Labour on fire at will

195 comments on “Labour on fire at will ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tiger Mountain 1

   18 July 2015 at 8:02 am

   yes lets get Labour’s actual, definitive position on “Fire at will”

   but if Anthony Robins is correct this is not good news for vulnerable workers, these bloody SME owners tend to put the bach, boat and HSV Commodore before research and a living wage, let alone safe workplaces and practices

   the political psychology that has developed over 30 years to torture our young and the ‘underclass’ is well explained in the small volume “Ruth, Roger and Me”, http://www.bwb.co.nz/books/ruth-roger-and-me
   essential reading for anyone needing a primer or more likely, a reminder
   • mickysavage 1.1

     18 July 2015 at 8:25 am

     Labour’s official policy is to “restore workers’ right to contest dismissals during the first 90 days of employment by abolishing the current government’s Fire At Will law”.

     The latest expression of the policy has not changed I believe. There is clear belief that the current law is unfair and needs to change.

     There is no objection to trial periods per se. There was a trial period provision under the ERA but it had a fairness requirement and employees could contest firing through the personal grievance procedure.

     Little is suggesting a discussion with the various parties on how fair trial period laws could work. This is consistent with existing policy.

     The media have leaped on a few words said and made a story out of it.
     • Sacha 1.1.1

       18 July 2015 at 6:51 pm

       Darian Fenton commented here yesterday on where the problem was:

       “the policy says : “Labour will restore workers’ right to contest dismissals during the first 90 days of employment by abolishing the current government’s Fire At Will law” I think the ambiguity surrounding Andrew’s comments today are a PR problem that needs sorting quick smart.”

       I believe she meant another party comms failure, rather than that media were getting it wrong.

       If you use the same term as your opponent (in this case “trial period”) then do not blame the media or the public for what they hear. Going back to calling it ‘probation period’ may have been smarter – unless the intent was actually to appear to be continuing the current settings. Like the dogwhistling around house buyers, it’s by no means clear which way Labour actually planned to go.
       • Michael who failed Civics 1.1.1.1

         19 July 2015 at 1:22 am

         I agree: it’s not that difficult to say Labour will allow trial periods but will restore the fundamental right of workers dismissed at any stage of their employment to contest their dismissal through the legal system. But that’s not what Little said.
   • Olwyn 1.2

     18 July 2015 at 9:06 am

     I agree TM – it is also well explained, from a British perspective, by Owen Jones’s two books, “Chavs – the demonisation of the working class” and “The Establishment and how they get away with it.”

     I also take issue with “the centre” concept and the “dead rats” idea. Starting with the second, National’s dead rats did not involve letting down their constituency – they kept things like WFF and interest free student loans to bring more people over to their side, but persisted with their tax switch. Moreover, their constituents readily understood that dead rats were being swallowed on their behalf. None of this would apply to Labour’s keeping draconian employment laws since there is no commensurate pay-off for workers on the horizon.

     As to appealing to the so-called centre, this PR concept is more pertinent to pitching products than governance. I concede that it is hard for parties to win elections without at least some of the well-heeled on board. I also think that the chance of getting such people on board has recently increased, as the threatening side of the global economy shows its face. The promise of sober, just governance might get these well-heeled people and Labour’s constituency onto the same page. Shallow pitches to “the centre” will not – it will just attract the mistrust of both groups.
     • Michael who failed Civics 1.2.1

       19 July 2015 at 1:25 am

       I agree: Jones’s book is a great read and relevant to NZ politics too. Capital wields overwhelming political power today and it requires moral courage to stand up to it. That is what we need from our Labour politicians. If they can’t or won’t display it, we’re better off voting for someone else instead. Not sure who, though.
   • KK 1.3

     18 July 2015 at 12:56 pm

     Once again the Twitterati get hysterical and slag off the Labour Party based on nothing but a misreported line in the media. FFS people, this is why Labour keeps losing, it’s a party that wants to consume itself.
     • Saarbo 1.3.1

       18 July 2015 at 9:31 pm

       You are not wrong. Ironically it seems, many members in the “broad church” lack tolerance.
       • Raf 1.3.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 10:59 pm

         You are not wrong neither …
2. Ad 2

   18 July 2015 at 8:14 am

   Really bad case of “explaining is losing”.

   Little, you’ve got your high-cost poll bump.

   So don’t fuck it up.
   • te reo putake 2.1

     18 July 2015 at 8:54 am

     Ad, the polling period for the RM was almost entirely before the exposure of the Ak housing crisis, so it’s down to National’s weaknesses and Labour’s discipline. There will be other polls over the next few weeks that will show the effect of last weekend.

     Re: the 90 days, I think Little was using language that suited his business audience at that specific event. Change is gonna come to the fire at will law. However, it’s up to us, the activists, to make sure its actually the change that’s really needed.
     • BevanJS 2.1.1

       18 July 2015 at 12:07 pm

       It’ll be an interesting test of Chris Trotter’s theory that the discipline required was to stay out of the media.
3. Skinny 3

   18 July 2015 at 8:53 am

   We have bigger fish to fry than worrying about back downs (fabricated) on changing the fire at will law. The usual shills Tova, Paddy, Henry & Hoskings etc will try putting a wedge in the ranks. A crisp millitary salute… stay in formation troops.
4. fleur 4

   18 July 2015 at 8:55 am

   Swallow dead rats? This kind of political game analysis which does not take into account the human casualties of these policies should have no place in Labour.

   There are young vulnerable workers who have had their confidence and mental health shattered because of dismissals in trials for no reason. It is real, these young people are emotionally destroyed and suicidal after they get the sack. I think they deserve better from Labour.

   [Deleted duplicate comment, fleur. TRP]
5. infused 5

   18 July 2015 at 9:19 am

   Not sure how its unfair. You can still challange it.

   Its also not fire at woll. If you fire at will, you will lose in court. Simple as that.
6. fleur 6

   18 July 2015 at 9:28 am

   You cannot still challenge dismissal under a trial period. That is why they are so harsh and unfair.

   90 day trials mean you have no right to take a personal grievance (unless harassment, etc.)

   This is why people sacked under them emotionally breakdown.
   • Coffee Connoisseur 6.1

     18 July 2015 at 10:32 am

     Well if someone has been sacked under 90 days then they should take a good look at their own actions that have led to that. The employer has to provide good feedback to an employee (more than once to be safe). and raise any areas that the employee needs to focus on. If the employee hasn’t taken that on board then perhaps they need to take some responsibility for the outcome. You do realise you can’t just fire someone under the 90 day law.
     • aidan 6.1.1

       19 July 2015 at 10:43 am

       don’t be a dick. that law has been abused since it came in. it allows employers to pay less for the trial period then sack workers once trials over. when this potential was pointed out national claimed that of course employers would act ethically. yeah right
   • red-blooded 6.2

     18 July 2015 at 11:23 am

     You can’t challenge dismissal under a trial period UNDER THE CURRENT LAW. What Little said was that this will change under Labour, so that an unfair dismissal can be challenged. As I see it, this is re-establishing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act (or something very close to that). As such, I (a trade union activist) have no problem with it. The elements of the 90 Day scheme that have always been unfair is the idea that an employer doesn’t need to explain their decision to fire someone within the first 90 days, and that no such decision can be challenged because there is no obligation to behave in a way that is reasonable.
     • Coffee Connoisseur 6.2.1

       18 July 2015 at 12:07 pm

       If your a Trade Union Activist then you need to wake up. Trade unions in the face of automation thats coming should be looking now to ensure that workers are freed from having to work as much. You should be ensuring that workers and society as a whole realises the true benefits that are possible under automation.
       The alternative is that it will only be the company bottom line that benefits and the biggest opportunity for workers since the industrial revelution will have been again been lost, and this time you won’t get another shot,
       This is a million x more important than 90 days.

       Imagine if a platform existed that enabled businesses and workers to use that platform and actively find ways and work towards automating that business as much as possible. Now imagine that unlike the industrial revelution if workers benefitted also. The business through greater efficiency. The worker through not needing to work anywhere near as much but still getting paid the same.
       Imagine a tax break as a policy option to help businesses that decided to do that with their workers so that they could remain competitive.
       Imagine all businesses doing that.
       Imagine having just transitioned from Capitalism to a much fairer and far more automated system.
       Imagine that platform being able to introduce a currency.
       Imagine that platform replacing the banks.
       Imagine if the people with that platform understood its true potential and simply wanted everyone to have more time freed up to spend more time with their family and being able to do the things that they are truly passionate about.
       Imagine if once enough automation had taken place over time that you could simply switch off the charging and they were aware of that.
       Imagine no more war, no more poverty.
       Imagine if those people and that platform were right here in NZ.

       Imagine if there was a competitor that had grown very large very quickly that had the same platform but were only interested in the old corporate profit model.

       Wake up Mr Trade Union Activist, your greatest challenge and opportunity is just around the corner. Don’t miss it.
       As an old mentor once told me. Do more. Be more.
       • red-blooded 6.2.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 12:33 pm

         A few comments in reply:
         1) How does your “automation will free us all” rant link AT ALL to the topic under discussion?
         2) Imagine a world where dickheads like you don’t assume all people to be male unless otherwise indicated. (I am not “Mr” anything!)
         3) Imagine yourself into a nice little automated utopia if you like. That’s what it is and will remain – a utopia. We’ve been through several waves of automation before – none of them has led to your imaginary scenario. you ask me to “Now imagine that unlike the industrial revelution (sic) if workers benefitted also. The business through greater efficiency. The worker through not needing to work anywhere near as much but still getting paid the same.” Guess why it didn’t happen last time? Because business and philanthropy are not the same thing, and businesses look to cut costs where they can – one place being wages for workers. That’s (unfortunately) reality for you; I don’t have to imagine it, I see it all around me and so would you if you opened up your eyes.
         4) Not all unions represent workers who could realistically be replaced by automation. We were told in my profession that technology was going to ease our workloads; bullshit. It’s changed the nature of our work, but significantly increased the demands on us. We certainly have not been freed by automation.
         • RedLogix 6.2.1.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 12:55 pm

           We were told in my profession that technology was going to ease our workloads; bullshit. It’s changed the nature of our work, but significantly increased the demands on us. We certainly have not been freed by automation.

           As a professional automation engineer I absolutely agree with what you are saying here; especially your last para.

           The single thing I regret most is that the capitalist model means that almost 90% of the productivity gains from technology and automation are captured by the capitalists – the top 0.01%.
           • Coffee Connoisseur 6.2.1.1.1.1

             18 July 2015 at 1:16 pm

             +1
         • Coffee Connoisseur 6.2.1.1.2

           18 July 2015 at 1:07 pm

           1). It doesn’t except possibly that there are more important things trade union activists could be focussing on. But then I took the view that somethings are worth risking getting banned for. I think this is one of those things.

           2) Imagine a world where people didn’t call people dickheads or lambast them for making a simple mistake. But you have my apology nonetheless.

           3) I see it all around too. As someone who has been at the forefront of automation for 20 years I’ve learned you don’t fix problems with the same thinking that created them. As for Utopian, by your own admission you represent workers whose jobs can’t be automated. In light of that how is it Utopian. Its not its just a damn site better than what we have now. Its about changing the paradigm and the way we think about business, who its for and what could be achieved through it. Some of us (not many) understand that you can’t have infinite growth. Some of us understand that Capialism is a zero sum game. Some of us even understand that the profit motive and planned obsolecense is the reason our world is being destroyed.

           4) Not yet but you could be. Or it can simply mean more Corporate profits and not enough jobs for the number of people in society.

           Sometimes it just takes the right people with the right idea, at the right time, with their heart in the right place.

           I get your cyncisim but don’t let that and ego let you miss the opportunity.
           It is the different way of thinking that is the key here.

           Or you could stick with the current redistribution of wealth model that makes people wage slaves for the majority of their lives leaving them in a somewhat continual state of stress. It doesn’t have to be that way. How scared of change are you?

           The dream for many is to make enough money to be able to free themselves from the system. Another way to do that (free yourself) is to create a passive income stream that enables you to work a lot less or even not at all.
           Automation could soon enable that at a much more individual level. Doing so can be about corporate profit or it can be about people.
           Afterall who is the system for and what is its purpose.
           Sometimes we need to learn the lessons from the past so that we don’t make the same mistakes when those opportunities are presented to us again in the future.
           Its good that you have already learned them.
           • red-blooded 6.2.1.1.2.1

             18 July 2015 at 1:46 pm

             Hey, good luck with your automated dream. I just think it’s extremely unlikely that you are going to change the business paradigm about profit and where it goes just because you think it would be nicer if we were all nicer to each other. Getting back to the point (the 90 Days Act) – that’s why we HAVE (or should have) employment law; to try to put some balance and fairness into an inherently unbalanced relationship and to protect the vulnerable from abuses of power from the powerful. That’s not cynical; it’s a practical way of advancing the core values that see human beings as worthy of respect and dignity.

             And as for the “dickhead” comment, I think that was a fair response to the aggro of the “wake up, Mr Trade Unionist” comment. I’m not asleep, or dreaming, and I’m not a “Mr”.

             And, by the way, I don’t want to be “freed from work”. I think work plays an important role in giving purpose, challenge, enjoyment and satisfaction to one’s life. It can also be a burden, but that’s burden that can be mitigated and managed, and once again that’s where good employment law comes in.
             • Colonial Viper …

               18 July 2015 at 2:24 pm

               work is crucial to society

               its the fact that we have conflated work with paid employment, that has led us to difficulties.

               And most modern forms of paid employment still carry the negative characteristics described by old fashioned critics of ‘wage slavery.’
           • RedLogix 6.2.1.1.2.2

             18 July 2015 at 2:12 pm

             @CC

             You may well enjoy this:

             Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation, currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences, will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all.

             Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.

             Third, we’re seeing the spontaneous rise of collaborative production: goods, services and organisations are appearing that no longer respond to the dictates of the market and the managerial hierarchy. The biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by volunteers for free, abolishing the encyclopedia business and depriving the advertising industry of an estimated $3bn a year in revenue./blockquote>

             http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
             • Colonial Viper …

               18 July 2015 at 2:25 pm

               they are working hard to turn post-capitalism into a kind of neo-feudalism neo-colonialism.
               • Coffee Connoisseur …

                 18 July 2015 at 6:34 pm

                 No Viper its more of an individual collectivism.
                 Where the needs of people are what the system needs to deliver.
                 Communism failed around the ability to consistently supply basic needs.
                 Capitalism is failing as those same basic needs are being priced out of many peoples reach. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to extrapolate out the path we are headed on to see that it only gets worse from here,

                 There will always be work for society but it will be more in the areas of things like IT, science, design, arts and manufacturing and it is likely to be required far less than it is now.
                 I tell people imagine only needing to work the same hours that you did when you were at school, That’s so it is believable for them. The potential reality is far greater. It’s more like 3 days a week with four day weekends. But thats only if the benefits of automation’s ability to free people from needing to work so much (simply in order to survive in many cases) isn’t instead only realised on the Corporate bottom line. This is sold on the basis that the individual benefits via use of the service that they pay pay the corporate for.
                 But that is not where the true power of automation lies.

                 Red Logics post above is so so accurate.

                 Most people don’t realise that those Hydro Dams our government sold off, those were automated way back in the late 80’s.
                 It is society’s social structures that can’t cope with the coming changes and they need to change.

                 People need to listen less to Economists and more to the people who have been working on designing and engineering systems. These are actually the people that can fix these problems.
                 • Coffee Connoisseur …

                   18 July 2015 at 6:46 pm

                   Thanks for posting that, That is the best thing I have read in a long time.
                   It seems like a lonely world sometimes.

                   Sorry that ^ should have been under the article Red Logic posted.
               • Coffee Connoisseur …

                 18 July 2015 at 6:49 pm

                 Sorry Viper just realised who the ‘they’ you were referring to was. Must be a bit slow today.
             • Coffee Connoisseur …

               19 July 2015 at 6:56 am

               Thanks I enjoyed that a lot. Have saved that for later.
               Everyone needs to read that article.
7. Jenny Kirk 7

   18 July 2015 at 9:36 am

   You don’t really think a couple of former long-time unionists (Andrew Little and his chief of staff Matt McCarten) would grind the workers down ? Or do you really think they’d give up on what they’ve spent their lives fighting for ? This link to a Herald story yesterday – if you read it right through – explains Labour’s position.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11482750

   Andrew Little says the Party always accepted the need for some employers to trial workers but National had introduced “grossly unfair” law and Labour would change it to “restore fairness”. He then referred to the fact that before the Nat’s law change, there had been previously a similar law – but much more reasonable – and said :

   “Because there were two laws – a trial period law, and a probationary period law, we will look at both and make sure what we have allows employers to try out workers … and there is one consistent law across the two. ….. there were a whole heap of things to be looked at to restore the fairness requirements in the law.”
   • weka 7.1

     18 July 2015 at 9:46 am

     Thanks Jenny, that’s clearer.
   • Coffee Connoisseur 7.2

     18 July 2015 at 10:27 am

     So stupid. If I wasn’t well aware of how badly this country is getting screwed over. I’d vote National over this issue.
     Leave it alone and you’ll get a whole heap of SME owners up and down the country voting Labour as all National does is pander to overseas corporates often at their expense.
     This one has actually helped SMEs quite a bit.
     • red-blooded 7.2.1

       18 July 2015 at 11:25 am

       How would voting National (who established this unfair law and have no intention of changing it) help anything? That’s just irrational.
       • Coffee Connoisseur 7.2.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 11:31 am

         I run a business. The point I was making is that this is a law that is important to small to medium sized business owners. It could be the difference between getting their votes and not.
         I have ndicated the the things that might improve it further down. So perhaps don’t leave it alone completely, But tread carefully. It might be the difference between being seen to be pro business vs anti business.
         I get why Labour voters might not care about that but perhaps they should. As things seem to be lining up it might enable Labour to do what National has done to them. Occupying policy in the centre does not mean you have to give up left wing ideals, it just gives you a better chance at being able to implement them.
         • red-blooded 7.2.1.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 12:44 pm

           Your original comment was impenetrable, Coffee Connoisseur. You were replying to the details given by Jenny, that “Andrew Little says the Party always accepted the need for some employers to trial workers but National had introduced “grossly unfair” law and Labour would change it to “restore fairness”. He then referred to the fact that before the Nat’s law change, there had been previously a similar law – but much more reasonable – and said :

           “Because there were two laws – a trial period law, and a probationary period law, we will look at both and make sure what we have allows employers to try out workers … and there is one consistent law across the two. ….. there were a whole heap of things to be looked at to restore the fairness requirements in the law.””

           In reply, you said, “So stupid. If I wasn’t well aware of how badly this country is getting screwed over. I’d vote National over this issue.
           Leave it alone and you’ll get a whole heap of SME owners up and down the country voting Labour as all National does is pander to overseas corporates often at their expense.
           This one has actually helped SMEs quite a bit.”

           How did you intend that to be read? I interpreted the “so stupid” bit to mean that it was stupid to have phrased this statement in a way that needed further clarification, and the rest of your comment as meaning that if you hadn’t received that clarification you might have given your vote to National because of being disappointed by Labour’s stance (which was in line with the general flow of discussion, with people misinterpreting the statement). Perhaps i was wrong, but when I look again I still don’t see a coherent statement. Sorry.
           • Coffee Connoisseur 7.2.1.1.1.1

             18 July 2015 at 1:18 pm

             I said I was trying to. I never said I had communicated it well. 🙂
             The ‘so stupid’ was in relation to Labour doing away with it. In my view its good but there is room to improve it and provide more protection from employers that would seek to abuse it.
8. weka 8

   18 July 2015 at 9:38 am

   The thing that bothers me about this isn’t Labour’s policy, it’s that after 24 hours we still don’t know what Labour’s policy is and are left with quite contradictory reports. This feeds into the perception that Labour simply aren’t competent to govern. It’s a perpetual problem, one which I really can’t understand, but either Labour sorts out how it manages communication or we have another 5 years of National.

   While I know that this “centrist” approach angers the activist base I personally don’t have much problem with it. Let Labour chase the center, let The Greens chase the left, then let MMP work its magic and we’ll get the government and the laws that we need.

   R0b, I’d be interested to hear how you see NZF fitting into that.
   • Karen 8.1

     18 July 2015 at 10:32 am

     I also am perplexed at the lack of a definitive answer from Labour on this issue. I shouldn’t have to trawl through twitter feeds to try and find out what Little really meant.

     If they are going to keep the 90 day fire at will trial then that will be it for me with Labour. The main reason for supporting them for me is that they are supposed to improve the lot of the working class, the poor and the disadvantaged.
     • weka 8.1.1

       18 July 2015 at 10:48 am

       It sounds like that’s not what they are doing, and reading between the lines (or the tealeaves) I’m guessing that Little is trying to speak in language that encourages employers to look at fairness and take Labour seriously. Unfortunately he yet again forgot about the rest of us.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 12:54 pm

         I take it as Little not being able to fully clarify Labour’s position because that position is unpalatable (to either business interests or to workers interests; not sure which right now).
         • weka 8.1.1.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 1:40 pm

           Yep, that would be the unkinder interpretation 😉
     • Clemgeopin 8.1.2

       18 July 2015 at 11:48 am

       “Labour are supposed to improve the lot of the working class, the poor and the disadvantaged”

       Yes, Labour does that and have done that all along. But for the work done by Labour over the years, there wouldn’t have been many of the Labour laws, worker rights, fairer wages, improved conditions of work etc that employees enjoy everywhere. EVERYONE should recognise and applaud Labour for this. Why not?

       However, employers are people too like us. They too need fairness and plenty of support for being the job providers, the risk takers, the sustainers of business, production and society.

       Employers and employees are in a symbiotic relationship each supporting the other. The government (Labour) therefore need to have laws and procedures which are fair to BOTH sides, not just one. So, retaining the present 90 day trial periods which favours the employer, but making it fairer to protect the worker too in case of unfair dismissal is the right way to go. I think Mr Little has made the correct call.

       On the other hand, the stupid, inhumane and completely pro-employer unfair zero hour contracts need to go.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1

         18 July 2015 at 12:57 pm

         However, employers are people too like us. They too need fairness and plenty of support for being the job providers, the risk takers, the sustainers of business, production and society.

         I love this quote
         • Clemgeopin 8.1.2.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 1:05 pm

           Thanks!

           (Hope you aren’t being sarcastic, going by your recent anti-Labour crusade!)
         • Charles 8.1.2.1.2

           18 July 2015 at 1:36 pm

           I super extra mega love that quote. I want to marry it. So I can support employers everywhere all the time. Poor dears. All unprotected and under attack.
           • weka 8.1.2.1.2.1

             18 July 2015 at 1:42 pm

             Are you suggesting that legislation should be written that casts employers as demons? Because that’s what I got from your response to Clem’s quote and CV’s praise of it.
             • Charles …

               18 July 2015 at 1:53 pm

               We need to cast them as demons? Their actions do that all by themselves. Their constant wailing about how they have no power against the evil and greedy employees they’re forced to hire. hahaha! Yes, we need to take all workers rights away without examining the reality or considering what an employer is obligated to society to do. No penalty for employers and Zero hour contracts mandatory, that’s what we need!

               Just like ToW disputes that still allow “good faith”: The law that says, “If it looks like Maori are being screwed by the Crown, then the law will take the view that, yes, the Crown is attempting to screw them, because that’s the reality of the present environment.”

               Something like that. Poor employers, all that power and intelligence and legal support and they still can’t hire effectively.
               • Clemgeopin …

                 18 July 2015 at 3:57 pm

                 May be you should become a small business owner yourself and show everyone how it is done! That would be so much more fruitful and useful than being just a pontificating prolific armchair critic. Go on, Charlie, try it and put your effort where your mouth is man. That is a serious challenge for you about starting a business, taking financial risk, working hard, doing all the paper work, looking after health and safety, paying wages, trial periods etc ? THEN, come back and relate to us all your real life experiences about this issue.
                 • Charles …

                   18 July 2015 at 5:44 pm

                   Maybe you should just do your job and if you can’t then get the fuck out of Employing people.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     18 July 2015 at 5:58 pm

                     Nah, that won’t work. The only way to ensure we have good employers is regulation. It’s the only thing that has ever worked. The alternative is employment contracts written by criminals*, with good employers forced to compete on their terms.

                     *follow orders for no pay. Stop whining or you’ll get a beating.
                   • Clemgeopin …

                     18 July 2015 at 7:34 pm

                     Oh, no, where will the workers go then?
                     Remember that the trial period is only for 3 months and Andrew Little WANTS to change it to make it FAIRER to the workers. That should suit both the worker and the employer, especially the small business employer and the eager job seeker. What is your problem with that, considering that there is high unemployment of the inexperienced/low educated/low skilled youth? As long as the law is tweaked to make it fairer to the job seeker, I have no problem with that. What is your objection?
               • weka …

                 18 July 2015 at 5:21 pm

                 That doens’t answer my question Charles.
                 • Charles …

                   18 July 2015 at 5:42 pm

                   Yeah it does.

                   “At the end of the day it is also a fact that whatever legal rights exist they will continue to be ignored by greedy employers who will do whatever they can get away with to suck the maximum value out of a workers labour. That is why it remains an urgent responsibility of the labour movement as a whole to work out a strategy to organise the 98% of private sector workers who are outside unions today. Only then will workers be in a position to advance their rights through real collective struggles. A hint of that power was shown through the Unite Union campaign against zero hour contracts. Much more is possible.” Mike Treen Unite Union, published today over on TDB. That’s the reality of the current environment.

                   Labour have shifted away from backing workers, to backing employers, who they know use their power for their own gain at society’s cost. And the reasoning of Little et. al? It amounts to “Without employers, there would be no employees.” Way to go Labour. Stabbing people in the front. At least they found some courage for that at last. Challenge employers and what do they say, “Well stuff you, we’ll just not hire anyone and do what we like.” Yep, some of that inherent good faith, humanity, responsibility and under-dog powerlessness oozing out of them at every opportunity. Two weeks ago, Labour weren’t the Enemy. Turned out they were just stalling for time. They brought it on themselves.
                   • weka …

                     18 July 2015 at 5:54 pm

                     I don’t disagree with any of that, but you still haven’t answered my question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think legislation, in addition to providing good protection for workers, should work on the assumption that all employers are greedy and bad?
   • r0b 8.2

     18 July 2015 at 8:09 pm

     R0b, I’d be interested to hear how you see NZF fitting into that.

     I don’t. Apart from when Peters is thrashing the Nats in a by election, I try not to think of NZF.

     If I do think about them, I can’t see them forming a government with Lab / Green, and I don’t know if Peters will hang on for 2017.

     I think the next election will go very clearly one way or the other to Nats or to Lab / Green. And frankly if it isn’t to Lab / Green then NZ is screwed.
     • weka 8.2.1

       18 July 2015 at 8:28 pm

       thanks r0b.
       • r0b 8.2.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 8:46 pm

         No worries!
9. marty mars 9

   18 July 2015 at 9:44 am

   Fire at will is a disgusting policy that targets vulnerable people (just starting a new job) and reinforces the power of the employer to the actual detriment of the worker.

   The foreshore and seabed behaviour from labour cost them many Māori votes (which some may argue they have got back a bit now), helped create The Māori Party and put some people off labour for life (that’s me btw). This acceptance of the 90 day fire at will policy has the potential to slice another bit off the traditional left labour vote imo. Sure they will get some back but ffs too many times to the well makes the well dry.

   Labour you have dropped again in my view – I can’t stand the fact that the left have to have this party involved to get into power.
   • Sabine 9.1

     18 July 2015 at 10:01 am

     thats ok.

     You just have to wait for the Greens to make it on their own.

     See, no reason for unhappiness. And if the Greens were to go into coalition with Labour in order to get into government you could write them a sternly worded letter as to how much you are upset by them siding with those that are less left then left.

     Oh…you did that when they worked with National on the cycleway of national importance? You did not? Oh dear.
     • marty mars 9.1.1

       18 July 2015 at 10:08 am

       For your education – I’m a Mana supporter although I do love my Greens. Now granted I am sure the jibes will come even thicker now – (see that’s a set up and next, if I was feeling in the mood, I’d draw a connection between ‘thick’ and your comment) – but I am not in that mood 🙂
   • Coffee Connoisseur 9.2

     18 July 2015 at 10:20 am

     Marty with all due respect, If thats what you think the 3month period is then you haven’t bothered to understand the law or its purpose in my opinion. It puts a much greater onus on employers to do everything they can to give the new employee all the support they need in that 3 months. If anything the result is far better for vulnerable workers.
     There is no fire at will. There is fire iwithin 3 months if you have sat down with the employee and raised any areas you need them to improve on and focus on, on probably more than once. It makes it very clear to the employee what is required of them. If you haven’t done that as an employer, don’t expect to be able to terminate the employee inside the 3 months and get away with it.
     As for the employee, if they know what is required and are no longer afraid to clarify and ask questions then by the end of the three months you are an employee adding value to the company.
     This policy is actually a good one, especially for vulnerable workers in my view.
     • marty mars 9.2.1

       18 July 2015 at 10:30 am

       “Young Labour believes that in order to make the law fair, the 90-day trial must be repealed. We will not support a policy position that will continue to undermine the protections of working people.”

       http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1507/S00157/young-labour-pr-unfair-90-day-trials-need-to-go.htm

       I agree with Young Labour on this.
       • Coffee Connoisseur 9.2.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 10:50 am

         We will simply go back to hiring less and using existing staff more rather than giving new people a chance. But hey its your ball game.
         Its less risky that way.
         I have had to pay out staff who bullied other staff.
         Paid out to a staff member who actively undermined another staff member in a bid to get them fired.
         Had to pay 6 weeks wages to a Manager who attempted to run the business into the ground and try to take all of the existing clients over for themselves in the new business they had just set up.
         Paid out to an employee who despite being sat down on 4 seperate occasions and told each time that a particular action is not acceptable and given the reasons why including the risk to the entire business and everyone working there yet continued to do the exact same thing.
         Before 90 days the law and ERA was so skewed in favour of the employee it was a joke.
         Now the 90 days essentially provides a period to transition the employee an employee into the business, into the team, into the culture. It provides a far more co-operative environment on both sides of the equation.

         Ask yourself if the 90 days was the difference between another term for National vs having a Labour govt what would your preference be.

         I have even overheard one employer of a small business around election time saying thyat he tells his staff to vote National because their business might not do so well under Labour and jobs aren’t as easy to come by in the provences.
         Don’t worry (or do actually) I wasn’t happy about it either.

         Labour have never had a better opportunity to take the SME vote off National. Don’t underestimate how important the 90 day law is for them.
         • marty mars 9.2.1.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 11:33 am

           So you disagree with Young Labour – I don’t.
           • Coffee Connoisseur 9.2.1.1.1.1

             18 July 2015 at 11:43 am

             thats cool. Every story has two sides. Just giving you some insight into the other side,
             You might not realise it but employers are people too and have often taken great risks.
             I am now getting to see 3 of my staff who have been with me for a while being able to buy their first home. It’s prety nice knowing I played a part in enabling that.That might not have been the case because of some of those examples listed above.
             • Colonial Viper …

               18 July 2015 at 1:00 pm

               Thanks for detailing out your position so clearly and definitely CC. I also think that Labour should be the natural political party of sole traders and SMEs, but they have quite some way to go.
         • Clemgeopin 9.2.1.1.2

           18 July 2015 at 12:19 pm

           I agree entirely. I do know how risky and how hard it is to start a small business. It is not only expensive to start and build, but quite hard to sustain it even with paying only the minimum wage. Easy to pontificate, hard to do. As I said above, Labour has to be a party of fairness, -fairness for all, including the employers.

           I am so glad that Labour has a very good leader in Andrew Little who has shown empathy, common sense, fairness and intelligence in his dealings so far.
   • red-blooded 9.3

     18 July 2015 at 11:29 am

     marty mars, have you actually read the discussion before making your “dropped again” comment? Labour has not said anything new or controversial here – they are still saying they will make it illegal to fire at will (and that’s the guts of the 90 Day Act).
     • marty mars 9.3.1

       18 July 2015 at 11:34 am

       “Young Labour believes that in order to make the law fair, the 90-day trial must be repealed. We will not support a policy position that will continue to undermine the protections of working people.”

       http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1507/S00157/young-labour-pr-unfair-90-day-trials-need-to-go.htm

       I agree with Young Labour on this.
       • Michael who failed Civics 9.3.1.1

         19 July 2015 at 1:32 am

         So do I: trial periods subject to a statutory requirement of fairness and good faith (including a statement of reasons for dismissal) are essential. As for personal grievances under employment law, very few get past mediation and nearly all are settled with derisory levels of compensation. Hardly an existential threat to capitalist enterprise. The race to the bottom must be stopped – if Labour can’t or won’t do it, it has no reason for existing anymore.
   • Skinny 9.4

     18 July 2015 at 11:40 am

     Just ignore the facts completely Marty and spin your own twisted tale. At least most right-wing trolls put up reasonable arguments based on some sort of facts, rather than like you who is deliberately plucking crap out of your own arse.

     As far as Unions go and your leader of the defuncted Mana I would n’t
     blow to hard. A close Union friend of myself and McCarten told me some shocking incident’s relating to workers in the health care industry.
     • marty mars 9.4.1

       18 July 2015 at 11:43 am

       “Young Labour believes that in order to make the law fair, the 90-day trial must be repealed. We will not support a policy position that will continue to undermine the protections of working people.”

       http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1507/S00157/young-labour-pr-unfair-90-day-trials-need-to-go.htm

       I agree with Young Labour on this.
       • Skinny 9.4.1.1

         18 July 2015 at 11:55 am

         As a hardened unionist and with respect, what the fuck would these young punks know about the overall industrial relations wider picture. The sign on period, the collective and all the other issues need taking care of too.
         • marty mars 9.4.1.1.1

           18 July 2015 at 12:08 pm

           fuck your bullshit respect wanker – they are the future and you are obsolete fool
           • Skinny 9.4.1.1.1.1

             18 July 2015 at 12:47 pm

             So now it all comes out. Marty appears to show his real distaste of Labour is us old school Unionist. Well chap we won’t be going anyway, we are in the party to look after the working class, got a problem with that?

             As far as our young vulnerable workers go. There is enough antidotial evidence that can be used for a policy (under urgency once in power) that gives young workers automatic coverage by a special young & vulnerable workers collective agreement for the first 3 months employment, with an opt out clause afterwards.

             So grow up and lose the big Mana/Labout chip on your shoulders which weighs you down.
             • marty mars …

               18 July 2015 at 1:07 pm

               I love, support and respect unions so nah
           • red-blooded 9.4.1.1.1.2

             18 July 2015 at 12:49 pm

             marty – is it just possible that Young Labour have responded a bit too quickly, and have based their response on media reports rather than looking at the statement in full? We don’t have to see them as “young punks” in order to admit the possibility that an immediate response on Twitter may have been a bit too quick How mush research was done before the one sentence was fired out into the Twittisphere?
             • marty mars …

               18 July 2015 at 1:08 pm

               Yes that is entirely possible – good point red-blooded thanks
             • Skinny …

               18 July 2015 at 1:55 pm

               If this comes from the young Labour rep or media spokesperson I would be removing them. It becomes a unity issue, and blabbing via social media was foolish and done deliberately. They may as well have sent a direct media release mail out. Unity is important, especially with the LP track record. I feel this may have been a sour grapes attack by a young Robertson fan club member against Little.
               • marty mars …

                 18 July 2015 at 3:58 pm

                 “What sort of country is it that has an employment law that attacks people at their most vulnerable time, when they’ve just started a new job,” he said.
                 “What sort of employer is it who is unable to manage workers in a dignified and respectful way?”

                 What about that quote skinny – see Rosie below – that is your leader a few years ago!!!
         • Keir 9.4.1.1.2

           18 July 2015 at 3:16 pm

           Young Labour’s statement just reiterated what those well known “young punk” groups who don’t know anything about industrial relations the SFWU, the PSA, PSA Youth, and Stand Up said. So yeah, I’m not entirely sure what you are on about here.
           • Karen 9.4.1.1.2.1

             18 July 2015 at 5:01 pm

             +1 Keir
             I agree with Young Labour (even though I am really old)
10. Sabine 10

    18 July 2015 at 9:59 am

    90 day trial is standard in many countries that I have worked in. Germany, Netherlands, France and now NZ.

    I don’t think having this provision is bad on principle. It happened to me that I had a boss say to me that this job might not be the right fit for me (my first attempt at an apprenticeship when i was fifteen, and she was right, it was not the right environment for me). It freed me to find a job more suitable to my temperament, and I did not loose any rights to unemployment etc. This equally happens if I would say after three weeks on the job that I am not suitable for the particular job, or my boss is abusive or other maybe the workplace is not safe.

    What I want to know is what happens if a Staff in NZ quits a job under the 90 day trial period say for an unsafe workplace. Will they be able to claim unemployment money?

    This to me is the crux of the matter, if the provision only serves bosses to get rid of staff within this provision, that the chance of abuse is rife. IF the provision serves both sides equally then I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing.
    • Coffee Connoisseur 10.1

      18 July 2015 at 10:11 am

      +1
    • Bill 10.2

      18 July 2015 at 10:17 am

      Before the current provision was brought in, if you just up and left a job, then WINZ would stand you down for a period. If you were filing a personal grievance, then you weren’t stood down.

      Under the current provision, if you have no grounds for a personal grievance, then there is a stand down period.

      The bottom line is that employment law is weighted heavily in favour of employers and…well, it’s always been designed with employers in mind and workers protections have always been a secondary consideration.

      Add on to that the considerations of peripheral bureaucracies (eg WINZ) and you can discern a kind of bureaucratic cage that keeps workers ‘in their right place’.
      • Coffee Connoisseur 10.2.1

        18 July 2015 at 10:53 am

        I disagee with you that it is heavily weighted in favour of an employer. Be good if you could provide some examples of your thinking on why you thin k this.

        That aside, if there is currently a standdown period if you are dismissed under 90 days, then that should definitely be changed so that there isn’t one. I also think there needs to be a valid reason so perhaps that is another legislative tweak to ensure greater fairness.
        • Bill 10.2.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 11:16 am

          CC. Why do you think employment law was ever drawn up?

          Was it principally to protect business from wildcat strikes and unusual forms of resistance from workers?

          Or was it principally to protect those involved in wildcat strikes and unusual forms of resistance?

          That’s where the weighting comes from.
          • Coffee Connoisseur 10.2.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 11:37 am

            Sorry bill I meant actual examples from today. We often get too caught up in idealism when we should be looking to see if problems exist and if they do how to fix them.
            Especially in the face of the levels of automation that are just around the corner.
            • Bill 10.2.1.1.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 12:30 pm

              I’m not going to provide a shopping list of example, though from my years of advocacy I could.

              Consider this. A larger employer wants shot of an employee. The employee is competent and what not, so the firing isn’t to do with performance.

              What was fairly routine in my experience was that the employer would harass the employee until they quit and file a grievance. The employer knows they will lose and cops the financial penalty and moves on.

              The employee, meantime, has a settlement that never compensates, has no job and bills and mortgage repayments to make…hmm, not to mention a gap in their employment history to account for. Sure, part of settlement might have involved the ex-employer providing an agreed upon reference, but it’s not rocket science to figure how that can go south if a prospective employer makes a phone call…
              • Coffee Connoisseur …

                18 July 2015 at 1:39 pm

                Thanks Bill,what you outlined was good enough. I guess I don’t get to see that side as I always try to deal with people fairly.
                I can see how that could be the case with a larger more profitable business. I’d say smaller businesses are more likely to need the money to stay in the business.
                Thinking back I worked for a good guy who was an assistant manager in a retail chain and was placed in exactly the situation you just outlined.
                • weka …

                  18 July 2015 at 5:58 pm

                  Where I live, lots of people don’t even have employment contracts and these are with small businesses. Those people aren’t going to go through the process Bill describes because it’s a small town and they want to get a job somewhere else. Any shit from the employer and the employee sucks it up.
      • Sabine 10.2.2

        18 July 2015 at 10:54 am

        So bringing this law back to what it used to be it would not be a bad thing.

        disclaimer. I am a boss, my 2 staff have fixed hours, above minimum wage (not as high as i would like to, but then we are a very young business ) , and both have worked for me now since the inception of the business. I do believe that the right to leave or dismissal in the beginning period is a good thing, again, if applied to both sides equally and if it does not harm the employee….I was an employee long enough to remember.
        But in saying that, one can employ the wrong person for the job, as one can pick the wrong job, and in both cases it might be best if this contract could be dissolved.

        In Germany there is a clause by mutual agreement, which basically means both parties agree, no one fires and no one quits. The contract simply ends, and as such the employee (always the weaker part in these discussions) can apply for unemployment funds to tide over to the next job without fear of repercussions.
        • Bill 10.2.2.1

          18 July 2015 at 11:21 am

          I’ve always reckoned that if it was left to the other workers to decide whether a new employee was suitable, then things would be a lot smoother and equitable.

          I’ve seen instance after instance in larger workplaces where an arse-hole caused mayhem for months on end before management got their ham-fisted mitts on the situation.

          I’m all for a more free flowing workforce in an environment where workers don’t face sanctions. A major problem is the various sanctions that hit workers who walk.
    • red-blooded 10.3

      18 July 2015 at 11:55 am

      Sabine, I think there’s a big difference between what sounds like mutual agreement after discussion between you and your boss when you were 15 and the ability of that boss to simply dump you under the 90 Days Act. Let’s remember that you and your boss worked things out just fine under a much more protective set of employment laws (unless I’m wrong in assuming that you are no longer a teenager and the discussion you are referring to took place prior to the enactment of the 90 Days Act). You had a discussion, she explained her reasoning, you decided to look for another job. That’s always been perfectly legal. However, if she had simply told you to leave, then under any fair employment law she would need to reach a higher standard of process. She would have to discuss her concerns with you more than once, give you a chance to try to change any behaviours that she was concerned about or lift the standard of your work, and keep clear records of the processes used to measure the issues causing her concern and her dealings with you. If you were unable or unwilling to change, she could sack you.

      Looking at the website for the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation, they explain the provisions of the 90 Day Act by saying:
      “If an employee is on a trial period you may give the employee notice of dismissal, and the employee cannot take a personal grievance on the grounds of unjustified dismissal. The employee may, however, raise a personal grievance on other grounds, such as discrimination or harassment or unjustified action by the employer that disadvantages the employee.
      For an employee on a trial period you are not required to consult them about making a decision before the end of the trial period to dismiss the employee.”
      …Sounds a bit different from the scenario you outlined, Sabine. Your employer DID “consult you” and if they had fired you and you had been really unhappy about it, you could have taken a personal grievance case on the basis of unjustified dismissal.

      A return to fairer labour laws will certainly be a step in the right (left) direction, and I don’t see anything in what Little has said to indicate that he isn’t intending to take this step.
      • Sabine 10.3.1

        18 July 2015 at 2:06 pm

        there are three scenarios in germany

        start a job with a three month trial

        – whithin this period both can stop the agreement without notice any time
        (however, this is generally considered unpolite and is only done in cases of abuse by the one or the other party, i.e. theft by the employee or abuse harassment by the employer)
        So within these rules if you were dismissed on the spot, one would assume that something has happened on your part to be dismissed, or if you quit your job like that one would assume that your boss / workplace might not be a nice person/place.

        – within this period one or the other party breaks the agreement after consultation, i.e. in the case of my boss Letting me know that the job I was hired for was not a good fit. In this case the ‘fired’ person can like me breathe a sigh of relieve and agree or find some ground with the boss to change behavior etc.

        – within this period of time both parties come to an agreement that the contract should be resolved without any mentioning of reasons, and no harm is done to either. This is the most common form of ending a contract in Germany to my knowledge, not only within the trial period, but also with work contracts that are well outside this provision.

        All these scenarios do not leave the employee (who is always the weaker part) without access to unemployment funds.

        The only time unemployment funds are refused is if an unemployed person is not looking for appropriate jobs/ and or refusing to apply for appropriate jobs, or if they Leave a job on the spot once they are in an unconditional contract – abandonment of the job.

        The trial period should provide both parties with the option to end an employment agreement that is not working out for both the employer and the employee.

        In my experience the last job that I held before opening my business, I knew literally three days into the job that the office environment was not for me. However, under the current law I did not have recourse to leave this job, as I would have been stood down for 12 weeks before being able to draw unemployment benefits. And this scenario can not be good either. As clearly, someone else would maybe have been a better fit then me, but I could not leave lest I wanted to live under a bridge.

        So I guess, looking at the trial period per se is not Anti Labour (and Germany can not be considered the capitalistic businessmen wet dream as they still have a fairly robust worker protection in place), but I would like to see it used by both sides without sanctions. So If Labour will try to make it fairer, then I am happy with that. I will wait and see what they will do before I throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at them (verbally of course – and I have done so on previous occasions), as the throwing of rotten eggs and tomatoes might be considered assault, despite the fact that it would be great stress relieve 🙂 .
        • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 6:16 pm

          ha!
          • sabine 10.3.1.1.1

            19 July 2015 at 8:30 am

            +1
11. Coffee Connoisseur 11

    18 July 2015 at 10:02 am

    Calling it ‘Fire at will’ makes me think you don’t actually understand the requirements of the law at all. It is anything but fire at will. If anything a greater duty of care is imposed on employers as a result of the law,

    In fact when you think about it. Its not that much different to Rightwingers calling Labours stats from barefoot and Thompson racist.
    Time to rise above perhaps.
    • Tiger Mountain 11.1

      18 July 2015 at 10:19 am

      well old chap, sorry to base my comments in reality, but I know several young people in local cafes sacked on day 89, literally, by the owner, one by phone from poolside on Island holiday! the owner had looked at her dairy and remembered the to do list, and I know of many similar examples via my networks and union organiser friends
      • infused 11.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 10:42 am

        Then take them to court dumbass. You Cannot fire someone at will.

        The fact is your just talking a crock of shit.
        • red-blooded 11.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 11:57 am

          Have a look at the quote from the MBED above, Infused, then revisit the “crock of shit” viewpoint.
          • infused 11.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 12:00 pm

            I don’t know what you are referring to.
            • red-blooded 11.1.1.1.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 1:00 pm

              How hard is it to look above and find a something that’s just been quoted in a previous comment, infused? I was referring to this (from my comment at 10.3): “Looking at the website for the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation, they explain the provisions of the 90 Day Act by saying:
              “If an employee is on a trial period you may give the employee notice of dismissal, and the employee cannot take a personal grievance on the grounds of unjustified dismissal. The employee may, however, raise a personal grievance on other grounds, such as discrimination or harassment or unjustified action by the employer that disadvantages the employee.
              For an employee on a trial period you are not required to consult them about making a decision before the end of the trial period to dismiss the employee.”

              You had just said to Tiger Mountain, who reported several young acquaintances being fired with no reason given just before the end of the 90 day period, “Then take them to court dumbass. You Cannot fire someone at will.

              The fact is your (sic) just talking a crock of shit.”

              The fact is, the details from the MBEI show clearly that an employer CAN fire someone without “consulting” them and giving them as reason, and that they CANNOT take a personal grievance on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

              I think it’s pretty clear why I asked you to reconsider your “crock of shit” comment; it’s because that comment is itself a crock of shit. The “take them to court” option doesn’t exist for someone who feels they have been unfairly dismissed under the 90 Days Act.
              • infused …

                18 July 2015 at 2:03 pm

                Then link the fucking comment next time you lazy prick. I’m not searching through every god damm comment to find what the hell you are talking about.

                If any of the due process is not follow, the ex staff member can, and should go after the employer. That’s how they are all being done over. My statement IS correct. If you don’t follow process and randomly fire someone, you will get fucked over.

                http://www.pdassociates.co.nz/newsletters/pitfalls-90-day-trial-period-employers-beware/

                You should also take notice of what the actual process is so you stop looking like a dumbass.
                • red-blooded …

                  18 July 2015 at 2:29 pm

                  http://www.dol.govt.nz/workplace/knowledgebase/item/1297

                  (Look at the sections under “trial period”.)

                  It was quoted in full, sitting there under my name a few comments up. There’s no need for abuse.

                  You have taken your viewpoint from a scare-tactic statement from an interested party, keen to stir up concerns to drum up clients. I have taken mine from the official advice on the website of the relevant Ministry. Who’s the one who needs to take notice of the actual process (as opposed to the self-serving scare-tactics of a very obviously biased commentator)?
                • Lanthanide …

                  18 July 2015 at 2:44 pm

                  If the process is followed properly, it still does allow an employer to fire an employee at will, infused.

                  Yes, there are many ways to fuck it up. But that doesn’t mean that under the law you cannot “fire someone at will”, because you can.
      • Coffee Connoisseur 11.1.2

        18 July 2015 at 11:07 am

        That is retarded. I do think there should have to be a valid reason and one that has been raised with the employee as an area for improvement with time for the employee to improve.
        But what you outlined is just wrong.
        If they have simply been fired on day 89 with no indication of any areas for improvement outlined by the employer to the employee, the employee can still go the employer in such an instance and will win. Rightly so too.
        • Craig H 11.1.2.1

          18 July 2015 at 11:49 am

          From section 67B of the ERA 2000:

          “(1) This section applies if an employer terminates an employment agreement containing a trial provision under section 67A by giving the employee notice of the termination before the end of the trial period, whether the termination takes effect before, at, or after the end of the trial period.

          (2) An employee whose employment agreement is terminated in accordance with subsection (1) may not bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.”

          i.e. Provided there is a clause in the employment agreement that meets the requirements of section 67A, and the other requirements of 67A & B are met, the employee can’t do much about a dismissal. The employer does not have to give reasons in writing (section 120 does not apply), and does not have to consult with the employee (section 4 (1A)(c) does not apply).

          The upshot of the above is that provided the employer is careful about strictly observing the requirements of the law (and the interpretations from the Employment Court), they absolutely can fire at will within 90 days because the employee has no recourse, and there is no obligation to consult with the employee in any way, or give reasons afterwards.
          • infused 11.1.2.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 12:03 pm

            In reality it doesn’t work like that. I’d like to see anyone fire someone @ day 89 with no documentation or cause and get away with it.
          • Coffee Connoisseur 11.1.2.1.2

            18 July 2015 at 12:15 pm

            Its actually not that simple. The courts played their hand very early on and the employer has to have outlined where they are not happy with the employees performance and what they want them to change. If you haven’t done that then you will lose in court.
            It isn’t as simple as just quoting what the policy says on this one.
            • infused 11.1.2.1.2.1

              18 July 2015 at 2:04 pm

              Exactly. People commenting here actually have no fucking idea how this law works.
              • Tiger Mountain …

                18 July 2015 at 4:46 pm

                some (heh, very few) young people have a detailed understanding of employment law, they are easily manipulated and pressured by obvious factors and having limited resources, unfair employers are going to remain untroubled by those they sack

                good legislation should be backed up by information, enforcement and support for citizens subject to it
12. Facetious 12

    18 July 2015 at 10:15 am

    When a backdown is not a backdown?
13. te reo putake 13

    18 July 2015 at 10:44 am

    Andrew Little comments:

    “During the press conference that followed I was asked about our position on the 90 day trial period. Labour has not, and does not, support the 90 day law as it stands. It is unfair and needs to change. As part of our overall policy review we are working with businesses, workers and their unions about how fair trial periods will work.

    Labour is not opposed to trial periods where they provide opportunities for those who might not otherwise get them and where they are applied fairly. That kind of trial period has been provided for in our law for many decades, but the law National brought in is unfair and we will change it.”
    • infused 13.1

      18 July 2015 at 10:45 am

      A step backwards then considering this law is in most oecd countries.
      • Coffee Connoisseur 13.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 11:03 am

        it depends on the nature of any change as to whether or not it is a step backwards or forwards.
        • infused 13.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 11:22 am

          Knowing Labour and the Unions, it will be backwards.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 3:21 pm

            Backwards to lower unemployment and higher minimum and median wages.
    • weka 13.2

      18 July 2015 at 11:02 am

      Where’s that from trp? Would love to see it up as a post (Notices and Features?) just so there is a clear statment that is highly visible.
      • te reo putake 13.2.1

        18 July 2015 at 11:11 am

        An internal email this morning, weka. I’ll add it to the post (assuming r0b doesn’t mind?).
        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 2:50 pm

          An internal email this morning, weka. I’ll add it to the post (assuming r0b doesn’t mind?).

          I don’t understand, who did Andrew Little issue this clarification to?

          Why has it not been put out as a standard press release – is there a reason Little won’t stand behind this statement in public?
        • r0b 13.2.1.2

          18 July 2015 at 8:11 pm

          TRP – not at all, you are welcome to edit my posts any time (as is any other author).
          • te reo putake 13.2.1.2.1

            18 July 2015 at 8:33 pm

            Cheers, r0b, much appreciated. I hopes it provides some of the clarity you mentioned in the post.

            I expect this will come up at the NZ conference later this year. Hopefully the current position of doing away with the whole thing will be endorsed. The only alternative I could see being supported would be re-jigging the whole concept of trial periods so that they come under under the ‘good faith’ framework again. At the moment, the fire at will provisions are just a bonus for bad bosses and it adds nothing positive to the working lives of kiwis.
            • r0b 13.2.1.2.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 8:45 pm

              Hopefully the current position of doing away with the whole thing will be endorsed.

              That would certainly be my preference! As per the post though, MPs making the case for something weaker would not surprise me at all.
          • lprent 13.2.1.2.2

            18 July 2015 at 11:21 pm

            Actually and pedantically “.. any other editor.”.

            Authors can only edit their own posts, and only moderate comments on their own posts.

            But I do tend to jump people from author to editor whenever they show signs of wanting meddle take on more responsibility.
    • Charles 13.3

      18 July 2015 at 11:40 am

      These words are too ambiguous to be trusted. His final words can still be interpretted as changing/amending what exists, instead of repealing what exists and creating whatever is necessary from scratch. The current 90 Day law is nothing but a legal enforcement of worker exploitation for greedy private profit.
      • red-blooded 13.3.1

        18 July 2015 at 12:00 pm

        The guts of the 90 Days Act is the fire-at-will provision. If that’s gone, the Act is gutted. Little has said that will be gone. That doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous to me.
        • Charles 13.3.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 12:15 pm

          The whole thing has to go. He can’t say “we’ll keep some of it” and not reinforce the why it’s used:

          At an interview, the first interview, the employer asks if the prospect will agree to a 90 Day probationary period. If they say no, they don’t get the job. There is no good faith (still a legal requirement AFAIK), no way to reach compromise, no discussion. No need for an interview really. Makes dumb employers even dumber. Encourages people who shouldn’t be employers to be employers.

          It’s not like “employment” is this isolated activity in a vaccum outside of society. So now we have employees shut out of jobs on the whim and shortcomings of the employer, pushed off welfare when they have no jobs; no right to making a living, but plenty of private prisons to take up the slack? Yippee. This is yet another symptom of a style of political thinking that ends badly for everyone except one man at the top – and completely unacceptable for any Party that alludes to worker’s representation.

          If Little wants to apply probationary periods to the situations he says needs them, then they will be specific industries and situations, and he can’t use an existing law that anyone can use who can’t be stuffed fulfilling the role and obligations of being a responsible employer.
    • Wayne 13.4

      18 July 2015 at 12:42 pm

      As the author of the 90 day trial periods, I have a particular interest in this issue. In my view, Andrew Little’s words are ambiguous.

      He knows that every OECD nation has trial periods where the full adjudication rights are not available for employees. In short an employer can say to the employee “it has not worked out”, in the knowledge they cannot be taken to court to contest the decision (except for racial discrimination or similar).

      In some countries the trial period is as long as two years, which seems far too long. I chose 90 days because it is about the shortest period of any OECD country. I did so on the basis that it would seen by most New Zealanders as a reasonable period for the employer to make a fair judgement about the employee, On this basis I considered the law would be able to survive a change of government, particularly if it was not seen to have been abused. In my view it has generally worked as intended, and there are no real scandals about widespread abuse.

      Of course I know Standardnistas will dispute that claim, but by and large Standardnista’s political views are well to the left of middle New zealand, so that will be no surprise.

      Coming back to the ambiguity. Andrew Little says a trial period “has been provided for in our law for many decades, but the law National bought in is unfair and we will change it.”

      On one interpretation of his words he is proposing no change at all from the law that was in force prior to 2009. On this basis he envisages the full personal grievance procedure being available from day one, which defeats the entire purpose of a trial period. That is why the pre-2009 law for trial periods was never used. There was no difference at all with any other employment contract, so there was no point in having a trial period.

      But did he really say that Labour would go back to the pre-2009 law? As I read it the first part of the statement is more of an observation about the pre-2009 law. When he says “the law that National bought in is unfair and we will change it”, he is not necessarily saying he will go back to the pre-2009 law. He could be saying that the changes will be something between what the law is now and what is was prior to 2009.

      Certainly the impression that he apparently intended to give to the audience was that he was not simply going to reinstate the pre-2009 law.

      Possible changes that would be less than the reinstatement of the full personal grievance procedure, could include the employer be required to provide a written statement as to why the trial period is being terminated. It might include a period of 2 weeks or so whereby an employee could rectify the issue that is causing the employer to end the trial period.

      Given the ambiguity, Andrew Little will need to clarify what he actually meant.
      • red-blooded 13.4.1

        18 July 2015 at 1:08 pm

        The fact that he has acknowledged that some form of trial period can be useful but said that the current law is unfair and any protocols around termination of employment need to be fair seems to be a pretty clear statement of intent.

        If you are the author of the current law, your viewpoint is just as extreme as any being represented by commenters here; it’s just extreme in the opposite direction. You are certainly not a disinterested commentator and have your own reasons for trying to muddy the waters around Little’s comments.
        • Wayne 13.4.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 1:19 pm

          red-blooded,

          Given that every OECD country has trial periods and 90 days is among the shortest, you cannot seriously argue I am an extremist on this issue. In fact on the basis of the range of law in the OECD nations, l am left of centre!

          A right wing extremist would propose the ACT approach on employment law, which is pretty much employment at will (or whatever the parties agree) across all employment contracts.

          I am certainly not a disinterested commentator on this issue. But it is hardly “trying to muddy the waters around Little’s comments” to suggest that Mr Little needs to clarify what he meant. This whole post exists because there is some confusion about what he meant.
          • red-blooded 13.4.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 2:09 pm

            This post arose because Little’s comments were reported in part, and it took an hour or two to find the full statement. That’s doesn’t suggest lack of clarity in the statement; just lazy reporting.

            As for the OECD comparison, there’s quite a lot of variety in the trial period laws. A very quick glance shows, for example, that in Austria any trial period is usually 1 month, and in Belgium it’s expected that blue collar jobs may have trial periods of 1-2 weeks and white collar jobs 1-6 months. Canada goes with 90 days, except in some provinces, where it’s shorter (typically 30 days). Chile only allows trial periods for domestic workers. France goes for 2 months (blue collar), 3 months (white collar) and 4-6 months (managerial). Some other countries have longer trial periods, but NZ’s certainly not left-of-centre on this issue.
14. upnorth 14

    18 July 2015 at 12:21 pm

    stay out of the media for a year was the advice of Trotter – you can see why

    three times labour have opened their mouths and look what happens

    man get fired for leaking
    Supports National 90 day trial law
    Flexible provisional tax which is already available and every other party has published the same idea (forget who mentioned it first but it wasn’t Labour)

    I am really worried that labour will look to be woefully incoherent with their message.

    Not enough research – but here what gets me – Why isnt Grant Robertson fronting tax bills and economy stuff
    • Coffee Connoisseur 14.1

      18 July 2015 at 12:27 pm

      I think you’re about to see a massive swing in the polls.
      • upnorth 14.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 12:38 pm

        Nah not really mid term things will show on average

        National 48
        Labour 35
        Greens 10
        NZ First 5
        Other 2

        Remember Labour still has not announced any policy and they need to be publicly scrutinised and Little and Robertson are very weak on economics and finance debate so I hold no hope there.

        If they keep on the social issues then maybe but I am pretty sure there is hope then despair from the left voters – the biggest poll swing will be when Winston retires. That is Labours only hope.

        James Shaw will over time will deplete some of Labour’s voters – he is good.

        Little hasn’t been tested and the everything he has put out in the marketplace so far gets beaten up. No home runs – very unhappy with Twyfords approach but he got a home run – Little doesn’t lookas assured as Twyford and looked like damaged goods when he had to front.

        Maybe Nash Tywford look the goods as Leader and deputy
        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 1:29 pm

          I remain suspicious of Grant Robertson and note that you’ve also noticed that he is staying in the background keeping well out of the limelight.
          • rhinocrates 14.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 1:40 pm

            Rightly so. Very affable, but if you shake hands with him, count your fingers.
            • Stuart Munro 14.1.1.1.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 8:53 pm

              I feel the same – but if he can get Key sacked for lying I’ll give him a truckload of free passes.
          • Skinny 14.1.1.1.2

            18 July 2015 at 2:12 pm

            Cut him off at the knee’s by putting Adern as Little’s 2iC and move King on. If Adern won’t play ball then she needs to be cut by way of the list.
            • Clemgeopin 14.1.1.1.2.1

              18 July 2015 at 7:58 pm

              “move King on’

              No, King is one of the more experienced, nice, clever and clued-on MPs that has kept this government on their toes. Camp mother, mate!
              • Anne …

                18 July 2015 at 8:32 pm

                When Little announced Annette King as deputy he said it was only for the next 12 months. I assume Annette only accepted it on that basis. Unless she has since agreed to carry on for a bit longer there will be a new deputy in around six months time.
              • Chris …

                20 July 2015 at 12:26 am

                It’s people like you … who’ve destroyed any semblance of an effective opposition. “Go Labour!!” Yes please, Labour, please go.
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.2

        18 July 2015 at 1:32 pm

        I think you’re about to see a massive swing in the polls.

        You really think Labour can stay above 30% for the next few Roy Morgans? I do not. They say this is Labour’s best showing since Sept 2013.

        Worth remembering how the General Election went just one year later.
        • Lanthanide 14.1.2.1

          18 July 2015 at 2:53 pm

          “Worth remembering how the General Election went just one year later.”

          After a disastrous change of leadership that was intentionally spiked by other MPs.
15. millsy 15

    18 July 2015 at 12:38 pm

    What everything comes down to is that the 90 day law pretty much makes all workers expendable. I am uncomfortable with the fact that workers are only taken on because it is easy to get rid of them. It really shows employers how much they value workers.
    • infused 15.1

      18 July 2015 at 2:05 pm

      Have you ever had to employee people in your own business millsy?
      • Macro 15.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 2:45 pm

        My heart bleeds for you confused – you poor blighted individual. It must be so hard for you, having to fire all these people every 90 days.
        By the way I have had experience in recruitment and amongst other roles was Director of Recruitment for the RNZN for 4 years. There have always been probationary or trial periods, the main difference (and iniquity) now is that employers can fire at will, and many do.

        Tens of thousands of workers have been sacked under the 90-day-trial period, with many let go because they “did not fit in”.

        Figures published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment show about 69,000 employers took on at least one new staff member in 2012 under the legislation.

        It is not known how many workers were dismissed during the 90-day-trial period, but the figures revealed 27 per cent of employers said they had fired at least one new employee during or at the end of their trial.

        This means at least 18,000 people lost their jobs in the first three months of employment last year, with the actual figure likely to be much higher.

        When asked why they had dismissed staff, most employers said it was because they were unreliable or had a bad attitude. Other reasons included employees not having the necessary skills, not getting on with colleagues, and not fitting in.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9483649/Thousands-lose-jobs-in-90-day-trial
        • RedLogix 15.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 8:01 pm

          When asked why they had dismissed staff, most employers said it was because they were unreliable or had a bad attitude. Other reasons included employees not having the necessary skills, not getting on with colleagues, and not fitting in.

          Which sadly are likely to be real issues. I’ve seen this play out in my own workplaces – just one disconnected, demotivated individual easily causes all sorts of toxic crap and damage to a business. I’m quite certain that a fair old percentage of people fired under this Nat law really did need their arse booted out the door.

          Equally there is no way of telling how many incompetent and venal employers have exploited this law to get some cheap low cost, low risk labour for a few months.

          The crucial thing is that people want to know that the process was fair. That if they did fuck up that they got an evens chance to put it right in good faith. And this isn’t terribly hard to document so that it can stand up in the Employment Court if necessary.

          It’s a simple basic bit of procedural competency that can be easily required if you want the privilege of employing people.
          • Macro 15.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 9:12 pm

            The figures given above suggest a turn over of staff under the “fire at will legislation” of new employees of just over 25% (around 18,000 of 69,000). To my mind this represents huge inefficiencies, both for the employer, and for the unfortunate employees. This figure does not include the turn over of any other staff.
            A turn over of staff in excess of 10%pa is an indication that that organisation is not cohesive and there are internal problems, and relationships within the organisation that need to be addressed. It is bad management to spend money on training a new employee, only to have them leave, and then have to go through the cost of training a replacement. I believe that with this “fire at will” many are taking an “easy” way out rather than to look at their own management practices. Are they recruiting the right people in the first place? Are their training procedures adequate or appropriate? Are their expectations appropriate of a new employee? etc.
            Too often employers are looking only at short term profits rather than investing in future gains.
            So while employers say we want this legislation, it might be more to their long term advantage for it to be repealed, for then they would be forced to reconsider their management practices and their hiring a little more closely, and they would find they had a more cohesive work force and people who wanted to work for them and not head down the road at the earliest opportunity.
        • infused 15.1.1.2

          18 July 2015 at 10:06 pm

          It’s easy when it’s other peoples money Macro. Hence why i asked if you have ever hired anyone in your own business.

          So that’s about as good as Labours leaked data then.

          Tens of thousands of workers have been sacked under the 90-day-trial period, with many let go because they “did not fit in”.

          then

          It is not known how many workers were dismissed during the 90-day-trial period, but the figures revealed 27 per cent of employers said they had fired at least one new employee during or at the end of their trial.

          Labour always picks the best information. I wonder how many were Chinese.
          • Macro 15.1.1.2.1

            18 July 2015 at 10:22 pm

            It’s easy when it’s other peoples money Macro. Hence why i asked if you have ever hired anyone in your own business.

            If its so difficult for you, then perhaps you should think about whether you should be an employer.
            As Director of Naval Manpower Training and Recruiting I had a limited budget – if that was spent, there was no more. If the loss rate was greater than 10% – ships would be tied up, and the country could not meet it’s defence commitments. It’s not all about you.
            • marty mars 15.1.1.2.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 10:36 pm

              + 1 slamdunk!
            • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.1.2.1.2

              18 July 2015 at 11:18 pm

              infused has a very small, limited perspective, where the small business person with a beamer, bach and boat rules the world in terms of operating acumen.
          • Lanthanide 15.1.1.2.2

            18 July 2015 at 10:54 pm

            “Labour always picks the best information.”

            You mean, National always deliberately refuse to collect the information, so no-one can hold them to account?
      • millsy 15.1.2

        18 July 2015 at 3:21 pm

        Do you see your workers as expendable infused?
        • infused 15.1.2.1

          18 July 2015 at 10:07 pm

          What a stupid fucking question. Why the fuck would I waste thousands of dollars hiring and training someone, to fire them within 3 months?
          • McFlock 15.1.2.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 10:50 pm

            Because you, as the employer in question, are so incompetent that you couldn’t use the basic probationary provisions that already existed in employment law, so you kept getting pinged by the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

            Pretty simple, really – the only employers who need fire-at-will are incompetent, so arguing that they wouldn’t act incompetently is silly.
            • Coffee Connoisseur 15.1.2.1.1.1

              19 July 2015 at 6:46 am

              McFlock it would be more accurate to say the only Employers that need the 90 day trial period are those employers in SMEs that are balls to the wall busy just keeping their businesses going in our so called ‘Rockstar Economy’ so that their employees stay employed.

              Hiring the wrong employee can have devastating effects to some businesses. effects that adversely affect other employees too.
              • McFlock …

                19 July 2015 at 5:45 pm

                Why should employees subsidise (with precariousness in their work conditions) those few SMEs who are being incompetently managed? HR is a key part of management abilities. If a business owner is too busy to do a key part of their job, they should make way for competent business owners.

                I’m being a bit harsh, maybe? Well that’s exactly the attitude that fire-at-will takes on employees, so what’s good for the employee is good for the employer.

                An incompetent manager is worse for a business than “the wrong employee”. I’ve seen some pretty dropkick employees, and none of them were as toxic to the workplace as the most mildly dropkicky of the dropkick managers I’ve also seen.
16. Sable 16

    18 July 2015 at 1:24 pm

    A watered down 90 day law by a watered down Labour party…..Same thing the shits did with the ECA…..
    • Macro 16.1

      18 July 2015 at 2:25 pm

      Yep! Exactly! Leave it so that the next lot of vandals can easily unpick it and disadvantage workers. They have no brains. You wonder why any worker would vote for them.
17. Heartbleeding Liberal 17

    18 July 2015 at 1:59 pm

    The number one priority for the left should be increasing voter turnout. Most of the resources should be targeted in this area. The demographics that do not vote are more likely to be left wing voters.
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      18 July 2015 at 2:20 pm

      voter turn out increased from 2011 to 2014, and Labour dived another 2%.
      • Ergo Robertina 17.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 9:19 pm

        Voter enrolment was down though (90%; in 2011 it was 93% which makes turnout look better). Although the total number of votes was higher in 2014 while Labour’s votes decreased.
        • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 9:21 pm

          What’s your read of those data points, ER?
          • Ergo Robertina 17.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 9:31 pm

            Just figuring that declining enrolment should be factored in to increased turnout. I guess the total votes continue to rise with the population. I’m certainly no ”data points” guru, so I may have interpreted wrongly.
18. red-blooded 18

    18 July 2015 at 2:14 pm

    Really? The Missing Million, again?

    1) Totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and
    2) Been there, done that.

    It would be great to help create an environment in which people feel more engaged in their society and its democratic processes, but this is very unlikely from the Opposition benches and should certainly not be the focus of Labour’s limited resources.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      18 July 2015 at 2:19 pm

      2) Been there, done that.

      Hard to see how a bunch of Thorndon Bubble types releasing hot air about the missing million = a sincere try at engaging with them.

      Anyway, I agree with you that Labour cannot “engage” with the missing million, simply because Labour has minimal connections with or strategic interest in, the missing million.
19. Rosie 19

    18 July 2015 at 3:08 pm

    So what’s it going to be Mr Little?

    This was Andrew Little in 2006, speaking as Secretary for the EPMU at the time Wayne Mapp (see above) introduced the bill:

    “What sort of country is it that has an employment law that attacks people at their most vulnerable time, when they’ve just started a new job,” he said.
    “What sort of employer is it who is unable to manage workers in a dignified and respectful way?”

    http://www.epmu.org.nz/news/show/110702

    I fully agree with those sentiments. I was at those protests then and I am as angry about the 90 day Law today, as I was then. I want to know what’s changed in Andrew Littles mind, when he now he considers this law could remain after all, but with some tweaking.

    Tweaking the bill will not reassure workers and reduce anxiety as mentioned – take that from the horses mouth (and also, what is the motivation, votes from the bosses?)

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17072015/#comment-1046034

    and can this question please be answered?

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17072015/#comment-1046046
    • Karen 19.1

      18 July 2015 at 3:33 pm

      +1 Rosie
      I would also like to know why we only have a quote from an internal email and no press statement from Andrew Little that absolutely clarifies the issue. FFS he has a communications team, so start communicating.
      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1

        18 July 2015 at 3:50 pm

        probably not happening because the communication is deemed to be unpalatable.
        • KK 19.1.1.1

          18 July 2015 at 7:41 pm

          Maybe further inflaming the issue with the media isn’t in Labour’s interests, and the best thing is not to have another round of stories where the journos frame Little’s clarification of their misunderstanding as a ‘backflip’ or ‘u-turn’. Seems smart to me to clarify with supporters and leave the media to move on to other things.
          • KK 19.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 7:42 pm

            But I forgot, Colonial Viper is the political genius Labour’s been waiting for, and if they would just listen to him all would be ok.
            • Colonial Rawshark 19.1.1.1.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 9:27 pm

              Like a cheap drunk, a single poll over 30% and it goes right to your head.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1.2

            18 July 2015 at 7:42 pm

            “Explaining is losing”. New Zealand cares about Snapper.
      • Rosie 19.1.2

        18 July 2015 at 3:57 pm

        It’s all very up in the air. Something was said that has caused confusion and we are left hanging. It’s a biggie too, work rights, I would have thought were a core principle with no room for ambiguity allowed.

        The email that TRP received must have only gone out to people that hold positions within the Party. As a member, I’ve not received anything.
        • Karen 19.1.2.1

          18 July 2015 at 4:00 pm

          My suspicion is that there is a shit fight going on behind the scenes.

          No other explanation that I can think of.
          • Rosie 19.1.2.1.1

            18 July 2015 at 4:13 pm

            Lols, those were my thoughts too Karen.
            • Jenny Kirk 19.1.2.1.1.1

              18 July 2015 at 8:56 pm

              oh for goodness sake, people, give the guy a bit of slack. He was asked a question and on the spur of the moment he made a statement. That statement isn’t wrong, it just needs a bit of clarifying.

              There have been 90 day trials written into union awards and collective agreements for goodness knows how long. The difference between the Labour- oriented ones and the National ones is that the Nats let bosses fire people at will, without reason, and without having to provide proper performance analysis. All Andrew Little was saying is that there has to be a fairer process than that, and he is now clarifying that by saying the former legislation under Labour and the current legislation under National needs to be thoroughly reviewed and amended.

              You are all so ready to jump on the bandwagon the MSM has provided, that you’re not thinking clearly.

              Do you really think a Leader with Andrew Little’s background in working for years in unions, with a chief of staff like Matt McCarten with a similar background, are now going to “screw” the workers?

              We have a different Leader in Andrew Little – one not tied to the old rogernomics ideology. Give the guy a break and start thinking about how you can support him instead of forever throwing him into the lions pit.
              • Colonial Rawshark …

                18 July 2015 at 9:33 pm

                Previously Labour had stated that its position was to “scrap” or “abolish” the Government’s 90 day dismissal law.

                Little’s languaging was far softer, and people did notice that.
                • Jenny Kirk …

                  19 July 2015 at 8:12 am

                  Yes – the Government’s 90-day law – but what wasn’t made clear at the time was there had already been in place such a law, which required employers to act in good faith and have good grounds for dismissal – a whole lot different from the Nat Govt’s new law.
                  That’s what has muddled everyone and the media. And needed clarifying.
                  • Karen …

                    19 July 2015 at 9:44 am

                    Jenny, that is the problem. It hasn’t been clarified. There has been an internal email to selected members, nothing to the wider membership, and to be quite frank even the internal email is not clear.

                    Andrew Little needs to say clearly that the 90 day law needs to go and Labour will work with unions to come up with something new that will allow work trial contracts that cannot be abused by bad employers. Pretending that there are no bad employers and that the 90 day law is fair is nonsense.

                    I supported Andrew Little in the leadership contest, but I would have to say I wasn’t at all impressed by his performance this week

                    And just for the record, I have a small business.
          • Jester 19.1.2.1.2

            18 July 2015 at 8:01 pm

            The fact he released the “internal statement” to some union delegates prior to releasing it to the party members would indicate you are probably right Karen.
            • Jenny Kirk 19.1.2.1.2.1

              18 July 2015 at 8:58 pm

              Nonsense, Jester. It just means some people (union delegates or Party members) were at their computers, or APPs, or phones or whatever they use earlier than others. That “internal statement” is a weekly round-up of what is going on – and goes out simultaneously to all members on the email circuit.
              • Jester …

                18 July 2015 at 9:11 pm

                Well Rosie still hadn’t received anything 5hrs after TRP received his so perhaps their may have been a mix up somewhere.

                Incidently i also haven’t received anything about it but to be fair I can’t remember if I blocked the emails after taking the opportunity to vote on the first leadership contest.
                • Colonial Rawshark …

                  18 July 2015 at 11:23 pm

                  the email only goes out to branch and LEC office holders, not to all members.
                  • Jenny Kirk …

                    19 July 2015 at 8:15 am

                    oh yes – I forgot that, CR. But members can ask to be sent it …… assuming of course that they know about it. Mmmm – a bit of a condundrum ….
                    Well – those of you who now know about it, can ask NZLP HO to add you to the mailing list. Its called The Weekly Wrap.
    • marty mars 19.2

      18 July 2015 at 3:57 pm

      Thank you Rosie
20. TeWhareWhero 20

    18 July 2015 at 5:19 pm

    I’m continually amazed at how many layers of management there are in business enterprises and the public sector and how much the ratio of managers to managed has been shifting in favour of the former – and yet, employers still say they need a probationary period to establish whether the people who THEY recruit, select, train and manage – using all their highly remunerated skills – are right for the job.

    IF an employer /manager :
    a) gets the job specification right, works out what pre-employment skills, education, experience, personal attributes etc, and what post-employment training & development an employee needs in order to do be able to do the job successfully;
    b) selects the right person using objective criteria and rigorous processes; and,
    c) trains and manages that person appropriately – then surely a probationary period ought not be needed.

    I do accept that no recruitment and selection process is fool proof and that a lot of Kiwi businesses are small scale and their R&S is a bit hit and miss – but even so, if an employer wants the right to make demands on their employees to get it right first time and to keep it right – how about leading by example? And there’s little more important to any enterprise than getting the selection of your staff ‘right first time’. Trial and error is hardly efficient, effective or economic – leaving aside the vexed question of how equitable it is.

    And as to the notion that employers are the ‘job providers, the risk takers, the sustainers of business, production and society’ :

    employers provide jobs because they need workers to run their business – the social good that flows from the existence of those jobs is, for most employers, secondary to that;

    there are loads of employers who take little or no personal risk, in no small part due to the way company law is framed and, if they do take a financial risk, they do so in anticipation of significant rewards;

    the sustaining of business is not confined to employers because without employees the business could not be sustained;

    production does not have to be organised in the way we currently do and arguably it shouldn’t be because it’s demonstrably inefficient and wasteful.

    In fact society might be a whole lot better if we rethought the way we organise production – including the relations thereof.
    • Colonial Rawshark 20.1

      18 July 2015 at 11:25 pm

      In fact society might be a whole lot better if we rethought the way we organise production – including the relations thereof.

      This is absolutely critical. Labour and Greens will only tinker though.
21. Michael who failed Civics 21

    19 July 2015 at 1:19 am

    “As part of our overall policy review we are working with businesses, workers and their unions”. The order says it all. IMHO Labour should adopt all the CTU’s recommendations, at pages 59-66, of its report: Under Pressure: A Detailed Report Into Insecure Work In New Zealand (CTU, Wellington, October 2013), without any bullshit or prevarication. That would tell New Zealanders where the Party stands on the struggle between capital and labour, once and for all.
22. Save NZ 22

    19 July 2015 at 9:03 am

    Labour needs to ‘speed up’ to finalise their policies – voters need actual policy after the ‘consultation’ with business and unions so they can decide who to vote for. Hedging bets (like on TPP) so that you don’t offend anyone just makes voters feel that Labour can’t be trusted.

    The trick is to understand what is the moral and right thing to do within the policy and understand what voters want. Then be ready for the Nats dirty politics campaign.

    It seems to work for NZ First to be able to say what their policy is very simply, not some sort of ‘third way’ mish mash or policy or a policy of ‘nothing concrete’.

    Public want clarity.

    As an issue becomes public, Labour could state their position on their Facebook page and website for example. That way the MSM don’t go crazy with speculation.

    The Nats are slippery but voters want change – Northland is an example.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS