.
“All in all should be a fun mess to watch unfold.”
If it turns to cak it won’t be fun watching it unfold – unless you only think that our parliament exists so the public can cheer on their team and take joy in the other team failing.
Well, not all of parliament exists for that purpose but question time pretty much does. And I miss it so.
Not long now…
Well, whaddya know?
You read it here first:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4786640a6160.html
The 90 day bill was drafted a couple of years ago, and has already been to select committee. With any luck, all of those submissions should have picked up all the drafting flaws (there were some – removing the right of going to ERA to seek unpaid wages was pretty stupid, for example).
Graeme, can you tell me, are teachers covered by the policy? Because Anne Tolley and Kate Wilkinson have different answers.
What about an employee of a Subway franchise with fewer than 20 staff? Are they covered?
No, I cannot.
My point was only that this bill *should* be more free of drafting errors than other bills introduced and passed under such haste. Not quite a silver lining for you, but better than it might have been.