HRC calls for consultation on fire at will

Written By: - Date published: 4:17 pm, December 10th, 2008 - 18 comments
Categories: national/act government - Tags: ,

This just in: the Human Rights Commission has called for the fire at will bill to be put to select committee:

The Human Rights Commission has urgently requested the Government to reconsider its decision not to allow the 90-day bill to go to a select committee.

“Rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation and this is a fundamental change to employment law which requires serious consideration,” said Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor.

In letters to the Ministers of Labour and Justice, the Commission said “The select committee process is an important check and balance where both employers and employee rights can be debated in a measured way. Submissions to select committees reinforce democratic principles of transparency, participation and accountability.”

Some readers may recall the fuss the right made about the HRC’s issues with the Electoral Finance Bill (and continued to make even once the HRC said it was happy with the Bill after it was amended).

I wonder if they’ll now take up the HRC’s advice on National and Act’s abuse of process with the same gusto?

18 comments on “HRC calls for consultation on fire at will ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. sweetd 1
    10 December 2008 at 4:33 pm

    But the bill is not rushed, there has been plenty of discussion in it already. Refer to it already going through select committee and having changes made. This is not the same as the EFA with its 1000 amendments.

  2. Tane 2
    10 December 2008 at 4:39 pm

    sweetd, no one believes that. Try answering the quesitons I asked about the changes to the bill here. Face it, the HRC has called the Government on its shit. Now’s the time to show some humility and allow a proper debate on the bill.

  3. atavism 3
    10 December 2008 at 4:39 pm

    So, anyone with some photo shop skills want to have some fun:
    http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0712/a634bc2dd4ea7dcedc21.jpeg

  4. sweetd 4
    10 December 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Tane, who doesn’t believe that. Everyone I have spoken to support this bill, and most already operate under or create a similar situation. Its all about giving employers the same rights that workers have at the moment to quit at will. This will get more people into employment, its a good bill.

  5. Tane 5
    10 December 2008 at 4:46 pm

    I’m not going to argue the point with an ideological right-winger. But I think your hypocrisy over the HRC says it all.

    atavism – gold.

  6. sweetd 6
    10 December 2008 at 4:53 pm

    tane, it you can’t argue your point, then refrain from labeling people.

    I have no hypocrisy over the HRC, as I said this was well discussed last time at the select committee and changes were made because of.

  7. Tane 7
    10 December 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Dude, look at the last 20 posts. The point has been argued. I’m not going to waste my time trying to convert ideologues.

  8. Chris S 8
    10 December 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Sweetd: Tane, who doesn’t believe that.

    The HRC?

  9. Chris G 9
    10 December 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Sorry, why is parliament running under urgency at the moment anyway?

    Is the sky falling and the only people who know about it are our MPs?

  10. ak 10
    10 December 2008 at 5:20 pm

    On a matter of pay-back, Fire At Will sounds scary enough…. “FAWwwwwwww……”

    NACT says it gave warning…..”FAW!”

    but to Carry it Under Urgency reveals the true tory message……”FAWC-UU!!!”

    as you were

  11. Bill 11
    10 December 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Is it just me, or has the msm bought and intent on recycling the line that the 90 day bill is all and only about allowing employers to fire over performance?

    If so ( it’s basically all I’ve heard), do they really not understand that bosses can be right vindictive bastards and visit grief upon employees for a whole raft of reasons unrelated to performance?

    Do they really not understand that this law change allows a boss to fire an employee for any of one of those other reasons and avoid any accountability?

    I’ve been fired a couple of times. Under the ECA because a bosses relative ‘came on board’ and there was only one full time vacancy. So my casual status progressed to unemployed status. Second time because a prick in middle management didn’t like me much.

    Under the ERA I’ve had bosses trying the same crap and they have been unsuccessful only because I know the law and how it protects me.

    The same cannot be said for the countless employees (usually young and in the service industries) who get their hours incrementally reduced and ‘walk’ because a) they do not understand current legislation and b) find the whole prospect of challenging unfair dismissal too onerous.

    Now what? Oh yeah. No point in encouraging those youngsters to stand up for themselves ’cause the law wont let them. And no point in the likes of me standing up for my rights for the same reason.

    To reiterate. On EVERY occasion a boss has tried to fire me ( several in total) it has NEVER been performance related. Under the ECA they could get away with it. Until now, under the ERA they couldn’t.

  12. Jeremy 12
    10 December 2008 at 5:42 pm

    I’ve just been fired because my employer didn’t pay me at the agreed time and I complained about it.
    If this bill makes it even easier for an employer to fire people it needs to be stopped with urgency.

  13. Lew 13
    10 December 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Jeremy: Complain to the ERA while you still can. You might get reinstated, you might get compensated, at the very least you’ll know whether that was the real reason.

    L

  14. Tane 14
    10 December 2008 at 5:50 pm

    You should also consider calling the Workers’ Rights Service if you’re in Wellington. They do a lot of good work helping non-unionised workers who get shafted.

  15. Andrew 15
    10 December 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Jeremy: You seriously cannot be fired for complaining that you didnt get paid at the agreed time. If what you say is true then you will be in line for a constructive dismissal lawsuit. Even under the new law you cannot be fired for these reasons.

  16. Tane 16
    10 December 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Though of course you could under National’s law if your employer claimed it was for “performance” reasons.

  17. Camryn 17
    11 December 2008 at 5:20 am

    HRC? Why is Hillary Rodham Clinton getting involved in New Zealand politics?

    😉

Links to post