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!
I don’t think so. You guys seem to be the only ones obsessed by this.
You guys seem to be the only ones obsessed by this.
Funny, the post links to an article saying it’s the top policy demand of the business sector, and barely an interview goes by without Phil O’Reilly or Alasdair Thompson banging on about it. Perhaps you should read more widely.
I see this story is tagged in media, rumour, and workers rights. Why is it not tagged in Employers Rights?
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. It seems to me that those opposed to this legislation are the people who have not quite realised that Employers should have rights as well. Maybe one day education will catch up with the real world and systems can be developed to embrace the fact that everyone has rights, and they need to be evenly applied across the board. Not just to favour what commentators decide is the little guy.
I believe in equal rights, I just don’t think many employees have equal rights with their employers.
Strathen, employers do have legal rights. They’re allowed to own the means of production and have the power to compel workers under their employment, fire them if they don’t perform to expectations, restructure them, make them redundant, and take for themselves any wealth their employees produce. This power is granted, and enforced, by the full power of the state.
The reason we talk about workers’ rights is because workers need rights to balance the inequality of power inherent in the employment relationship as outlined above. In my view, and many others’, National’s fire at will measures will tip the balance unacceptably in the employer’s favour.
Sorry I didn’t explain myself properly.
You are the only one’s obsessed by this being an unpopular measure.
As for tipping the balance, this only affects new employees, 95% of the work force are unaffected.
I read widely, hell I read ‘The Standard’ regularly and I am not a hard nosed righty or a loopy lefty.
Tane – Yes, very valid rights for the employer if they were that black and white. Unfortunately it doesn’t quite work that way. The current system only sees employers as cash cows. So to do workers after recent ‘low unemployment’.
In my eyes, the only people that should be afraid of this legislation are the crap workers. Especially those that think they are really good, when in fact they aren’t. Some people shouldn’t be in the jobs they do.
ieuan, we’ll have to wait and see. Everyone I’ve talked to about it who isn’t a short-sighted employer has been opposed to it. The more long-term-thinking employers I’ve spoken to have seen it as unnecessary and potentially corrosive to their employment relations, as well as having a chilling effect on labour mobility.
As for the ‘compromise’ of making it for small businesses only, I think people a) recognise the inherent unfairness in the policy, b) realise they too could work for a small business in future and c) understand that this measure is just the thin end of the wedge and soon enough it’ll be extended to cover everyone, including them.
Strathen, the law as it stands already takes care of “crap workers” if managers actually manage their staff properly. This policy puts everyone at risk simply to reward bad management.
Strathen, Freedom for the Pike means death to the Minnows.
We all have to share this little pond, if you know what I mean.
Well if it the bill will mean the end of the world for workers, then i am sure it will bring out the best in the likes of Lynne Pillay, Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney in opposing it. Or maybe the reason such outstanding candidates like these 3 and Lesley Soper lost was that the public think this bill wont affect almsot all workers and businesses
[Tane: I've just had a look through your recent comments - more than half are dedicated purely to taking cheap shots at Pillay, Fenton and Moroney. Start mixing up your game or I'll start deleting your posts.]
Opposed to it, or opposed to using them?
Good long-term-thinking employers can benefit from this – they can advertise about how they’re not going impose 90-day probation periods, and get all the good employees.
‘Everyone I’ve talked to about it who isn’t a short-sighted employer has been opposed to it. The more long-term-thinking employers I’ve spoken to have seen it as unnecessary and potentially corrosive to their employment relations, as well as having a chilling effect on labour mobility.’
Well count me as one of your ‘long-term-thinking employers’ who thinks it’s a good policy.
If you guys really want to fight for something how about getting better redundancy payment terms written into law because basically there is nothing at the moment.
The union movement has fought for and continues to fight for minimum redundancy protections. The CTU issued a statement calling for it just last week.
As a result of union campaigning Labour even introduced a policy for the 2008 election to bring it in, but they lost. With a National/ACT majority in the house that policy is dead until at least 2011 and with changes to employment law it’s likely going to be much harder for workers to negotiate it themselves through their unions.
Comment ieuan – you’re right you didn’t explain yourself properly, Having started a new job 2 weeks ago I will be losing my current rights in a few days time you have flippantly disregarded the current working rights for approx. 107,000 workers (5% of people in the workforce) and put about the population of Dunedin potentially at risk.
If you read a lot you may wish to read the links above to see what I mean.
The mole-hill just turned into a mountain
Whats the matter with the re-edit and links????
[lprent: Use the links button in the tinyMCE editor, but reedit is still HTML. I will fix the links]
At least workers will have more chance of keeping their jobs under National. They will not destroy the economy as badly as a Lab/Grns govt. This is more important in these more difficult times. Labour could not get a monolopy ACC system to work after all.
Not all workers are equal and rest assurred, the deadwood will be the first to be culled if lay-offs are NECESSARY.
Also, employers will not hire and fire after 90 days unless they have good reason. It is not worthwhile to do this unless necessary. Employers take on risk as well as extra costs after employing new staff (extra costs above salary, ACC, super etc) such as training, low productivity to begin with, HR issues, recruitment costs etc, etc. Why would you do this for the sake of 90 days employment then fire before you hire fulltime? The left do not seem to realise this.
Employeers need more flexibility to have the best workforce possible, not nanny state interference from non-business parties like Lab/Grns. This will in time hopefully lead to higher productivity and more jobs. This is what NZ needs not higher social costs bourne by the employers in employing deadwood when they do not perform.
Do workers want this? Do they know how it will effect their lives? People who don’t work may not want to see it imposed on people they care about.
It is time to get a petition circulating the country on this issue. Maybe some employers will sign it as well.
Leftie – did 80% of the population want the S59 changed? People should have the right not to work just as the state should have the right to say sod off when they want a benefit instead.
What workers should also ask in these harder times is also, do I want to keep my job? Unemployment will affect their lives more than a slightly more pro employer workplace. Lets face it, after 90 days all will be sweet as long as you pass muster. Most people will be ok. I may have to go thru the same 90 day process one day, it does not bother me. It has worked ok in the UK under a Lab govt for over a decade now.
Johnty, you’re actually not hearing, or addressing, the argument.
The argument is that this law is wide open for abuse. By taking away the employees right to appeal a wrongful termination, you’re seriously tilting the balance of power between employer and employee.
What is wrong with the current probationary law? What doesn’t it allow you to do? How can it be improved without severely limiting the rights of a worker in these troubled economic times?
Very funny Tane:
The union movement has fought for and continues to fight for minimum redundancy protections. The CTU issued a statement calling for it just last week.
As a result of union campaigning Labour even introduced a policy for the 2008 election to bring it in, but they lost.
Lack of a minimum redundancy payout is a disgrace and there should be a legal minimum – say 3 weeks for the first year and then 2 weeks for every year of service afterwards, and have it rank either ahead of or pari passu with the IRD.
But the humour in your comment is classic – Labour were in power for 9 years and they got around to introducing a policy to maybe bring it in if they got in for a fourth term. What on earth where they doing for 9 years? Put that one along side all the other policies labour thought were brilliant and necessary (3 weeks out from an election).
[Tane: Dude, you know better than that. Deleted, and warned.]
gomango – my comment addressed the issue of unions campaigning for minimum redundancy entitlements and illustrated the fact that they have. I’m not defending Labour taking nine years to bring it into policy – that’s why I vote Green.
However, what I will say for Labour is that they overwhelmingly move in the right direction on workers’ rights, just very slowly. National overwhelmingly moves in the wrong direction, and often quickly. Minimum redundancy entitlements are a case in point.
Tane wrote:
An interesting point Tane. If Labour moves slowly, and the Greens are up to speed with the direction that the unions want, why do so many unions continue to affiliate and provide so much support to Labour? If the Greens are the true voice of small-”l” labour, then why don’t the unions back the Greens instead of Labour?
Tim, there are a few reasons.
First, working people don’t tend to vote Green. The Greens’ policies are very pro-worker, but their voters tend to be well-off middle class liberals. As a party its branding, its issues and its culture are not conducive to mass working class support.
Second, unions have a long history with Labour going back nearly a hundred years. There are very strong links and they’re not going to go away in a hurry.
And of course, unions have democratic structures to decide on affiliation. If members of unions want to affiliate or disaffiliate then in time they will. Labour’s number of affiliates is growing; I don’t think the Greens have provision for it in their constitution.
I couldn’t resist posting this headline that’s currently on the front of http://www.nzherald.co.nz: IRD: Tax system under pressure from rich avoiding tax
And their answer? Stop asking them to pay it.
Not only new Govt’s. I’m thinking EFA. You guys supported the undemocratic way that was passed was that because Labour did it rather than National?
Is it really that simple; Labour Good – National Bad !
burt - the EFA went through select committee and months of intensive public debate, and rightly so. It was not rammed through under urgency and without discussion like it appears the 90 day legislation will be.
Tane
Have the Human rights commission recommended the 90 day legislation be scrapped?
I don’t know if they’ll get a chance burt, it’s being rammed through under urgency. It does appear to be in breach of ILO conventions though.
Tane sorry but what is the ILO?
I actually disagree with the 90 day bill being urgent. I agree with the policy but feel it should go through the normal thorough process. They could speed it up sure and bring it into urgency after a select committee process. This would mean that it’d be faster than normal policy but still allow for some decent debate and questioning about the policy. But it really shouldn’t be so urgent that proper questioning and debate can take place.
gingercrush
I agree, It’s not a case for urgency. As the EFA wasn’t a case for urgency to deny a strongly recommended second round of public consultation. The ETS wasn’t a case for urgency either. Perhaps I missed the posts being critical of Labour at the time. DPF certainly had a few, I wonder if DPF (and WhaleOil for that matter) will go bananas if Key uses urgency as Tane suggests he might.
Tane wrote:
I’m sorry Tane but you really have no evidence for that. The 27-point plan that National published just before the election spelt out the priorities for the first 100 days. In case you missed it you can read it at http://national.org.nz/web/post_election_action_plan.pdf . The 90-day probation period isn’t in there.
You have based your “rumours” on an online survey to justify a claim that National is planning to ram through under urgency a move that it did not set as one of its 27 priorities. I think that is mischievous, on your part. The article you link to clearly has Kate Wilkinson saying that the 90-day probation period is not one of National’s first 100-day priorities.
As for what Hooton might have been referring to as controversial measures, you can judge for yourself where the controversy might lie. It’s hardly a secret agenda. Obviously in that list, some of the more contentious issues are:
1. National’s tax relief
2. RMA reform
3. EFA repeal
Labour is welcome to relitigate those issues if they choose to do so but if they are hoping some big fight over the 90 day probation period is going to be rammed through Parliament under urgency, they might be disappointed.
gingercrush
If we are really talking about democratic process. Retrospective validations weren’t a case for urgency either. Validations for misappropriations are by convention validated in the next budget. Timing is everything sometimes isn’t it.