Creating Jobs for the Young…and not how you’d expect.

Written By: RedLogix - Date published: 10:42 pm, August 20th, 2011 - 48 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

So we can safely predict this National govt will score it’s usual epic fail around youth unemployment. And we all know the reasons why this is such a critical issue, so I’m not going to re-hash them either. It’s just that both sides in this debate keep missing the crux of the matter… what is needed to create those crucial first career defining, work-habit forming steps in a young person’s working life.

Well there are only two ways for government to do it:

Directly step into the market with public sector entities like the NZR, Post Office and MoW of olden days. Sadly I think this powerful option has been stolen from us, at least in the near-term.

Or indirectly act through the private sector; which is the realistic option open to us. The type of job a young person steps into, with qualifications but little experience is entry-level by definition. The private sector can only support a limited number of such roles. No company owner can afford the cost or risk of having too many inexperienced staff with marginal productivity. Many SME owners understand the need to give young people their start in life; but even in ideal times, their business has a strict upper limit to it’s capacity to do so.

But the number of jobs is only one dimension of the job market. The rate at which they turn over is the other crucial parameter. Every time any person moves jobs, they are creating a new vacancy immediately behind them, a vacancy that will most likely be filled by someone looking for the next step in their career too. Which may well repeat as a chain reaction right down to the entry-level.

Now the this ’employment chain’ is stochastic, ie it’s impossible to predict in advance exactly what the sequence of ’employment movements/promotions’ in the chain will turn out to be. Some chains might be only one or two movements long, others might meander on almost indefinitely. Nor can the dynamics of it be predicted; some vacancies in might filled in days, others might take months. But clearly the more people frequently people jobs at any point in their career paths, the more probable jobs at the career entry-level will open up as a result.

In other words the high youth unemployment we are experiencing is not so much the consequence of low or zero growth, but relatively low levels of employee turnover at all levels. And right now the most ‘stuck’ workers of all are skilled technical and professional people over the age of 50.

There are several reasons for this. One is that we are the boomer generation and there’s just too damned many of us competing for too few promotion opportunities in workplaces that are too damned small. And we’re generally too competent and productive to waste on internal promotion into management anyhow. Moving to a new employer we face the huge hurdle that no-one wants to interview anyone over the age of 50. (Mainly because we’ve seen through all the varieties corporate bs already and don’t tolerate it very well; young kids are more pliable.)

And yet the scary fact is that fully half the skilled technical people in this country are over the age of 55 and will be mostly retired within 10-15 years. Ask any of them… there are simply not the young people coming through to replace that cohort of critical skills. (Not carefully: while unemployment is staggeringly high, employers constantly whine about a lack of skilled staff. This is why.)

These two critical problems of youth under-employment and skilled worker over-employment are directly linked. Governments could the fix the first problem by directly subsidising employers to take on entry-level workers; but thats like trying to blow air down straw with kink at the other end of it, no matter how hard you puff nothing much changes.

You get people moving through their careers by exploiting the ’employment-chain’ effect described above, and getting those ‘stuck’ older skilled workers moving again. Unblock the straw and it’s easy. Here’s just a few obvious ideas how:

Drop the insane 90 day ‘fire at will’ law. Whatever flimsy justification it ever had is utterly nuts when applied to mature, experienced workers. We’ve been working for 30 years ffs.. we have a substantial employment record on our CV that can be referenced. And at our late stage of life we are hugely averse to taking the risk of trying new job that doesn’t work out… bad enough for a 20yr old, catastrophic at 55.

Change the tax rules to encourage companies to create new senior’development’ roles in parallel with managment whose specific task is to plan and develop the technical capacity of their organisation and the wider industry.

Hugely beef up Industry Training Organisations; not just in terms of training apprentices but people in careers at ALL levels. Far more mandatory participation from the private sector; get senior people with decades of experience sitting around tables thrashing out Codes of Best Practise, new Standards and White Papers …alongside tertiary sector researchers and public sector regulators. It’s slow, frustrating, curse-making work, but you build your industry, you create people with capacity to take NZ to the world.

And some older folk are sick of working 50+ hour weeks with failing eyesight, or a memory that isn’t so sharp anymore. Generate more flexible options around Superannuation. Allow people to claim partial super from the age of 55 in return for working less than 40 hour weeks.

In return for this investment of public money you achieve three crucial things; build industry capacity, directly mitigate a looming skills shortage, and get the ’employment chain’ moving again… indirectly getting young people into those entry level jobs most of them are so keen to find.

48 comments on “Creating Jobs for the Young…and not how you’d expect. ”

Comments are now closed

Colonial Viper 1

20 August 2011 at 11:11 pm

A great post RL, one which recognises the complexity of the problems we find ourselves in as a nation, problems which we need to be able to address right now if we are not to continue discarding our citizens on the scrap heap of the free market.

Moving to a macroeconomic viewpoint I have a very simple suggestion – we must onshore GDP, and we must tap into the current wealth of the country to create employment.

Government letting go hundreds of DoC workers, defence staff etc to join the unemployment scrap heap is madness.

Sending dozens of rail jobs to China is madness.

The Government found $1.2B to bail out SCF bond holders by clicking its fingers. It could have just as easily created 20,000 jobs* with that money, building infrastructure, working in conservation and establishing new capabilities across NZ.

*I know a number of “shovel ready projects” ready to rock and roll just in my own small sphere of awareness.
Gareth 2

21 August 2011 at 5:59 am

I also agree,
It would definatly be a plus to enable people to semi retire or even and become eligle for partial super or even access their kiwi saver.
We need to do more to promote apprenticeships and make it eaiser for employers to take them on.
I was unique in that I did both a hours based (4 years) trade certicificate and the new (at the time) ito based National certificate. I can certainly say that the hours based training was far more valuable to me going forward as the National cert could be obtained in under 12 months so was not held in high esteem by employers.
I would be in favour of a return to trade certs which encopassed the current Ito courses but with an hours based requirement alongside. Personally I learned far more working alongside experienced people day in day out that I ever did from the work books and Im sure thats true for alot of people that went through the apprenticeship system.

As for possible solutions currently the govenment subsidises and promotes indusrty based traing through Ito’s or polytechs which are basically 12 month courses of limited value to an employer. Perhaps this money would be better spent heavily subsiding apprenticeships in the workplace for say the first year, which by then if the employerer is any good the apprentice will be a valuable member of staff and worth further investment.

However we do it we need to do it quick as there will be a massive void as the current highly skilled workforce moves into retirement taking their knowledge with them.
- Carol 2.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 7:03 am
  
  Having taught on vocational courses in the UK, I saw the value of the right kind of balance between on-the-job training and college-based learning. The UK had far more options for courses that involved guided work experience, than I have seen in Aussie or NZ. Some of these courses were pre-vocational and some lead to job qualifications. In NZ & Aussie there’s too much focus on academic-only courses for young people. This does not suit everyone & often just leads to encouraging young people to take on study in areas they have either already failed at, or find a turn-off…. and ultimately probability won’t increase their employability.
  
  Training on the job is crucial, but classroom learning can also provide a wider perspective and knowledge that enables people to adapt to the continual changes in the way businesses and work are done. The skills I use at now are vastly different from the ones I used at the beginning of my work life – a lot of the change is due to computerisation. But is necessary to have a workforce can can readily adapt to change rather than being resistant to it – you know, the old complaint about older people who say, why should they change the way they do things, the old way always worked fine for them.
Carol 3

21 August 2011 at 6:50 am

This is a great plan RL. I agree with the idea of partial pensions & part-time work for us older workers.

In my early 60s I now get a small amount of UK state pension & a bigger UK Teacher’s Pension: both are based on the money I paid into the schemes while I worked in the UK, so not as much as a UK person who had worked all their adult life.

A few years back in NZ I took on part-time work in an area different to my main occupation – less stressful, but uses some of my skill set and is interesting to me. I do this job at the weekends, which many younger people prefer not to do – either they want to be socialising at weekends or have young families. I could live well enough on my pensions & weekend work, without the extra week-day contract work I often get. And I would be happy to have more of the week not working at this stage of my life.

With regards to my weekend work, I also think there should be some flexibility in the kinds of qualifications & experience accepted for older workers wanting to shift into a part-time job that may be a little different from their main life career.
- gareth williams 3.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 10:56 am
  
  What you are doing is irresponsible and part of the reason our country is up the gurgler – spending $8 billion a year on super.
  
  If you had actually made a success of yourself during your working years you wouldn’t need a cent of super from anywhere now.
  - RedLogix 3.1.1
    
    21 August 2011 at 11:13 am
    
    If you had actually made a success of yourself during your working years you wouldn’t need a cent of super from anywhere now.
    
    Sure you can shut down Superannutation if you like…. but I take it you would support doubling the minimum wage to say $40 per hour then?
  - Colonial Viper 3.1.2
    
    21 August 2011 at 11:52 am
    
    What a bizarre and thoughtless comment, gareth williams. A majority of retirees live on less than $500/week in hand.
    
    Do you think that we have a society where everyone can retire as millionaires, if they simply “made a success of themselves”?
    
    Wow what is the world you live in inside your head? What are you, nineteen?
  - Mary linzey 3.1.3
    
    21 August 2011 at 12:27 pm
    
    This is such a wide of the mark comment about being able to save for retirement completely that I can only assume you are very young, inherited a lot of money, have never been made redundant, needed to change skills or lived through periods of rampant inflation followed by recession and no work. Lucky you Gareth.
  - Vicky32 3.1.4
    
    21 August 2011 at 4:19 pm
    
    If you had actually made a success of yourself during your working years you wouldn’t need a cent of super from anywhere now.
    
    What a ridiculous elitist shite statement! It could be true (if at all) only of people (mostly men) who’d never had any breaks in employment, and who had pulled down the equivalent of $60 000 all their lives.
    - RedLogix 3.1.4.1
      
      21 August 2011 at 4:56 pm
      
      I put some troll bait out for him; but it looks like he’s a gutless ‘hit and run’.
      - Carol 3.1.4.1.1
        
        21 August 2011 at 6:19 pm
        
        Yes, And, as others have said, so wide of the mark in so many ways. Did he actually read what I said. I said I was largely getting a UK teachers’ pension. This was somethin I
        
        Carol 3.1.4.1.1.1
        
        21 August 2011 at 6:33 pm
        
        Ack. It posted itself while I was typing. The UK Teachers’ pension was either compulsory or the default position. I paid something into it as did the employer from each pay. It was something done in the UK to encourage savings for retirement – much like Kiwisaver, which I also have been paying some of my wages into. The small amount of UK state pension is calculated on the basis of how much I paid into National Insurance, but my UK state pension will be deducted from whatever I am entitled to for an NZ state retirement pension – so I’m actually saving NZ something there.
        
        I also have some superannuation in Aussie – compulsory for employers to pay a % of each pay towards an employee’s super – and everyone’s employer, however wealthy the employee, pays into a scheme. I bet there are few well-off Aussies who don’t claim the pension they are eligible for.
        
        But Gareth is also assuming I have no other savings. And what does he mean by “success”? I rate my years of hard work as a teacher as one of the things I’ve done that has contributed to societies. I found it rewarding, and, of course it doesn’t pay very high wages. What does he consider more of a success? A job that earns loads of money, even if it is destructive to society? eg making loads of money out of an industry that is socially destructive (eg Tobacco) or like what out dear leader did – getting rich on financial speculation? Property speculation?
        
        I also have done some other things I rate as successes, that earned little or no money, but that I feel have made a positive contribution.
        
        McFlock …
        
        21 August 2011 at 10:41 pm
        
        That post being far more effort than Gutless Williams deserved, Carol.
        
        On a different note, I actually like the idea of a 2nd part time job as long as it’s different enough from my 9-5. The downside is a) I like to sleep on the weekends; and b) I once worked 4 part time jobs at the same time – and schedulling was a nightmare! 🙂
        
        Carol …
        
        22 August 2011 at 7:13 am
        
        Accept my weekday contract work is usually not full time & there are times I am only working weekends…. so there are other times for sleeping or resting. I like having time to do other things on weekdays.
M 4

21 August 2011 at 7:37 am

RL, excellent particularly the 90 day rule – I’m sure it’s stifling the job market. I’m scared to change jobs being 46 but at the moment am trying to cope with the frustration of a younger boss who can’t spell to save her life, thinks grammar is a relative and whose people skills are so completely in the toilet I wonder how this person manages to navigate life.

It’s a shame that some of the hours over and above 40 per week for older workers trapped in the grind couldn’t be shared with other older, skilled umemployed workers whose frustration at being on the scrapheap must eventually turn to depression.

One thing I have noticed though with younger workers is that some seem to expect everything at nanosecond speed when sometimes it’s just not going to happen that way and seem to resent any advice about anything outside their sphere of knowledge so I just sit back and watch the fun unfold because to be too vociferous is a waste of time and effort.
- Colonial Viper 4.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 11:56 am
  
  There is a resistance amongst some young people to closely examine what they are doing and why. They are in for a tough next ten years as industrial energy depletion becomes more overt. Quite a few seem to think John Key is a good Prime Minister too.
- Vicky32 4.2
  
  21 August 2011 at 4:24 pm
  
  but at the moment am trying to cope with the frustration of a younger boss who can’t spell to save her life, thinks grammar is a relative
  
  Reminds me of a pamphlet I was given yesterday at St Lukes about bus changes in our area. This brochure must have been written by this woman, and not edited! 🙂
Bill 5

21 August 2011 at 8:53 am

In other words; more jobs on offer by having fewer hours required to earn the same pay?

That could have been done way back in the 60’s. Industry was ‘over productive’. We had everything ‘on a plate’ as it were. We could have moved to a four hour working day and satisfied our needs. But think of all that time people would have had on their hands? Hell, they might have gotten it into their heads that there were ways other than paid employment to gain a sense of validation. And then what?

Business only makes things as a means for achieving its primary purpose; making money. And making money translates as power in the present set up. So to protect the ability to make money and the current arrangements of power, we got inbuilt obsolesence and fashionable ‘modern’ replacements for perfectly good ‘old fashioned’ products. And we got genuinely new products that were deliberately released in under-developed form to leave way for next years, ‘improvements’. (‘Improvements’ that could have been incorporated into the original product at the time of release.)

Unemployment isn’t a problem…except for us. (And we don’t count.) Unemployment (or the threat of it) keeps wages down, workers compliant and profit margins up. And in a world where money is power…

Unemployment will only become a problem if it results in scenarios unfolding that those in power cannot contain or control. Skill shortages in one country just don’t matter. (Production moves). Disintegrating social infrastructure (whether by a lack of skilled maintenance workers or whatever) doesn’t matter, as long as it is sufficient to serve existing industry.

At the end of the day, jobs are a form of social control. Alongside unemployment, they allow those in power to generate more power. Meanwhile our energies are expended on gaining entry, or hanging on to often pointless activities, that merely act to concrete their position via the accumulation of money our jobs provide to them.

Putting aside the historical resistence to the imposition of the job culture, we could still make things that lasted a lifetime. We could satisfy our material needs on a smidgen of the time we currently spend in paid employment.

But the job culture is a conduit for (their) empowerment and (our) disempowerment. Nothing more. It doesn’t need the ‘fixes’ of the type proposed in your post. (Crucially, those who pull the strings would have nothing to gain by implementing your proposals)

Unfortunately, the job culture is operating just fine and as intended as it exists right now.
- RedLogix 5.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 9:18 am
  
  Bill,
  
  I’m not unsympathetic to what you are saying; but my post confined itself to the pragmatic rather than the fundamental.
  
  And at the same time I’d agree that my proposed solutions are not sufficient in their own right. The picture needs more work.
  - Bill 5.1.1
    
    21 August 2011 at 9:41 am
    
    Yeah Red. I acknowledge your post was focussed on ideas to make better ‘that which it is that we have right now’. Just…what about the framework within which ‘what we have’ resides?
    
    Your suggestions, although sensible and workable in an ‘all things being equal’ or neutral scenario, ignore the basic fact that all things are not equal or neutral; that vested interests are at play.
    
    And it’s Sunday 😉
lefty 6

21 August 2011 at 9:12 am

These are good practical suggestions REDLOGIC.
Many older workers have dreams that have been put on hold until retirement.
These dreams may involve creative, business or community endevours that would provide part of an income but not enough security to give up a job for.
Allowing people to claim partial super at an earlier age would unleash a group of experienced workers to follow their dreams and is likely to have unforseen consequences of the very best kind.
This would be far more positive direction to take than the common neo liberal suggestion of raising the retirement age which would further entrench the difficulties caused by the baby boom bulge, world economic uncertainty, free trade agreements and lack of economic sovereignty.
It also provides the opportunity to start building the type of economy required to meet the challenges of climate change and peak oil as it would free people and businesses to undertake activities that might be too risky otherwise.
The cost of the extra super payments would likely be balanced against the decrease in benefits paid to young unemployed, the increase in new tax attracting enterprises and the removal of a barrier to the intergenerational transfer of running the country.
Tangled up in blue 7

21 August 2011 at 10:16 am

Change the tax rules to allow companies to encourage companies to create new ‘development’ roles, senior technical roles in parallel with managment whose specific task is to plan and develop the technical capacity of their organisation and the wider industry.

I like this idea.
- mik e 7.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 11:40 am
  
  Tuipoo Well Labour were dong this before the last election and National canned the funding completely for 2years only to reinstate a similar program with half the funding re branding it a purely political move.So they buggered up the continuity that would have started producing more jobs earlier and modernizing our economy typical bean brained bean counters
Rodel 8

21 August 2011 at 10:17 am

RL Good post..This suggestion :
“and some older folk are sick of working 50+ hour weeks with failing eyesight, or a memory that isn’t so sharp anymore. Generate more flexible options around Superannuation. Allow people to claim partial super from the age of 55 in return for working less than 40 hour weeks.”
was made to me some years ago by a chairman of a national party, except he thought those over 50 in lower paying jobs, kids left home etc. would accept a pension as long as they weren’t earning, leaving vacancies for younger job starters to get a foot on the employment ladder. Over 50’s earning good money wouldn’t bother.Bit like Australian system I believe but kicking in about age 50.
dave brown 9

21 August 2011 at 11:22 am

I’m against throwing taxation at subsidising private sector jobs when the private sector is failing globally. This can only mean more income transfers from poor to rich which should be going into social investment.
Much better is to nationalise key sectors of the economy, energy (stop stupid fake competition between SEOs and put them under workers control).
Put Cullen fund and Kiwisaver funds into infrastructure (Rail, urban transport etc) creating thousands of public sector jobs.
Re-nationalise BNZ and make it a state bank that can generate funds for economic development rather than profits for its private shareholders on the backs of homeless NZers.
I would nationalise land with iwi given rights to manage Treaty settlement tribal land and F&S in perpetuity. If the farming sector truly is the backbone of the nation let it prove it minus capital gains derived from ‘unearned increment’.
All of this would require a massive shift in the Labour Party which is currently more concerned with not offending global capital and it FTAs etc than workers needs. But its a program that would win support from the majority of NZers.
Time to stop running scared from the tiny global boss class that continues to pretend that it has clothes.
Afewknowthetruth 10

21 August 2011 at 12:20 pm

The writer misses the whole point.

The current rise in unemployment is a symptom of the collapse of outdated economic and inappropriate arrangements predicated on the conversion of fossil fuels into waste and the creation of money out of thin air.

Neither will be possible for much longer, and any ‘solution’ based on more of the same or attempting to revive past strategies is doomed to failure.

Only a radical rethink of everything will ‘save us’. But people simply refuse to become informed or to abandon redundant paradigms.

Therefore, there will be little hope until the present system collapses. And not much after that, I’m afraid.

‘Three paths to near-term human extinction
Sat, Aug 20, 2011
Uncategorized
About a decade ago I realized we were putting the finishing touches on our own extinction party, with the party probably over by 2030. During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens.

“We’re different.”
“We’re special.”
“We’re too intelligent.”
“We’ll find a way out. We always do.”

We’re humans, and therefore animals. Like all life, we’re special. Like all organisms, we’re susceptible to overshoot. Like all organisms, we will experience population decline after overshoot.

Let’s take stock of our current predicaments, beginning with one of several ongoing processes likely to cause our extinction. Then I’ll point out the good not quite so bad news.

We’re headed for extinction via global climate change

It’s hotter than it used to be, but not as hot as it’s going to be. The political response to this now-obvious information is to suspend the scientist bearing the bad news. Which, of course, is no surprise at all: As Australian climate scientist Gideon Polya points out, the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse. I think Polya is optimistic, and I don’t think Obama’s on-board with the attendant collapse of the U.S. industrial economy……….’

Go to the NBL site to keep reading. But only if you want to become informed.
- Colonial Viper 10.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 2:53 pm
  
  There’s lots of work to be done preparing for energy depletion.
  
  Young people could have jobs laying down railway tracks, renewing power grid infrastructure, building efficient low energy community centres and housing, creating community gardens.
randal 11

21 August 2011 at 12:28 pm

creating jobs for youth…dont make me laugh.
this is just creating jobs for nationals pets to earn some key money therapising and bossing round kids on the dole.
its called patronage and this giveaway acomplishes nothing except buying goods for nationals suckasses.
randal 12

21 August 2011 at 1:51 pm

This is just more national party blather.
The only jobs being created here are patronage jobs for national party faithfull to boss around kids on the dole.
Treetop 13

21 August 2011 at 2:04 pm

Most young people who enter their working life usually choose one of the following:
1. Do nothing.
2. Experiment in jobs.
3. Know what they want to do e.g. trade, uni, IT.
4. Do what their parent/s suggest.

I think that a teen sets themself up for their working life when they first enter college and that this is consolidated at NCEA level 1 – 3. Taking the right courses would not be a waste of learning and testing is required to find out the best career path to take.

In order to achieve success in a choosen feild a person needs to be interested and have the talent/ability to reach their goal. Sometimes a person can end up doing something which they initally appear to not even consider when it is established that they have aptitude for that job.
randal 14

21 August 2011 at 3:52 pm

treetop. more blather.
when there is work then the last hand will get hired.
all the rest is free market bullshit to disguise the fact that most jobs have been globalised elsewhere.
smart intelligent kids will always get jobs but the rest are at the mercy of idiotes who think they know best but upon reflection are just minders for their masters.
- Treetop 14.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 4:55 pm
  
  I do not dispute that there is no work and this is across the board. All that can be done at secondary school is to get people work ready and to make education as enjoyable as you can.
randal 15

21 August 2011 at 6:24 pm

okay, so what exactly does “work ready” mean and what qualifies someone to make that judgement?
- Vicky32 15.1
  
  21 August 2011 at 6:30 pm
  
  okay, so what exactly does “work ready” mean and what qualifies someone to make that judgement?
  
  That’s a very interesting question! It’s come up a lot in the context of people with disabilities and those on SB and IB…
  - terryg 15.1.1
    
    21 August 2011 at 10:05 pm
    
    Indeed it is Vicky32, and one fraught with difficulty.
    
    On an unrelated note, have you looked at LPrent’s post “The decades of consequences” yet?
    
    Please do, then post your thoughts. The video does an excellent job of summarising the actual state of the climate, without relying on any complex science at all (the maps of the USA are utterly brilliant).
    
    Please, please watch it. Its a much better explanation than any I could ever come up with.
    
    regards,
    Terry
- Treetop 15.2
  
  23 August 2011 at 1:02 pm
  
  Carol’s above comment (see 2.1) is a flexible model I agree with to get teens work ready. As for qualifying someone to make a judgement, I would look at the results of the learning as identifying a skill base and then building on it.
randal 16

21 August 2011 at 6:48 pm

okay but we were talking about young people.
Jum 17

21 August 2011 at 8:32 pm

The most scary thought is always: if the government knows how to create new jobs for the unemployed people and they are not doing that, then what is their real agenda for deliberately forcing hundreds’o’thousands to remain jobless?

Whatever the answer is we won’t like it if we have any sense of societal responsibility to our fellow Kiwis and any thought of future ownership of all the other valuable assets sitting around New Zealand just waiting for the highwaymen to plunder.
Ianupnorth 18

21 August 2011 at 11:40 pm

A couple of thoughts (based on my knowledge of a few specific situations)
1) I know a young lady, currently working 0.6 FTE within a DHB, 0.6 FTE for a hauora – the reason? She wants to pay her mortgage off quickly (the Kiwi mindset of owning property = good)
2) I know another lady who works 0.6 FTE for a DHB and another 60 hours per week running a business she has bought.
Both, for very valid reasons, are in effect ‘stealing’ jobs that could be available for others.

I agree there are many specific, urgent projects that need addressing. The right won’t like to acknowledge this, but if you spend up front you will minimise expenditure later.
- Gosman 18.1
  
  22 August 2011 at 7:41 am
  
  Who are these people ‘stealing’ the job from again?
  
  Surely the owner of the job is the employer, who has the right to decide who does or doesn’t do the role.
  
  But no, apparently it is you on the left of the political spectrum who decide who should be doing a job.
Gosman 19

22 August 2011 at 7:38 am

Have you got any evidence to support the view that the 90 Day trial period is causing 50 + employees not to bother moving jobs in any statistically significant manner or are you just postulating this out of thin air?
- marsman 19.1
  
  22 August 2011 at 8:13 am
  
  Have you or John Key got any evidence that the 90 day fire at will ‘trial period’ reduces unemployment?
- RedLogix 19.2
  
  22 August 2011 at 10:18 am
  
  I am part of the demographic in question Gos. I have an excellent network of colleagues in my industry… we talk.
  - Gosman 19.2.1
    
    22 August 2011 at 12:28 pm
    
    So only anecdotal evidence then. I have anecdotal evidence that the 90 trial period is working. Somehow I don’t think you’d accept that as persuassive enough though. Curious then that you expect others to accept your anecdotal evidence.
    - Colonial Viper 19.2.1.1
      
      22 August 2011 at 12:37 pm
      
      Of course the 90 day trial period is working – for bad employers.
      
      Anecdotal evidence is critical – it provides a basis for launching a more formal and thorough examination.
      
      You would support that then eh?
    - lprent 19.2.1.2
      
      22 August 2011 at 2:14 pm
      
      One of the criticisms leveled at the 90 day bill both here and elsewhere before during and after its progress under urgency through parliament was that it did not have any provision for measuring its effectiveness. There were no studies. There is no data collection of any statistics. Apart from a useless anecdotal study that the DoL did after the act went in, there has been no systematic followup to find out what the effect of the act was.
      
      So there cannot be anything other than anecdotal evidence because there is no data collected that would allow anything better. Perhaps you should direct your attention toward the minister (Kate Wilkinson) and government who allowed a policy to be put in based on nothing more than what looks like a religious faith?
      - Jim Nald 19.2.1.2.1
        
        22 August 2011 at 2:30 pm
        
        Minister Kate, Minister Kate
        you make employment policy without data and evidence
        and ask us to believe in your policy so much that
        soon we won’t have to buy a one-way ticket to Oz
        but we’ll just walk on water to cross the Tasman Sea
    - RedLogix 19.2.1.3
      
      22 August 2011 at 3:06 pm
      
      So if you are going to discount anecdotal evidence Gos (and I’ll make certain to remind you of this anytime you attempt to introduce any in future) then maybe we can go with a little basic deduction.
      
      If an employer is willing to pay $100k++ for my services… that role was so valuable to the employer that the 90 day rule is irrelevant to whether it was created or not.
      
      Also from an employers perspective the 90 day rule adds little value because he’s got a 30 year CV and employment record to look at that is by far the best predictor of my performance.
      
      The that downside risk of being capriciously dismissed to the employee has obviously far more serious consequences for the older worker than someone at the beginning of their career. By the time you are that age you have significant responsibilities like mortgages and wider family to take care of.
      
      The absolute last thing you need at that age is to change jobs and not have it work out simply because some psychotic arse of a middle manager didn’t like your face. Getting to an interview is a challenge enough without that kind of setback.
      
      Logically there only substantial downsides to the employee, while it’s very hard to see any upside to either party.