Fire at will (90 days) law a great success!

Written By: - Date published: 11:28 am, June 17th, 2016 - 104 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, jobs, national, uncategorized, wages, workers' rights - Tags: , , ,

The Fire at will (90 day trial) law has been a great success! Not at improving life for workers – hell no:
NZ unemployment worsens to 5.9 per cent, wages stay low
Industries relying on low-skill, low-wage labour
Wages going nowhere fast
Minimum pay, Living Wage gap ‘growing’
And so on.

The claims that National made about the benefits to workers are all nonsense, according to a Treasury report out today:

90 day trial period fails to help jobseekers – report

The Government’s claims about the benefits of the 90 day trial period have been slammed in a report released by Treasury.

The report, looking at the benefits of the 90 day trial, has found no evidence it increased firms’ hiring – or helped disadvantaged jobseekers.
..
But a report by Nathan Chappell and Isabelle Sin of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, who were commissioned by Treasury, found “no evidence that access to trial periods causes firms on average to change the number of people they hire…nor to be more likely to hire those struggling in the labour market.”

More National ideology burned to the ground by facts.

No there was only one sense in which fire at will was a “great” success (from the report pdf):

It seems the primary effects of the policy were to reduce the cost to firms of continuing their pre-policy behaviour, while requiring many employees to shoulder the cost of an increase in perceived initial uncertainty about their job security.

This is classic National – favour the powerful, undermine the weak.

104 comments on “Fire at will (90 days) law a great success! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Macro 1
    17 June 2016 at 11:40 am

    What do they mean it has not been a success? It has done just what FJK hoped it would do. Drive down wages. And all his mates love him for it.

  2. Greg 2
    17 June 2016 at 11:42 am

    Employers still have to be cautious about the 90 day trial, plenty of cases have been up before the employment court for unfair sacking.
    Few employers bother to know the basics condition about the law, or even write a sound contract.
    Its certainly a boon for immigrant employers to exploit other immigrants.
    http://www.idesilegal.co.nz/migrant-exploitation/

    • Ross 2.1
      17 June 2016 at 1:30 pm

      That’s correct. Some employers think it’s OK for an employee to sign an employment agreement after the employee has begun work. Wrong. I suspect quite a few of these 90- day trial agreements are invalid because of that, enabling employees to take a personal grievance for unfair dismissal.

  3. fisiani 3
    17 June 2016 at 11:54 am

    The 90 day right to prove yourself act. FIFY

    • Kevin 3.1
      17 June 2016 at 12:08 pm

      “It seems the primary effects of the policy were to reduce the cost to firms of continuing their pre-policy behaviour, while requiring many employees to shoulder the cost of an increase in perceived initial uncertainty about their job security.”
      —
      You obviously missed it the first time round.

    • AB 3.2
      17 June 2016 at 12:11 pm

      No – a 90 day right to prove yourself would entail turning up at an employer’s premises and saying “I demand the right to prove myself in this vacancy you have”.

      What we have is a 90 day right for an employer to unilaterally repudiate an earlier decision they made about a potential employee being suitable for the job. An entirely different thing and all about evading responsibility for bad decisions – something that is severely criticised when beneficiaries do it, but is enabled and legalised for employers.

      Also allows employers to repudiate their responsibility to have proper training, proper supervision, and proper performance management in their workplace, A one-sided gift to NZ’s pretty average private sector management class.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        17 June 2016 at 1:25 pm

        A one-sided gift to NZ’s pretty average private sector management class.

        You’re being overly generous. NZ’s managers are some of the worst in the world.

        • Greg 3.2.1.1
          18 June 2016 at 9:16 am

          They rated in the bottom of the barrel with a recent international survey about best practice standards. And they blame the workers for NZs supposed low productivity.

    • Bob 3.3
      17 June 2016 at 12:12 pm

      Shhh, don’t let facts get in the way of an over-the-top alarmist headline fisiani!

      The fact that “firing at will” without showing reasonable steps to remedy any shortcomings a candidate may have within the 90 days, will likely lead to a sizable payout via a personal grievance doesn’t matter, a good headline does.

      • Lanthanide 3.3.1
        17 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

        This article outlines it all pretty clearly: http://www.pdassociates.co.nz/newsletters/pitfalls-90-day-trial-period-employers-beware/

        Pesonal Greivance claims are specifically excluded, but require the employer to have properly followed the process.

        There are things that can trip you up, but it also isn’t honorous to get it right.

        • Ross 3.3.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 1:33 pm

          PGs are not excluded – employees can raise a PG for unjustified disadvantage. And where the trial agreement is invalid, an employee can raise a PG for unfair dismissal.

      • framu 3.3.2
        17 June 2016 at 12:32 pm

        you do know that trial periods were legal before the 90 day bill i hope

        if trial periods were legal all ready what was the purpose of this bill?

        • Lanthanide 3.3.2.1
          17 June 2016 at 12:40 pm

          When questioning a presenter from the chamber of commerce about this, her answer is that the trial periods previously available weren’t substantively different than a period of normal employment. You might be able to have a slightly shorter process for performance management and improvement, but that was about the most of it – and the ex-employee could still file a personal grievance.

          Under the new law, you don’t have to have any formal performance management and improvement programme, and if you dismiss someone they can’t bring a personal grievance against you.

          • framu 3.3.2.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 1:03 pm

            yeah i know 🙂

            thats somewhat my point – always look to the change not the sales pitch to find the purpose of any law

            if trail periods were too onerous then why not a short fixed term contract? (its what my boss does to this day)

            • McFlock 3.3.2.1.1.1
              17 June 2016 at 1:46 pm

              Hmmm – fixed term contracts need to be pretty distinct from the permanent position, though, otherwise your boss might find themselves in the schtuck when the employment court decides that “fixed term” was bullshit and treat it as a permanent job.

              But the fact that your boss is thinking about their role as a manager and actually looking for solutions that comply with the law is another reason that fire-at-will is shite: a good manager doesn’t need it, the only manager who needs it is a shit manager who can’t manage performance expectations, training, assessment, or recruiting appropriate staff.

              • framu …
                17 June 2016 at 3:02 pm

                to be honest its more the nature of the industry im in that make short term contracts workable

          • Greg 3.3.2.1.2
            18 June 2016 at 9:21 am

            Yes workers on a 90 day trial can bring a PG, they might put that in a contract they cant, but it has no legal basis. Plenty of cases have been reported to prove it. Remember the guy who was getting his contract looked at, and the boss texted him to sign the contract or not to come back after 3 days.
            It cost him 8k as a unfair dismissal.

  4. Atiawa 4
    17 June 2016 at 12:22 pm

    The 90 day trial period is fast becoming superfluous. The reason is the increasing number of workers employed through labour hire agencies and hired out to employers who have no responsibilities or commitment to their long or short term employment. An agency worker can be dispensed with at a moments notice regardless whether they have worked for 90 or 290 days at a business without any hope of winning an unjustified dismissal case, because their employer is the agency, not the company/business who no longer requires/wants them. We are living in a disposable society.

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      17 June 2016 at 12:37 pm

      if the employer is the agency, then presumably they will have to keep paying the wages of the employee, even if they don’t have a job to actually give them.

      Redundancy still requires notice and due process (anything less than about 2 weeks would be troublesome), and you can’t make a particular individual redundant, only a role.

      So there are still protections for employees employed by agencies.

      • b waghorn 4.1.1
        17 June 2016 at 1:06 pm

        The problem is most of us Havn’t got a clue about our rights.
        Educating people about the employment rights should be taught at all polytecs and trading collages. Also in entry level learn while you work courses.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2
        17 June 2016 at 1:28 pm

        if the employer is the agency, then presumably they will have to keep paying the wages of the employee, even if they don’t have a job to actually give them.

        Nope as the agency is a contractor and the ’employees’ are sub-contractors.

        • McFlock 4.1.2.1
          17 June 2016 at 1:50 pm

          i.e. the agency isn’t an employer because the agency doesn’t control the day to day aspects of the job for the employee, while the original company doesn’t pay the subcontractor directly.

          (just clarifying some of the the difference between employee and contractor, it’s not a direct substitute)

          • Atiawa 4.1.2.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 2:13 pm

            I think you will find that regardless of who controls the day to day aspects of the job, the agency worker is employed by the agency. Off-shore workers are, for example, often employed by an employment agency ( e.g Programmed Marine Services) but come under the instruction of the on-board operator. If the operator becomes pissed off with the agencies worker, they can demand the person be removed and replaced with another. Redeployment could be an option for the removed employee but not redundancy compensation (should one exist in the employment agreement) even if the position still exists.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2.1.2
            17 June 2016 at 3:27 pm

            The people who work for temping agencies are dependent contractors. They’re essentially self-employed and if they don’t work they don’t get paid.

            Thinking about it, I wonder if the changes to zero hours employment law has changed that.

            • Atiawa 4.1.2.1.2.1
              17 June 2016 at 4:14 pm

              I don’t believe you are right re their employment status. A self employed person is required to attend to a number of legal requirements to become self employed. I just don’t see that happening for many of these workers. I’m convinced they are employees, but will try to find out more.

              • McFlock …
                17 June 2016 at 4:28 pm

                About ten years ago it used to be that someone signing a contract for service simply filled in a different tax return for small-scale work, but if they went above a certain threshold things like registering for GST kicked in.

                But I suppose an agency also had greater leeway for things like fixed term or casual employment agreements because the employment was subject to the duration of the overarching supply contract. But on the flipside being the employer opened them up to additional obligations like instruction and training rather than just saying “these are the contract expectations, you answer to this dude at the site”.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                17 June 2016 at 5:54 pm

                I suspect that it depends a lot on the company. Some of my family have worked at these temping agencies and they were most definitely a contractor doing GST, ACC and all their other taxes.

      • KJT 4.1.3
        17 June 2016 at 8:47 pm

        No. They are considered contractors. Allied work force, for example.

        • Atiawa 4.1.3.1
          17 June 2016 at 10:02 pm

          I spent half the night checking up on this. Labour hire employees are not contractors. They are employees of the labour hire company. Many are registered with multiple hire company’s and if not suitable for a job will shift from one to the other. Forget the 90 day trial bullshit. The relationship between employer and employee has become very casual.
          This is a hugely important issue, and many of the so called left haven’t a clue about whats going on in the real world.
          Shameful fucking shameful.

      • Craig H 4.1.4
        18 June 2016 at 4:03 am

        Typically, the Labour Hire contracts are assignment-based, and only pay employees while they are on assignment. Assignments can be terminated by either party at any time, and there is no guarantee of further assignments.

  5. Keith 5
    17 June 2016 at 1:35 pm

    I see Xero’s MD and John Keys “Airforce One” chihuahua ridealong, Rod Drury, speaking out in glowing reference to the 90 day rightless legislation. It seems quite obvious that Rod is at times the public face of Nationals thought processes and he is calling for even more “flexibility” in employment relations.

    Having a duplicitous bunch of pricks like National at your beck and call so you can treat employees as you see fit has achieved nothing positive for the economy and with Drury blind to this and asking for more creative ways to roger workers, you have to worry.

    In 2008 “flexibility” seemed such an innocent phrase oft used by Key, but the hidden truth was it was always about wage suppression and a conduit to undermine working conditions and the pipe dream the elite had that this would somehow translate into more productive cheap workers. It did not!

    Yet another National Party failure to add to the list but how about someone thinking in terms of better productivity by engaging workers into buying into the process by the carrot of choice rather than stick of force!

  6. Gangnam Style 6
    17 June 2016 at 1:38 pm

    John Key on 90 day trial report says anecdotal evidence tells him it is working, dismisses Treasury-commissioned MOTU report. Who’s surprised?

    • TC 6.1
      17 June 2016 at 3:02 pm

      Anecdotal = not necessarily true or reliable i.e. Not factually based.

      Love to see one of the msm muppets call him out next time he uses that phrase and ask for some facts rather than random thoughts derived from his dogma.

      • Gangnam Style 6.1.1
        17 June 2016 at 4:14 pm

        Yeah right, MSM call Key out, Pfft! I think the MSM think their job is to keep the opposition in check & to hound out any journalist who dares rock the boat.

  7. Rosie 7
    17 June 2016 at 1:48 pm

    +1 @ Helen Kelly 😀

    I’m hoping now that Andrew Little makes a statement that a Labour coalition government would DEFINITELY scrap the 90 day law and retract his previous statements about retaining the law but tweaking it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/70319219/labour-would-retain-90day-trial-periods-but-make-them-fairer–little

    • Atiawa 7.1
      17 June 2016 at 2:01 pm

      Little is playing a bit cute with his revised views on this issue. He has realized that small business owners who employ 2 or 3 people will not vote for his party if he were to abolish 90 day trials completely, and small business owners make up a significant proportion of voters.

      • Ross 7.1.1
        17 June 2016 at 2:18 pm

        Atiawa,

        I hate to say it, but I agree with you. I cannot see Labour abolishing 90 day trials. Having said that, there could be changes to the trials, eg, allowing an employee to raise a PG for unfair dismissal.

        • Atiawa 7.1.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 2:54 pm

          But isn’t that the point of a Probation period as opposed to a Trial period? A probation period allows for a personal grievance on the grounds of unjustified dismissal during the period of probation. Such grounds are denied during the trial period should a worker be dismissed. However under the probation period the employer is obliged to provide feedback to the worker should they have concerns regarding performance or matters pertaining to the employment relationship ( time-keeping, unauthorized time away from the job etc ) and put in place strategies to improve performance and possibly within time constraints. The employer could also increase the period of probation from say 90 days to 180 days.
          If an employer doesn’t make the effort to counsel and improve/remedy the performance and then decides to dismiss during the period of probation, the worker has a reasonable chance of succeeding with a PG.

          • Bob 7.1.1.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 3:11 pm

            Thank you Atiawa!
            It is nice to see a comment from someone who fully understands the legislation.

      • Rosie 7.1.2
        17 June 2016 at 2:50 pm

        I wondered about that. I would just like him to put himself in a workers shoes. Since it came in I’ve only worked for very small businesses. It’s incredibly anxiety inducing knowing for job isn’t safe for no legitimate reason at all.

        There are so many, let me say, “unsuitable to run a business let alone hire people” type bosses in the NZ work environment that even though you know you’re doing a great job, you know the psycho boss can nut off at any time and fire you.

        It’s an amazingly un level playing field.

        Don’t quote me either but I think the inability of a worker to take legal action for being unjustifiably dismissed is in breach of ILO conventions, which NZ is a signatory to.

        Andrew Little needs to consider our countries international obligations too, even though our current govt doesn’t. We can and should raise our standards.

        • Nordy 7.1.2.1
          17 June 2016 at 6:01 pm

          Read Iain Lees-Galloway’s press release (go to Scoop) today where he says;

          ““The report also found that previous studies into the 90-day trials – which were much-touted by National – were based on surveys of employers who might have overstated the benefits. And that an NZIER study which showed positive results stemmed from ‘misattributing the effects of the Global Financial Crisis’ to the trials.

          “While there have always been probationary periods, National introduced a fire-at-will measure.

          “Labour will change the law to restore fairness. Employers will be required to give decent feedback,” Iain Lees-Galloway says.”

          Cheers

          • Rosie 7.1.2.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 7:24 pm

            Good news Nordy. Maybe some one should tell TV One news, as they were still going with the “Labour will retain the 90 day law but adjust it” line.

            Hang on, OR, in fact, maybe the detail is in “Labour will change the law to restore fairness”….?

            Still could mean “just tweaking” eh?

          • rhinocrates 7.1.2.1.2
            17 June 2016 at 10:24 pm

            “Labour will change the law to restore fairness”

            So many turds, and so little glitter to sprinkle on them all…

            “Little” – the name suits him. Very Little, as Little as possible, do Little.

      • Infused 7.1.3
        17 June 2016 at 2:58 pm

        Because the law fucking works, that’s why. You’d be stupid to remove it. That’s what makes Labour look so fucking stupid all the time. Out of touch.

        • McFlock 7.1.3.1
          17 June 2016 at 7:40 pm

          Well, it doesn’t work according to Treasury, and they’re not exactly a hive of left wing dogmatism.

        • Stuart Munro 7.1.3.2
          17 June 2016 at 8:29 pm

          Yup – it was designed to fuck over workers and it does exactly that.

        • KJT 7.1.3.3
          17 June 2016 at 8:41 pm

          Yes it works extremely well.

          At giving hospitality businesses, in particular, free or cheap labour. And upping the stats for the number gaining employment. Never mind it is the same jobs being recycled.

          Step one. Hire someone with the 3 month subsidy from WINZ, that comes with some one who has been out of work for a while.

          Step Two. (previous to the 90 day bill). Harass, reduce the hours or bully the worker so that they have to leave. Leaves you open to possible PG case.

          Step two. (After the 90 day bill) Sack the worker.

          Step three. Rinse and repeat.

          Otherwise known as the Mcjobs bill.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.4
        17 June 2016 at 3:21 pm

        Economic Bulletin 162: What’s happening to the self-employed?

        The other big group is the self-employed who employ others (the “self-employed employers”). They rose from around 7 percent of employment in the late 1980s to around 9 percent in the mid-1990s, but then fell to the current all-time low (since 1986) of 3.0 percent.

        My bold.

  8. Infused 8
    17 June 2016 at 2:51 pm

    90 day trial was the best thing ever implemented.

    I’ve used it once. When it was found the guy lied about everything and didn’t actually know shit.

    Since his references lied (later found out) and his qualifications were ‘paid’ for, the law came in handy.

    What the bill has done is allowed me to employee more people with less risk. As pointed out by pretty much everyone.

    All you lot complaining about it really have no clue. But that’s typical.

    • framu 8.1
      17 June 2016 at 3:04 pm

      so why wouldnt the old law have worked? – as you say the guy lied so youve got a solid grounds for dismissal

      • Infused 8.1.1
        17 June 2016 at 3:11 pm

        The amount of bullshit you have to go through (and cost) to get rid of them.

        • framu 8.1.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 5:00 pm

          under the old trial period scheme? (im not talking straight out “hire the guy”) – Surely lying to get the job comes under gross misconduct?

          if your a boss and you say to exployee “x” – “you and your references lied – your gone”, your probably not going to need to do much more than that.

          see mc flock @ 8.4.1.1

          from memory the stats from the employment court back up the idea that vexatious actions by fired employees were very, very low

          and from memory the need for the 90 day bill was also considered low by many employers

          im not trying to give you grief here or be a smart ass – and yeah im just a worker (of over 15 years in my current job) – but i still struggle to see why it was such a big issue for the majority of employers.

          For the record – Im in no may against trial periods, i wouldnt be here today without them, i just think that a law that enables bad behaviour from anyone is bad law – to me the 90 day bill allows some of the worst behaviour from our worst employers, and considering that employer/employee relations are symbiotic there must be a better way

    • ianmac 8.2
      17 June 2016 at 3:07 pm

      Under old law infused wouldn’t you have been able to dismiss that liar for misrepresenting his CV or maybe you should have been more careful with your employment practice. Your fault?

      • Infused 8.2.1
        17 June 2016 at 3:12 pm

        I knew one of you would bring this up.

        No, it’s not my fault. There is only so much shit you can check. If references lie, and documents were found to be purchased (and all this was after the fact), what more can you do?

        It would have been a huge time/cost to go through the old procedure to do this.

        So you may think our employment practices were weak. Well, we had a written test, which they passed. Since this, we have changed this from written to a practice test, which we built in house which does all sorts of neat things to catch people out.

        So it’s not as if people using this have shitty processes. Sometimes you just get fucked over as an employer.

        • ianmac 8.2.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 3:19 pm

          Glad to see that you have upgraded your skills. Maybe this should have been every employers responsibility in any case. Hope it now works well.

        • Lanthanide 8.2.1.2
          17 June 2016 at 10:07 pm

          We had a graduate engineer, who was referred by an existing staff member, who had a couple of freak-out shouting matches in the middle of the open-plan office.

          She was dismissed under the 90 day trial provisions.

          I’m not sure how you would expect to screen for that sort of thing in job interviews, or when they are referred to us by an existing employee as being a good candidate.

          • Greg 8.2.1.2.1
            18 June 2016 at 9:33 am

            Isnt it fun when that happens, i couldnt do anything but laugh since i was following instructions from my manager.
            And she got a telling off.

    • b waghorn 8.3
      17 June 2016 at 3:13 pm

      I was pro the 90 law till I took a job at a farm run by a pathetic mongrel bully who liked to hold it over people, its how you stop fuckwits like him abusing people that makes it a bad law.

      • Infused 8.3.1
        17 June 2016 at 3:17 pm

        If it wasn’t the 90 day trial, it would have been something else. They are just a shit employer. There’s plenty of those too. Repealing this law isn’t going to stop that.

        • McFlock 8.3.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 3:22 pm

          Repealing it will, however, give employees rights that can be upheld in the Employment court.

          • Infused 8.3.1.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 3:44 pm

            You do know it gets challenged all the time eh?

            Employers keep losing too because they are idiots.

            • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1.1
              17 June 2016 at 4:07 pm

              This is one of them Venn Diagram Moments:

              Circle A: Some employers get done after the law change for doing what they did before.
              Circle B: Some employers got done before the law change for doing what they continue to do after.
              Circle B intersects Circle A: Employers who got done before the law change and get done after for doing the same thing.

              Circle B but not intersecting with Circle A: employers who got done before the law change but who don’t get done these days. I.e. their employees would have rights that can be upheld in the Employment court if fire at will were repealed.

        • Richardrawshark 8.3.1.2
          17 June 2016 at 3:26 pm

          Fair enough infused, but from a workers point of view, you the employer knows within usually a week, at the outside a month whether someone cuts the mustard or not.

          I’ve never had any issues with employers in my life, why?, I work well, when I fake it I CAN make it, and have done many times, no amount of uni degree’s makers one a good worker.

          So I think you guys know immediately if someones a good worker or not so less BS, you do not need three months.

          The worker you put that through has no job certainty during this period and it makes resolving early work place issues on the worker side nigh on impossible because you cannot approach some employers out there mate.

          Engineering co, please work through your smoko’s we got to get these weld necks out. The boss told me when I asked for compensation.. I already pay you for fucking smoko do it or fuck off. In a time when winz will cancel your benefit your barking fucking mad infused.

          • Infused 8.3.1.2.1
            17 June 2016 at 3:37 pm

            I work in IT.

            It’s not easy to pick up how someone good is, as the right situation needs to present itself in order to know.

            My junior guys, I normally know within 2-3 weeks. Senior guys is close to two months as the depth of the stuff they need to do and show is pretty huge.

            I work pretty hard with my employees as well, because I hate the employment process. It’s a huge drain on a smb. Putting the ads out, interviewing via phone first, then face to face. Testing etc. There’s no way I’m going to randomly fire these people or use the 90 day law to threaten them, as that’s plainly stupid.

            It’s purely a backstop for us, if someone has managed to get through the gaps some-how, we can remove them with little time and litle cost.

            See, that’s the other issue here. I’m not employing people on min wage, or anywhere near close to it. Anyone I employee is on 40k+ at least. Most towards 50k.

            The old process would drag this shit out for weeks. You can’t employee anyone during this time, as its a huge cost for the business. I’m then down a tech, and losing money.

            • Richardrawshark 8.3.1.2.1.1
              17 June 2016 at 3:50 pm

              Hmm I’ve worked in IT as well as engineering.

              You and I see there is both a need and not a need for it, perhaps some amendments to the 90 day law? could be the compromise, also I noted the new guy my engineering company hired they wrote in 6 months for him? I think it’s minimum and you could add a 90 day clause into your employment contracts nothing stopping you even 6 or a year, it’s up to the prospective employee if they want to sign or not?

              I would return it to 1 month maybe 45 days, there would be no restrictions on employers having then ability to write their own contracts as long as these minimums were kept you could not have less than 30-45.

              as far as I know that’s how it used to work, your not seeing it though.. do you now?

              • infused …
                17 June 2016 at 11:19 pm

                Look, I could compromise. But scrapping it is the wrong thing to do.

                Where this bill got fucked up was extending it to everyone. It should be 10-15 staff or less. Big companies don’t need this.

                I’m not sure if you can extend the 90 days if the employee agrees. Pretty sure that wouldn’t work in court.

                • Lanthanide …
                  17 June 2016 at 11:24 pm

                  Strictly maximum of 90 days. I suspect that if you specified any longer period, the whole thing would be struck out and you’d get 0 days instead, and everything that follows from that.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.3.1.2.1.2
              18 June 2016 at 11:50 am

              See, that’s the other issue here. I’m not employing people on min wage, or anywhere near close to it. Anyone I employee is on 40k+ at least. Most towards 50k.

              15.75 * 40 * 52 = 32760

              So, actually very close to it. Even the $50k isn’t a huge amount above it.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.4
      17 June 2016 at 3:17 pm

      I’ve used it once. When it was found the guy lied about everything and didn’t actually know shit.
      Since his references lied (later found out) and his qualifications were ‘paid’ for, the law came in handy.

      Actually, the 90 day fire at will bill made no difference at all. You still could have fired him for lying on his CV. You would just have needed to follow reasonable protocol.

      What the bill has done is allowed me to employee more people with less risk. As pointed out by pretty much everyone.

      Except that the facts are now in – it doesn’t do that at all.

      • Infused 8.4.1
        17 June 2016 at 3:19 pm

        Yeah, the old, slow, expensive protocol. Hence the 90day law.

        • McFlock 8.4.1.1
          17 June 2016 at 3:39 pm

          Well, in those cases the old, slow protocol was to have a documented chat and say “on the one hand, here’s your last pay. On the other hand, here’s a personal grievance form for you to fill out at your leisure, alongside notarised copies of all the documentation you supplied and our follow-up that we feel might make the substantive part of a complaint to police. Please identify for us any information that you think is incorrect or out of context.”

          And then, after the pg period has expired, add to the documentation that followup with police was not required after a review of the facts.

          • Lanthanide 8.4.1.1.1
            17 June 2016 at 10:14 pm

            You think the police would care about someone lying on their CV?

            • McFlock 8.4.1.1.1.1
              17 June 2016 at 11:09 pm

              Depends on the extent of the lie – you hand them a free fraud conviction on a plate, they like it. And yes, CV lies count as fraud: “using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage”.

              I have actually been in workplaces where the discussion I mentioned took place.

              And similarly, I’ve also seen police say “nothing can be done” about other charges until workplace representatives handed the file to the cops. Open and shut case pled out.

        • Atiawa 8.4.1.2
          17 June 2016 at 10:08 pm

          You’re a fuckwit. Fuck off.

    • Rosie 8.5
      17 June 2016 at 3:27 pm

      Oh! Look! you must be one of these types!

      “There are so many, let me say, “unsuitable to run a business let alone hire people” type bosses in the NZ work environment that even though you know you’re doing a great job, you know the psycho boss can nut off at any time and fire you.”

      http://thestandard.org.nz/fire-at-will-90-days-law-a-great-success/#comment-1190274

    • mikes 8.6
      18 June 2016 at 6:22 am

      Infused, if you’re gonna bullshit, at least try and make it believable.

  9. Richardrawshark 9
    17 June 2016 at 3:56 pm

    BTW infused, my first job after they 90 day trial started the employer took the absolute piss. Exploited it for all it’s worth.

    • infused 9.1
      17 June 2016 at 11:22 pm

      I’m sure some employers do. But the law its self should not be repealed for a few people abusing it. They should get done over themselves. From what I am seeing, they are.

      Like I said above, where this all went wrong was National extending it to everyone. Should be for the smb.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1
        18 June 2016 at 12:21 pm

        I’m sure some employers do. But the law its self should not be repealed for a few people abusing it.

        Actually, that’s precisely why it should be repealed. As I’ve stated before, the law isn’t there for the majority of people but the minority who will abuse others.

        They should get done over themselves. From what I am seeing, they are.

        Yes they should but, under the law as it currently is, I suspect most of the abusers aren’t simply because the people being abused don’t have the resources available to them to mount an effective defence against the abuse.

        And the government department who’s supposed to prosecute the abusing employers have been covering up for them instead:

        It has been revealed that the government agency responsible for enforcing employment rights tried to cover up the widespread abuse of the Holiday Act by employers in this country.

  10. red-blooded 10
    17 June 2016 at 7:08 pm

    And let’s remember the 90 day bill is just one of the anti-worker, anti-union measures introduced by this bunch. Employers used to be required to tell people if there was a collective agreement available and if they could have union coverage. Unions used to be able to visit workplaces. Not any more!

    This bill has done exactly what it was designed to do – disempower workers. If we want to get rid of it we need to get working to change the government.

    ps – Blingish is vetoing the paid parental leave bill. What a sweetheart!

  11. Doug Mackie 11
    17 June 2016 at 7:28 pm

    If after 89 days, I am not happy with a newly elected MP can I fire them?

    • ianmac 11.1
      17 June 2016 at 7:34 pm

      Sorry mate. That would leave the entire House out of people with a lonely Mr Speaker muttering,” Order. Order!”

    • Lanthanide 11.2
      17 June 2016 at 10:16 pm

      If you had employed your newly elected MP at some private job, sure, you could fire them from that position.

      If you’re talking about “firing” an “elected” MP, then no, because they are not your employee.

  12. Ross 12
    17 June 2016 at 8:51 pm

    The trouble with 90 day trials is that employers still have to pay workers the minimum wage.

    Some employers would rather use unpaid trials to screw workers. The Salad Bowl in Nelson found out that trial periods are not necessarily a great idea. They had to pay an employee $6200 for two days’ work because the company thought they could treat their workers like shit.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/9129394/Ruling-may-end-unpaid-job-trials

    • infused 12.1
      17 June 2016 at 11:24 pm

      So, that means it’s working doesn’t it? The left banged on hard about this law not being challenged etc. Well it is. And employers are losing.

      You can’t simply fire people and not expect to be challenged.

      • Ross 12.1.1
        18 June 2016 at 10:56 am

        Did you click on the link? The worker was on an UNPAID trial, not a 90 day trial. The employer might have thought “why pay the minimum wage when I can get free labour?” Dumb employer.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2
        18 June 2016 at 12:28 pm

        No, it really doesn’t. It means that there are some unscrupulous people out there who will abuse people no matter what. These people should not be allowed to employ anyone ever again.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1
      18 June 2016 at 12:30 pm

      Yep. National have lied again. Either they lied initially or they’re lying now.