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.

It’s not ALL employees, it’s for small companies only – cue hysterical reaction!!! But frankly there are a lot of t**ts out there – employers and employees – I’ve seen s***te corporate employers who can play the rules but I’ve not seen a lot of evil small employers – most of these guys are too close to their workforce and actuall human.

I can only state my own anecdotal evidence but I’ve been fussy and lucky in who I work for. Buts let’s use some common sense – there are a***holes around – employers and employers – I can state based on personal thus anecdotal evidence that good, small, employers avoid employing people until they are forced to – they avoid the risk as it’s often their house on the line.

No-one should pretend that this isn’t a transfer of risk from employer to employee – the question is would more people overall get jobs because of this – in a low unemployment environment this is a crap option – so over the last few years the average employee could tell the boss to go take a jump if he offered this option or he/she would not move from his current role – considering where we are going over the next couple of years in the economy this might not be a bad option

Of course, the devil is in the detail as if it’s too easy to be a serial probationary employer then it will get abused by a***ole employers but if it’s too hard to apply a true probationary process then it will be a waste of space

Anecdotally (i.e. what I’ve read in the paper and seen on TV) things didn’t change for the majority – because most employers are decent people – but for some workers, the law was used against them in a most heartless manner.

Australians asked themselves why this was necessary, couldn’t find a legitimate answer, and got rid of the architect of the law – out of government and out of his own seat.

It’s an example I would have thought National might want to consider before heading down this road.

I can’t believe I am living to see this in a country that once prided itself on being first in the world at caring for it’s more vulnerable citizens.

You can already have a probation period in terms of employing people – 3 months is currently ‘seen’ as reasonable and 6 months as abuse of a probationary process. It is also a bit risky as there is case to say that this is removing the employee’s rights even though they may have signed a contract and under law it is arguable one cannot contract out of particular legal rights e.g. employee’s rights.

What I have observed is that smaller firms are often very cautious about employing extra staff as they perceive that it’s a permanent decision that can be very difficult to rectify when a mistake is made. I’ve employed people unsuitable for a job and the whole dialogue here around “fixing hiring policies’, “you can sack people for lack of performance’ etc is rather naïve. Once you’ve employed the person the rules are strict and even if it’s obvious that employee has “over represented’ themselves in their CV and interview process proving this is in practical terms impossible and you have to move to removal for incompetence. The whole area is too subjective. You can’t have a conversation along the lines of “this was an obvious recruitment mistake” with the employee as that’s pretty much constructive dismissal. This then hits the whole issue of you have to then try and fix the person’s problems, give them an opportunity to rectify any issues provide support mechanisms to assist this etc. A month of two wages later and you can still end up in arguments with someone who basically misrepresented themselves (lied), and in several cases I’ve been exposed to very deliberately.

On the other side of the coin I’ve no doubt, particularly in low skilled jobs, some toe-rag employees will abuse this process to hire and fire in the American manner though they already have mechanisms to get around the law. Making employees subcontractors, relying on the employees fear not to rock the boat, using lots of small companies and winding them up to avoid liabilities etc That type of employer is quite likely to ignore rules anyway.

The question comes back to whether one believes the majority of small companies are owned by even-handed people who want to treat their staff reasonably or by rapacious, out for the money sods who will treat their staff poorly for an extra dollar. Based on my experience the vast majority are the former who aren’t Cullen’s “rich pricks’ and who just want to be master of their own destiny and have an opportunity to, maybe, be better off financially.

No one is being taken outside and shot if they don’t measure up.”

No, they are just potentially losing their (usually) sole means of support for no reason.

Does anyone know what the required notice period, if any, will be for this dismissal ‘procedure’?

I think the ‘crime’ is some of the attitudes on this site, we are talking about a contractual arrangement between two parties.

Like any arrangement it relies more on trust and goodwill between the parties than contractual law.

It is a 90 day no fault termination period in an employment contract so that employers can decide if the person they have employed is suitable for the position.

No one is being taken outside and shot if they don’t measure up.

That does make you seem a little foolish to me, but what would I know about employment law or anything else?

“it allows the employer to fire an employee that does not meet the standards for which they were employed”

They already can. However I will admit that the process is too bias to the employee, if that is the 4 headed monsters concern why dont they loosen the procedure for getting rid of slack workers? That procedure will be one that is fair rather than simply getting rid of people with no explanation.

Instead, they have opted for a bill that will allow shit managers to be even shitter at what they do and give them a mandate to fire at will and hire with a mentality of ‘give em a go for 90 days’

The sensible option seems to be to make the process easier for getting rid of workers based on poor performance, or as previously discussed here a number of amendments and checks be placed on the bill before it is rushed out in to law: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/a-journal-for-the-ruling-class/ (Sorry LP I dont know the etiquette on linking things)

But, cynical I am about this 4 headed monster and I suspect they will rush through this bill without any of those things included in the bill.

The new legislation allows the employer to fire for no reason whatsoever. It’s pretty simple.

Whether or not you believe it will be utilised for this the fact remains it will be possible. You cannot deny that and be serious???

I seriously don’t want to get into a tit for tat argument, but no it doesn’t. it allows the employer to fire an employee that does not meet the standards for which they were employed. There is a rather large difference.

I believe this law will actually help unskilled employees get jobs that they would not have even been considered for in the past.

Now i know that you and i, or most of the contributors on this site are never going to agree, but that’s the way i see it.