Written By: - Date published: 9:22 am, December 9th, 2008 - 38 comments
Categories: national/act government, workers' rights -
Tags: 90 day bill, dom post, fire at will, tracy watkins
Tracy Watkins reports that the National/Act government will be taking all work rights from anyone in a new job in a firm with 20 staff or less and they’re going to do it under urgency.
I’ve heard that the question of whether to proceed with the bill under urgency was still being hotly debated within National’s caucus last night as some senior MPs are worried that the protests it would spark will end their honeymoon and help set a narrative of the National/Act government as hardline right. Something that would mean each step of National’s plan to slowly shift the country right would be viewed through a less than sympathetic lens.
But business needs its payback and if Watkins is right then hundreds of thousands of Kiwis will find themselves with no protections or bargaining power very soon.
As with any erosion of work rights it will be the most vulnerable workers that are hit hardest. Workers in the retail and service sector are already poorly paid and more likely to circulated from job to job. Watch as their wages and conditions fall even further as employers in the sector take full advantage of the fact their new workers have no protections to drive wages down and then watch as the wages of those in more secure employment stagnate as employers take advantage of the leverage they gain from having high unemployment and workers with no rights on tap.
I have no doubt that if National have decided to run the no-rights bill through under urgency that they’ll do so as part of a “recovery package” in the expectation that the media will focus on the big infrastructure spend and whatever else they come up with rather than the removal of rights for a big chunk of Kiwi workers. We’ll see.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
pk you make some good points but sheesh do you need to swear. Any argument you make automatically loses respect because of it.
PK: “In theory, you can dismiss for incompetence; in practise it is a complex, risky and often expensive task”
I agree. But dont you think the solution proposed (90 Day bill) is a little extreme? Why not streamline the dismissal system a bit more? Surely a few tweaks here and there could make a huge difference.
Like I’ve already said… what would the ‘Stephen Franks type’ employer do with this bill? hmmmmmmm…. Reckon the factory would be filled to the brim right Ponsonby.
I think this bill for 90 days probation is good for putting some power back into employers hands. What really needs to be remembered is that a person or company giving a job to someone is a generous thing to do in the first place, They are agreeing to give THEIR money to someone for performing a service, they are the ones paying, they should have some real control over the quality of the service they are paying for (work being performed). Employers should have a high degree of control over where their money is going. Having a job is a privilege, not a right, and, especially during the first months of a job, you SHOULD be tested whether your work is up to standard and you are worthy of working (and receiving a wage) with this company. If you are a good employee a smart employer will keep you.