Labour and Lees-Galloway secure end to zero hours contracts

Written By: - Date published: 2:07 pm, March 8th, 2016 - 126 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, business, class war, Economy, employment, labour, national - Tags:

iain lees-galloway

The Government has buckled and agreed to changes proposed by Labour to Employment Law to do away with zero hour employment contracts.  Congratulations to Labour and especially Iain Lees-Galloway for achieving this.

From a Labour press release on stuff:

Changes demanded by Labour to new workplace legislation have today resulted in the banning of zero hour contracts, Opposition Leader Andrew Little says.

“National was forced to seek Labour’s support after United Future and the Maori Party echoed our concern that the Employment Standards Legislation Bill in its original form would entrench, not stop the exploitative practise of zero hour contracts.

“An amendment put up by Labour today will stop employers demanding workers be available for work without an agreement giving them guaranteed hours.

“This will be welcome news for those workers who have been forced to sit by the phone and sometimes left with no work to show for it.

If you want to read more about the subject there are multiple posts on the Standard including this recent guest post by Iain Lees-Galloway.  Essentially the Government appeared to want to do something about zero hour contracts, buckled when pressure was applied by the Judith Collins right faction of the party and then appeared to want to cement zero hour contracts into law.

The looming defeat of the bill was a stimulus for them to do something.  Labour has made itself relevant by achieving the changes and preserving the positive measures such as increased paid parental leave that was in the bill.

The debate on the bill is scheduled this afternoon.  Tune in to watch the very satisfying prospect of National back benchers being forced to eat what are for them some rather dead frogs.

Update: for the deniers …

126 comments on “Labour and Lees-Galloway secure end to zero hours contracts ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. McFlock 1
    8 March 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Well that seems like a pretty good result 🙂

    • The Chairman 1.1
      8 March 2016 at 2:40 pm

      You must be joking. Zero hours go to two guaranteed hours? Wow.

      This isn’t going to go down well with workers.

      • alwyn 1.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 2:47 pm

        “go to two guaranteed hours”.
        Is that what the claimed “win” is?
        The Press release was exceedingly short of detail wasn’t it.

        • The Chairman 1.1.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 3:05 pm

          Indeed, the press release was exceedingly short of detail.

          Surely, if Labour secured something of significance, it would have been touted.

        • Jamie 1.1.1.2
          8 March 2016 at 8:50 pm

          From the same crowd who complain whenever there is too much detail and the message isn’t simple enough.

      • Ovid 1.1.2
        8 March 2016 at 2:52 pm

        I trust the endorsement of Helen Kelly over your mewling that the Revolution hasn’t come. Christ almighty, what’s the point in being progressive if you don’t celebrate progress when it’s made? Especially when the left isn’t in government? More progress can be made when it is.

        • The Chairman 1.1.2.1
          8 March 2016 at 3:00 pm

          When progress being made is insufficient, there is little to celebrate.

          Did this gain the support of Labour’s potential coalition partners? If not, there’s even less to celebrate.

          • Jamie 1.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2016 at 8:51 pm

            Yes and the CTU and Unite.

            I think people on this thread should look at who is complaining about this win and take note for next time they complain and moan about every bloody thing Labour does.

            • mickysavage 1.1.2.1.1.1
              8 March 2016 at 9:03 pm

              Agreed. These sorts of comments remind me of this …

              • adam …
                8 March 2016 at 9:47 pm

                Don’t have a vision,

                Don’t have hope,

                Just shut up,

                and follow the party line.

            • The Chairman 1.1.2.1.1.2
              8 March 2016 at 9:48 pm

              “I think people on this thread should look at who is complaining about this win and take note for next time they complain and moan about every bloody thing Labour does.”

              I think people should stick to the topic at hand and not make it personal.

              Moreover, Labour should have made their amendments far more clear from the beginning (see post at 15).

              • mickysavage …
                8 March 2016 at 9:59 pm

                Here is your opportunity. Analyse the changes and tell us why they are sub optimal. You have made a number of negative comments but not addressed the actual changes. They are on the web. Give us your analysis and say why they are so bad.

                • The Chairman …
                  8 March 2016 at 10:21 pm

                  Without proportionality (see post at 15) the changes would mean little, thus workers could still be exploited.

        • Rosie 1.1.2.2
          8 March 2016 at 9:44 pm

          Thank you Ovid.

      • McFlock 1.1.3
        8 March 2016 at 2:53 pm

        There will be some employers who insist on rostering everyone on for two hours at a stretch. Most competent managers would prefer to do something else than split a 24hr roster into 12 shifts.

        What this does is cut down the number of people hired on a contingency basis – a quarter of staff signed up, keep yourself free in case we need you, sit there and get nothing for weeks.

        It also lessens the impact of “rostering people off” as an unofficial disciplinary measure.

    • Steve Withers 1.2
      9 March 2016 at 4:41 pm

      Unless it was a trade for Labour support of more spying powers for the GCSB. (I have no idea – I hope not.)

      Looks like a good trick, actually. Put up a straw man policy you know will get people riled…and it does…and they are distracted….and then you get them to give you something you want for something you (probably) weren’t actually going to do anyway. Or maybe you were……but you don’t really care if you don’t if you can get something better in return.

      • McFlock 1.2.1
        9 March 2016 at 4:55 pm

        Lol

        I bet CV’s kicking himself for not coming up with that theory, instead of trying to pretend that people going off half cocked about Labour is somehow Labour’s fault. A theory about a secret neoliberal bait&switch sellout to US intelligence is much more palatable to those with particularly skewed tastes.

        I guess we’ll have to wait and see if Labour vote for the increased powers…

  2. The Chairman 2
    8 March 2016 at 2:35 pm

    “An amendment put up by Labour today will stop employers demanding workers be available for work without an agreement giving them guaranteed hours”

    What? No fiscal compensation for a workers inconvenience, i.e. putting their life on hold when they are on-call?

    That’s a piss poor outcome.

    For example, if a worker is given one full day a week in permanent hours, but is expected to be on call for the rest of the week, Labour are calling this a success? Talk about lowering the bar.

    • Jamie 2.1
      8 March 2016 at 8:52 pm

      You obviously haven’t read the detail, after so many complaints it would have made sense for you to do some research.

  3. travellerev 3
    8 March 2016 at 2:41 pm

    I call bullshit on this one! Wait until the TPP gets in effect. (Which labour has for all intends and purposes already committed too) Labor laws will mean nothing if it impedes with Corporations making a profit. We’ll be sued until kingdom come andzer hours will be back. Only this time Labour will go, “Oops! Can’t do anything about them now!”

    • Jamie 3.1
      8 March 2016 at 8:53 pm

      And now the conspiracy nuts like travellerev. Yes, the tpp will destroy everything. I mean honestly, I’m as opposed as the next leftie but this is getting ridiculous.

  4. Rosie 4
    8 March 2016 at 2:49 pm

    From the inbox:

    Conditions that have been negotiated

    “Those changes mean:

    • Employers can no longer demand that you be available all the time for work without providing guarantees hours in your agreement.

    • The employer must have a good reason for requiring you to be available for work and reasonable compensation must be paid.

    • Employers will not be able to cancel shifts at the last minute without providing reasonable compensation. The notice period for cancellation of shifts must be reasonable and included in the employment agreement.

    • It is now much clearer in the law that having agreed hours in your employment agreement is expected.”

    It seems a lot would hinge on your “guaranteed hours” in your CEA or IEA, so best to get hours of work in concrete when starting a new job.

    • The Chairman 4.1
      8 March 2016 at 2:55 pm

      “Reasonable compensation must be paid”

      Define reasonable compensation, thanks.

      The notice period for cancellation of shifts must be reasonable.

      Once again, define reasonable, thanks.

      • McFlock 4.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 2:58 pm

        lol

        You sound like the tories who didn’t know what “good faith” meant in law when the ERA came in.

        Here’s what’ll happen: some dick will stuff their workers so much that the employment court will go “you’re a dick, that was unreasonable, these damages are reasonable”.
        In the meantime, normal people will pretty much act reasonably.

        • The Chairman 4.1.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 3:10 pm

          “In the meantime, normal people will pretty much act reasonably”

          Like they did when zero hours was initially initiated? Yeah right.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1
            8 March 2016 at 3:13 pm

            That was when there was no line.

            Now there is a line.

            Normal people know where that line is without help from the employment court, is my point.

            • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.1.1
              8 March 2016 at 3:19 pm

              Labour should have secured more. Relying on the courts to sort it is a cop out.

              • McFlock …
                8 March 2016 at 3:37 pm

                oh bollocks.

                You can’t prescribe everything in advance. Reasonableness changes according to circumstance. They have an absolute minimum to make it expensive for employers to overbook staff for the available work (like a cut rate airplane seat), and the specifics for difference contingencies (usually hospo) have a “reasonableness” backstop for the abusive employers.

              • Ross …
                8 March 2016 at 6:36 pm

                The Chairman seems unaware that Labour is in Opposition…parties in Opposition usually secure very little if anything.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  8 March 2016 at 6:40 pm

                  Then don’t bloody spin it as if its a huge win

                  • te reo putake …
                    8 March 2016 at 9:27 pm

                    It is a huge win, dude. I know it doesn’t affect your world, but thousands of kiwi workers have just had some dignity restored to their working lives. The union movement, and the party they founded, made this happen.

                    • Rosie …
                      8 March 2016 at 9:54 pm

                      Amen to that trp. It affects my world as an unemployed worker. I know for real how our conditions have deteriorated and it’s bloody demoralising and demeaning. It affects you mental health.

                      Sometimes I find the ideologically driven discussion on TS is patronising and insulting to ordinary people, speaking for myself that is. We often get talked about like we’re “other” and that people superior to us know what is best for us.

                    • Richard McGrath …
                      9 March 2016 at 2:44 pm

                      However there will be a few people, invisible to the politicians, who won’t get offered a job without zero hours contracts. The thing is, they probably don’t vote, so for the politicians it’s no loss.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 March 2016 at 2:53 pm

                      who won’t get offered a job that pays nothing some weeks so they’d still need state assistance without zero hours contracts

                      fixed it for you.

                      edit: come one, what the hell is the point of a job with no pay that still claims blocks of your time just in case you get a few breadcrumbs?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 March 2016 at 3:14 pm

                      McGrath never lifted a finger to help any of them and now he’s sincerely concerned. What a guy.

                  • Richard McGrath …
                    9 March 2016 at 3:49 pm

                    “McGrath never lifted a finger to help any of them and now he’s sincerely concerned. What a guy.”

                    Don’t know where you get this from. My comment referred to the tendency for those who were previously on zero hours contracts to now be unemployed if that employment option was no longer available. And the cynicism of politicians.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 March 2016 at 3:52 pm

                      If those who were previously on zero hours contracts lose their jobs, it’s because they were doing zero hours anyway.

                      No loss to them.

                    • Richard McGrath …
                      10 March 2016 at 4:42 am

                      @OAB – you’ve posted a series of links to previous comments I’ve made. Somehow that gives you full knowledge of whether I may or may not have had dealings with people on zero hours contracts. Hmm.

                      BTW has anyone here ever thought that self employed people are essentially working on a zero hours basis: no work opportunity, no pay. I had work like that at one time, contracted to a government department for over five years.

        • The Chairman 4.1.1.2
          8 March 2016 at 3:12 pm

          “Good faith” bargaining is largely a myth.

          Here’s the contract, take it or leave it, thanks.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1
            8 March 2016 at 3:39 pm

            But then the folks who start secretly recording their meetings can start losing money in court, along with their staff.

          • te reo putake 4.1.1.2.2
            8 March 2016 at 3:57 pm

            Interesting to see you don’t know what bargaining is, Chairman. I guess that reflects your wider understanding of industrial law.

            • The Chairman 4.1.1.2.2.1
              8 March 2016 at 9:20 pm

              It wasn’t an example of what bargaining is. It was an example of how a number find it takes place in the real world.

          • Ross 4.1.1.2.3
            8 March 2016 at 6:38 pm

            “Here’s the contract, take it or leave it, thanks.”

            And yet employers often complain that the employment relations framework is heavily weighted in favour of workers. Go figure.

      • Rosie 4.1.2
        8 March 2016 at 3:34 pm

        Geez. Don’t shoot the messenger Chairman.

        Yep, these words can be wonderfully vague hence my suggestion about job security hinging a lot on “hours of work” in your contract.

        Above all, it’s there now. It wasn’t before. What makes legislation like this work is culture change. Like I mentioned last week employers need to change, they need to realise they are accountable for upholding the law and being responsible for their workers well being on the job. Workers have to expect that though, they need to have the confidence and belief in themselves that they DO deserve better, and demand it.

        And what McFlock said.

        “Here’s what’ll happen: some dick will stuff their workers so much that the employment court will go “you’re a dick, that was unreasonable, these damages are reasonable”. ”

        This is what culture change brings, reduced tolerance for bullshit.

        • The Chairman 4.1.2.1
          8 March 2016 at 3:44 pm

          I merely asked you a couple of questions. There was no shooting of the messenger.

          “Yep, these words can be wonderfully vague hence my suggestion about job security hinging a lot on “hours of work” in your contract.”

          Hence, Labour’s failure to stipulate minimum hours.

          While I don’t disagree with your comments regrading a culture change, good law leads that change. Low skilled workers have little chance of having demands met, hence they need the law behind them.

          How long did it take for complaints to get us to this stage, now the fight (Labour was supposed to put an end too) continues on.

          • weka 4.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2016 at 3:53 pm

            How could the law stipulate minimum hours? Wouldn’t it depend on the job? In which case the legislation would have to name every job in Nz, the result being that new jobs aren’t covered.

          • McFlock 4.1.2.1.2
            8 March 2016 at 4:11 pm

            Hospo in particular comes to mind – some nights take off, some nights you think are going to take off do not. I’ve worked 13 or 14 hour shifts expecting eight, and I’ve been knocked off after four hours.

            Some employers have gone from that contingency to “employing” thirty people for maybe ten full time positions. Twenty people get three or four shifts a week and ten people in any particular week get nothing – and none of them can plan more than a few weeks ahead because the rosters come out fortnightly or monthly.

            A two hour minimum basically ensures at least one shift a week, every week, for everyone.

            • weka 4.1.2.1.2.1
              8 March 2016 at 4:17 pm

              I’m confused, is two hours to be specified in the legislation or not?

              • McFlock …
                8 March 2016 at 4:24 pm

                two hours was something I pickedup from chairman.
                Most of the Labour stuff I’ve seen is just “stipulated hours”. Theoretically it could be one hour, but the same issues hold as if it were two.

          • Rosie 4.1.2.1.3
            8 March 2016 at 5:07 pm

            I really don’t see how Labour can stipulate minimum hours, constrained as they are in opposition. There’s only so much leash they’ve got. It’s an achievement they’ve got this far with zero hours!
            But also, minimum hours are down the requirements of each job in each industry, as weka points out.

            A “good” employer, when advertising a position should state the minimum hours in the ad, so the prospective employee knows whether it’s suitable for them to apply for.

            The good law you are talking about isn’t going to happen until we get rid of this government, and until we get a government that respects workers rights. Until then, we have to work with what we’ve got, and where we’re at now is better than where we were before.

          • Jamie 4.1.2.1.4
            8 March 2016 at 8:57 pm

            Your issue seems to be that Labour did not, from opposition, end the entire concept of casual work. What they did do was end zero hour contracts, something I’ll trust Unite and the CTU on over you mate.

    • Karen 4.2
      8 March 2016 at 3:17 pm

      Yep … and join the union.

      I think Iain Lees-Galloway should be congratulated for all his hard work getting these changes through.

      Judith Collins must be spitting tacks.

      • The Chairman 4.2.1
        8 March 2016 at 3:21 pm

        National will be laughing at how low Labour lower the bar.

        • alwyn 4.2.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 5:53 pm

          I may be in an unduly cynical mood but I would be curious exactly what Peter Dunne required for his vote.
          If Labour knew what National were going to give him they could simply announce it as being due to their efforts, claim some credit and make Peter look irrelevant in one go.
          Quite clever if that was their approach. Anything has to look better than the current approach of simply adding “We Oppose” on the front of anything that John Key suggests, even if it was in your own policy last election.

          • Jamie 4.2.1.1.1
            8 March 2016 at 8:58 pm

            You’ll note the amendments are in Ian Lees Galloway’s name. That ought to provide a hint for you.

            • alwyn 4.2.1.1.1.1
              8 March 2016 at 9:42 pm

              Well,well. Those are the amendments?
              Much ado about nothing, aren’t they?
              If that was all Peter Dunne required they could have satisfied him as easily as they are going to satisfy the Labour Party. A few words of waffle.
              The “quite clever” opinion I gave seems to apply to National rather than Labour, doesn’t it? Now Labour are in the gun for claiming they were doing something when nothing is being accomplished.
              Actually they aren’t, of course. Nobody is going to remember at the end of next year.

      • Rosie 4.2.2
        8 March 2016 at 3:40 pm

        Getting union membership back up to decent levels would certainly help bring culture change and benefit all. Eg, when the CTU recently worked with the forestry industry to improve working conditions, death rates and injury rates were reduced, that was a win for everyone, not just union members.

  5. The Chairman 5
    8 March 2016 at 3:26 pm

    Ponder this:

    If the Unions didn’t support this, then members would start questioning the unions continued support of Labour.

    • Jamie 5.1
      8 March 2016 at 9:11 pm

      Ponder this: if climate scientists stopped finding evidence of global warming their government funding might dry up.

      In other words, grow up.

  6. Ad 6
    8 March 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Mickey, does Helen Kelly speak for the CTU on this one?

    I’d be interested to hear the official union position on this one.

    Sorry for the note of skepticism. I appreciate how rare a win this would be.

    • mickysavage 6.1
      8 March 2016 at 3:50 pm

      From the CTU website:

      Zero hours; goneburger

      Working people in New Zealand are on the verge of being much better off with zero hour agreements [contracts] on the cusp of being outlawed.
      “After seeing the final draft of the planned amendments to the Employment Standards Bill released today I am confident that working people will have more security of their hours of work,” CTU President Richard Wagstaff said.

      “If the legislation is passed with these amendments, it means zero hour employment agreements are gone, and working people will be better protected from these kinds of abuse,”
      “Working people should still negotiate to achieve fair outcomes, and working people are always strongest when we work to negotiate together, in union collectively to get the best results,”
      “There is still plenty of room to improve employment law in New Zealand and ensuring that working people are able to speak up together and achieve better pay and conditions at work though collective bargaining is crucial,”
      “The CTU recognises the removal of zero hours is real progress and we appreciate having had the opportunity to work with the Government and opposition parties on this” Wagstaff said.

      • weka 6.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 3:56 pm

        How to acknowledge ground gained without denying work still to do, and acknowledging work to do without slagging off ground gained (looking at you TC).

      • Ad 6.1.2
        8 March 2016 at 4:19 pm

        That’s good.
        Appreciated.

    • BLiP 6.2
      8 March 2016 at 3:54 pm

      ‘

      CTU statement –> http://business.scoop.co.nz/2016/03/08/zero-hours-goneburger/

      . . . There is still plenty of room to improve employment law in New Zealand and ensuring that working people are able to speak up together and achieve better pay and conditions at work though collective bargaining is crucial,”

      “The CTU recognises the removal of zero hours is real progress and we appreciate having had the opportunity to work with the Minister and opposition parties on this” Wagstaff said.

    • te reo putake 6.3
      8 March 2016 at 3:55 pm

      Helen will speak for workers till the day she speaks no more.

  7. Puddleglum 7
    8 March 2016 at 4:48 pm

    There’s something I don’t understand about all of this.

    For me, it’s not ‘guaranteed hours’ that is the issue it’s not being paid for the time you make yourself ‘available’ for work.

    Making yourself available is a service. How come employers don’t have to pay for it? It may be paid at a lower rate of pay than for attending work but it remains a service that someone is providing to an employer in order for them to run their business more efficiently and with lower risk.

    If it’s not paid for it’s a case of employers getting a free lunch, isn’t it?

    And saying that it happens elsewhere – e.g., doctors being ‘on call’ – doesn’t answer the question.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      8 March 2016 at 5:03 pm

      The amendment will require reasonable notice of cancellation of a shift being given. If it is not given then compensation can be paid.

      • Puddleglum 7.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 5:43 pm

        OK. Thanks mickysavage.

        So beyond some agreed, specified hours that comprise a shift a worker won’t have to agree to be available more generally as part of their contract?

        That is, if an employer doesn’t contact them to agree a shift on certain days there’s no obligation in the contract for the employee to be available for further work and so the employee is free to look for other work during any hours that haven’t been ‘locked down’ as a shift? (It would end up being a bit like trying to find common time for a meeting, perhaps?)

        I’m just trying to determine whether or not the employer would still, in effect, be gaining a service (‘availability’) without paying anything for that service.

        • Craig H 7.1.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 9:50 pm

          I’ve managed fast food, and in my experience, the hours were by roster, which were agreed to be up at least a week in advance. Once they were up, the employees were not required to be available for the days they were not rostered for.

  8. adam 8
    8 March 2016 at 4:59 pm

    If this is progress, then God help us all.

    If this is a win, please don’t ask me to celebrate it.

    Because if this is it, then you have no imagination, no desire, and no hope to see a better world for working people.

    The way our employment laws stand working people in this country will carry on suffering at the hands of the regressive attitudes of employers.

    You deserve better, we need to stop accepting the sloops from the Tory Scum.

    Because I’m with Red Emma on this,

    “Idealists are foolish enough to throw caution to the winds. They have advanced mankind and have enriched the world.” Emma Goldman

  9. rhinocrates 9
    8 March 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Two hours is a ‘win’? It’s theatre. Workers are still treated as assets on tap. It’s only a technical “win” with the calculated least change. Thus it’s a sick joke, cynical and shallow window dressing, an insult. It changes nothing fundamental. It only reinforces the fact that Labour is only interested in tinkering with fundamentally unfair employment conditions.

    If this is “winning”, put Charlie Sheen in charge of the party.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      8 March 2016 at 6:10 pm

      Yes, it’s merely political theatre.

      Note all the commentators above lauding the show as if it were a prize winner.

      • te reo putake 9.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 9:15 pm

        Says a middle class business owner. Actual workers know a win when they see one, CV. And they haven’t had many for the last few years, so crack a smile for ffs.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 10:16 pm

          Hey TRP, if you want to see established comfortable middle class of a certain age, look in the fucking mirror.

          • te reo putake 9.1.1.1.1
            9 March 2016 at 6:33 am

            You know nothing about me, CV. And what you assume is far from the reality.

            You’ll have to excuse me now, I’ve got to put my steel cap boots and safety gear on and go to my solidly proletarian zero hours job. Yes, really. I’m not kidding, Have a look at when I first comment every morning, note the long gaps between comments during working hours and the more extensive commenting in the evenings when I get home 10-12 hours later. That’s my life.

            I haven’t got the luxury of a bourgeois lifestyle to fall back on. I earn my coin the hard way, like most kiwis.

      • mickysavage 9.1.2
        8 March 2016 at 9:19 pm

        No deal done, no improved paid parental leave and current zero hour law remains.

        Deal done, improved paid parental leave and law about zero hour contracts improved. So where is the downside?

        To my fellow members of the left. We have to get out of the beat Labour up at every chance mode and celebrate improvements and gains. Today is one of those days where we should celebrate.

        • weka 9.1.2.1
          8 March 2016 at 9:28 pm

          I’m fairly critical of Labour as you know, but I’m gobsmacked by some comments today. What were Labour supposed to do differently? Not in ideal fantasy land, but in the real parliament where they had to work to get these changes from a govt that didn’t want them.

          If the implication is that Labour could have gotten more changes but chose not to, I’d like to see some evidence, or at least credible theory. If the implication is that Labour didn’t try hard enough, ditto.

          • mickysavage 9.1.2.1.1
            8 March 2016 at 9:40 pm

            Yep there is a swinging middle although the actual size is disputed. But the chance to get National to change for the better and claim credit is not a common experience. And the Health Ministry stuff is really dubious and the Fonterra stuff is potentially crippling. Today was not a good day for National.

          • Incognito 9.1.2.1.2
            8 March 2016 at 10:48 pm

            I’m fairly critical of Labour as you know, but I’m gobsmacked by some comments today.

            I think some could be due to irrational behaviour, some to conditioning and habit formation, some to deep-rooted opinions and biases, and some might be posting negative comments here because of personal and/or political agendas.

            • Karen 9.1.2.1.2.1
              9 March 2016 at 6:45 am

              + 1 Incognito

              That sums the behaviour very well but I would change “some might be” to “some are.”

        • The Chairman 9.1.2.2
          8 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

          It would help if you add the points made at post 15 to the thread header above.

          • mickysavage 9.1.2.2.1
            8 March 2016 at 10:07 pm

            It took you how long to come up with this?

            How do we treat all of your negative comments posted before this time?

            • The Chairman 9.1.2.2.1.1
              9 March 2016 at 12:27 am

              Mine (and other comments) were made due to your and Labours failure to communicate the amendments made.

              Correcting the thread header will avoid others coming to the same conclusion. Invalidating some of the negative comments made.

              Once the proportionality issue emerged, I put it up here. One can only assume you had a busy day too.

        • Rosie 9.1.2.3
          8 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

          +1 Micky

    • Jamie 9.2
      8 March 2016 at 9:00 pm

      Again, this will be dealt with in the detail under what is reasonable. This is decided by the courts. It is how all employment law works and these words have precedence and meaning. If you don’t understand this concept you have no business talking about employment law, it’s that elementary. It’s not some fcking plot, it’s how it has always worked and always will.

  10. Cricklewood 10
    8 March 2016 at 5:42 pm

    In all honesty this is a minor improvement that doesn’t address the use of zero hour type contracts to circumvent disciplinary process or fairness in the workplace. One reason the zero hours are popular with scum employers is the ability to slash someones hours in a punitive fashion with very little fear of a negative consequence. I can’t see how this ammendment really addresses this and in reality the only way to stop these kinds of abuse is a strong and active union movement. Left parties should be looking to greatly strengthen the union movement through legislation when the are in govt as it will be the best way to ensure that zero hours and similar shifty employment practicestatus are stomped out.
    *As an aside I am not against zero hour contracts as they can be useful but I think they should be restricted to roles where the renumeration is above a certain level say $35-$40 per hour.*

  11. Brian 11
    8 March 2016 at 6:34 pm

    I can’t believe this is being considered a victory for anyone but the govt. It has made them look reasonable and probably handed them a fourth term.

  12. greywarshark 12
    8 March 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Look stop quibbling, Labour has got up from its deck-chair and gone out to bat for workers. So they didn’t score a century, but we have a long time to go in this century and there is yet room for great improvement, so watch this space for further turns at the crease.

    Boney M hideho Happy Holiday.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP20j9L185g
    Workers will have to get more hours to be able to afford a lovely holiday like this. But holidays of any sort are only really fun when it’s a break from work. So if you have no or little work there is no money and no real pleasure to look forward to and to sing and play.

    • alwyn 12.1
      8 March 2016 at 9:47 pm

      “gone out to bat for workers”
      If this is the best they can do it seems rather like Don Bradman’s last test innings.
      Out for a duck.

      • Puddleglum 12.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 10:11 pm

        That was very unfortunate.

        I think he only needed to score around about six runs in that innings to have a test average of 100+.

        • alwyn 12.1.1.1
          9 March 2016 at 11:39 am

          4 actually.
          He ended up with 6996 runs from 70 completed innings.
          Average ended up at 99.94. Adam Voges is having a run at it currently.
          He’s averaging 95.5 at the moment although from far fewer innings.

      • Skinny 12.1.2
        8 March 2016 at 11:16 pm

        Speaking of Ducks I can see a few feathers about to be plucked. Laughing already at the thought of it. Will check in Friday with ya to see if you got a laugh.

  13. upnorth 13
    8 March 2016 at 8:26 pm

    umm I really think Labour has got this wrong.

    Labour has messed up in the fine print _ I wish people read.

    Labour got sucker punched and the bigger announcement is to come where labour is going find themselves on the outer.

    Hint: 1 April Legislations

  14. upnorth 14
    8 March 2016 at 8:28 pm

    umm I really think Labour has got this wrong.

    Are you serious Labour just voted in a National Party employment bill…seriously you need your head read

    Labour has messed up in the fine print _ I wish people would read.

    Labour got sucker punched

  15. The Chairman 15
    8 March 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Finally some clarity. After watching the debate this evening, I see proportionality (permanent hours – on call hours) has been put in place, vastly alleviating concerns.

    For example, if a worker has two permanent hours, the intention of the law is they can only be on-call for two or less hours.

    • weka 15.1
      8 March 2016 at 9:30 pm

      Sometimes it pays to wait until one knows the facts before making judgements.

      • The Chairman 15.1.1
        8 March 2016 at 9:54 pm

        I tried to get Iain to clarify Labour’s position the other day.

        Moreover, there was no mention of this in their press release or this thread.

        Don’t blame me for Labour’s failure to clearly communicate.

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1
          8 March 2016 at 10:19 pm

          Thanks for the update.

        • weka 15.1.1.2
          8 March 2016 at 10:20 pm

          “Don’t blame me for Labour’s failure to clearly communicate.”

          I’m not. I’m suggesting that you can ask questions without condemning. As it is is just comes across as another anti-Labour rant and I can’t see the point.

          I agree with micky. It’s time we take responsibility for our comments and the effects they have (I’m including myself in that).

          • The Chairman 15.1.1.2.1
            8 March 2016 at 10:30 pm

            The way this was sold (without the proportionality detail) it came across as vastly insufficient, hence it was condemned as such.

            • weka 15.1.1.2.1.1
              8 March 2016 at 10:41 pm

              no, some people jumped on the Labour are fucked band wagon, and others saw it for the practical deal that it was. You have choices about how you respond to things. Even if you thought that Labour were doing something wrong or bad you can still take time to actually find out before condemning them. Plenty of people here were presenting good arguments for why it was a win.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 March 2016 at 10:45 pm

                Expectations of Labour are pretty fucking low weka, and rightfully so. The fact that The Chairman jumped a bit hard on Labour over this issue merely reflects that.

                And no one presenting this issue as a “win” spoke of proportionality. That detail only emerged largely thanks to The Chairman.

              • The Chairman …
                9 March 2016 at 12:31 am

                Of course people jumped on Labour for this.

                The press release and this thread sold it as vastly insufficient.

                Thus, Labour being jumped on was to be expected. And if it was the case, would have been well deserved.

                As Colonial Viper said, no one presenting this issue as a “win” spoke of proportionality. That detail only emerged largely thanks to me.

                As LV Martin use to say, it’s the putting right that counts.

                You’re welcome.

                • weka …
                  9 March 2016 at 9:52 am

                  Then jump on Labour for not doing a good press release. But that’s not what you spent most of the thread doing. You condemned Labour about the content of the release and ignored what other informed people were saying before, IMO, you knew enough. It’s just Labour bashing by reflex.

                  • The Chairman …
                    9 March 2016 at 10:43 am

                    Of course I condemned Labour for the content of the release. It is the subject of the topic.

                    I don’t condemn Labour for the mere sake of it.

                    Moreover, the release missed out an extremely vital point. Doing so implied their amendments were vastly insufficient.

                    I didn’t ignore what others were saying. Your opinion is often wrong, as in this case.

                  • Karen …
                    9 March 2016 at 12:50 pm

                    Agreed Weka.

                    The usual suspects chose to ignore all the support for what Labour had achieved from the CTU, the PSA, Unite and anybody else who works at the frontline with vulnerable workers.

                    My guess is the neither The Chairman nor CV have much to do with unions or with people on zero contracts and just wanted to indulge in their favourite pastime of attacking Labour.

                    • The Chairman …
                      9 March 2016 at 2:33 pm

                      Karen

                      Not one press release mentioned the vital point (proportionality).

                      Communication is essential in politics, thus missing a vital point is poor form.

                      On a side note, I’m not the topic. Thus your snide remark attempting to make me the topic only reflects badly on your form.

                      Attacking Labour is not my pastime, but I have no hesitation in holding them to account.

                      Without proportionality (which was never mentioned) the amendments would have been insufficient.

                      Therefore, those claiming this was a win without knowing about the proportionality clause were actually celebrating a policy that was (without the proportionality clause) vastly insufficient. Bringing into question what they were actually celebrating.

                    • You_Fool …
                      9 March 2016 at 3:47 pm

                      I’d argue the additional detail did not make the amendment seem insufficient; it was still a deal that was better than what would have been so worthy of some cheer. However it did open the amendment up to attack, which i notice it was portrayed as such in the news last night: that 0 hrs was gone, but people could be given 1 hr a week instead and have to be on call. The proportionality part means that is not possible. I do note that others talked about this issue above before you put it up, but spoke about it as though it was a well known fact – i.e. now I know this I read their comments differently. An example would be if you didn’t know the sky was blue and you were listening to a discussion about why the sky is blue, without them mentioning that is the actual colour of the sky.

                  • The Chairman …
                    9 March 2016 at 2:34 pm

                    Only because you required me too, weka.

    • alwyn 15.2
      8 March 2016 at 9:51 pm

      Exactly where in the bill does it say that?
      If it isn’t in the bill how is a Court supposed to take any notice of your opinion about what it “means”?
      After all Geoffrey Palmer is on record as saying that “the principles of the treaty of Waitangi” was entirely meaningless. The Courts take a different view.

      • The Chairman 15.2.1
        8 March 2016 at 9:58 pm

        It’s a clause in the bill. 73b I think. Didn’t note it, but it’s in there.

  16. Descendant Of Sssmith 16
    8 March 2016 at 10:41 pm

    While it’s a step forward two hours a week isn’t a job, nor is four hours a week..

    A job should give someone some sense of security and financial benefit.

    I’m pretty sure in quite a few workplaces a job can’t be established unless it is ten hours per week or more.

    Ten hours was I believe used because it gave employers the ability to bring someone in for five days per week to cover two shifts of staff lunch hours.

    Two hours per day for five days gives ten hours.

    Ten hours per week should be the minimum in all work places.

    If you really need someone to do less work than that pay another staff member overtime or increase someone else’s hours.

    If the government can’t legislate for ten hours minimum then unions should up their game and get it put into their contracts.