Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, April 14th, 2015 - 88 comments
Categories: boycott, employment, Unions, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

Over a month ago I asked what Michael Woodhouse has actually got right on employment relations in New Zealand.

I don’t think it’s too much to expect the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety to understand basic concepts related to his portfolio. Like the fact that he can, in fact, legislate for good employer practice (that’s the whole point of laws.) Or the fact that zero hour contracts are not the same as casual employer contracts.

But he’s still trotting out that very line – accusing the Labour Party of trying to do away with all forms of casual employment agreement – and it’s very heartening to see (or rather hear) Labour leader Andrew Little name that for what it is: lying.

“Lying” is such a taboo word in politics. You can’t use it in Parliament at all – every member is an honorable member even when they’re full of crap.

Yet sometimes, there is simply no other logical conclusion. Either Michael Woodhouse is deliberately confusing the two types of employment agreement to obfuscate the issue – i.e. is lying; or Michael Woodhouse is utterly ignorant of the basics of employment and has literally no one around him who understands the difference and has thought to advise him of it.

I don’t think anyone believes Michael Woodhouse is that stupid. Nope, he’s just following the National Party playbook, and it goes all the way back to their exploitative 90-day trial legislation, first passed in 2009.

90-day trials are not the same as the probationary periods which our laws already allowed for – probationary periods which still protected workers’ basic rights. Under a 90-day trial your boss can fire you for getting injured on the job. Or calling in sick. Or joining the union. Or rebuffing sexual harassment. All things which it would be illegal for someone to fire you for in any other circumstances.

But as soon as anyone points this out, the rightwing spinners get all indignant: “but trial periods are useful! Why don’t you want young workers to get a chance to prove themselves?”

They know the difference. They’re lying about it. And they’re depending on our decent Kiwi nature – our dislike of confrontation and our assumption that everyone is acting in good faith – to get away with it.

~

If you’re in Auckland tomorrow, Unite Union are holding an action against zero-hours contracts as part of a global day of action for fast food workers. Check out the event Facebook page for details.

88 comments on “Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar? ”

  1. mickysavage 1

    Thanks Steph.

    And Congratulations to Maccas for also agreeing to end zero hour contracts. Only Burger King and Wendys to go.

    It is funny that multinational corporations with generally poor workplace practices are quicker at outlawing anti worker contractual provisions quicker than this Government …

    • Lanthanide 1.1

      McDonald’s didn’t, and Unite are going to strike on Wednesday.

      McDonald’s agreed to give people 80% of their rostered hours, but the point is people on 0-hours contract routinely work significantly more than their rostered hours.

      If you’re rostered for 10 hours but work 30, then being guaranteed 8 hours in the future (and still working 30) doesn’t change anything.

      Restaurant Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut etc) agreed to 80% of hours worked, which is meaningful.

    • Skinny 1.2

      Mc Donalds are being tricky as per usual. Unite keep holding a blowtorch to their arse
      and is in my opinion the best Union in the Country. Pity they don’t expand out the cover other industries. They leave the trade unions for dead as they recruite activists from within.

      • dukeofurl 1.2.1

        Isnt that a demarcation thing, from the days when the pantyhouse workers union didnt poach members from the socks and underwear union

        • Skinny 1.2.1.1

          Demarcation lines?

          There are plenty of idiot Unions these days that poach workers into unions outside their sector (broad coverage approach) undermining the sector union and then negotiate a weaker CA. The bosses love it. It amazes me when someone says yeah my union is such & such, I think what the heck would they know about that industry compared to a more specialist union I could think of. Let’s not even go into the thinking of 2 of the largest unions around the introduction of the ECA.

    • infused 1.3

      Burger King/McDs have been doing this since 2000 when I worked there. Why is this such a huge issue now

      • Lanthanide 1.3.1

        Were you on a casual contract, or a 0-hours? They aren’t the same.

        One clear difference is that if you’re on a casual contract, every time you work, you have to get paid the holiday rate in addition to the hours worked, because you don’t accrue annual leave.

        • infused 1.3.1.1

          Maybe it was. Too young to remember. I was never guaranteed hours though.

          • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1.1

            So it may have been a casual contract, which is fine.

            With 0-hours contract, you might be given say a 6 hour shift a week on an official roster, and then told that you might be needed on Friday and Saturday. When Friday and Saturday arrive, you wait for a phone call, but it never arrives.

            Or you’re given an official rostered shift, and then also told that you’d need to work on Thursday. Then on Thursday morning, you’re called and told that your shift is cancelled. But maybe you’ll get a shift tomorrow.

            Under a casual contract, the employee has full rights to decline any offered work. The key difference here is it means that you’re fully able to look for other employment. With a 0-hours contract, if you don’t come in when they expect you to come in (because you’ve got another job, or you had scheduled plans that made it impossible to attend work), they can write it up as an unexplained absence and start the process to dismiss you.

  2. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2

    The Facebook page says there will be strikes in fast food restaurants other than in Auckland, i.e. in Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Palmerston North. Hope that FB page will supply more details.

  3. vto 3

    Biggest ups of the year so far to Andrew Little for calling out Woodhouse’s lies.

  4. b waghorn 4

    It wouldn’t really surprise me if woodenhead wasn’t just pure and simply thick ,national proved in northland that they don’t want thinkers they just want good little puppets.

  5. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5

    Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

    Both. And more. He has been known as a scoundrel since his schoolboy days.

    • left for deadshark 5.1

      great description scoundrel.He is loathed by most of us down here,except for the moneyed few. Thankful for small mercies he’s not Heath minister.
      good post SR. 😉

    • whateva next? 5.2

      Perfect successor for Key then.

    • Chris 5.3

      That face suggests he’s seen the bottom of a few bottles, too. Certainly not the sharpest knife as a result…

  6. dukeofurl 6

    On camera, when hes asked for a statement he acts like hes the guy from the mailroom and hes just leaving the ministers office

  7. NZJester 7

    “Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?”

    Or is he simply both.

    • Rob 7.1

      He would appear to be quite clearly a liar
      As Andrew Little has shown
      As part of Steven Joyce’s National Govt he is probably
      also just a foot soldier following orders
      So I guess that makes him fairly dumb!

  8. DH 8

    “Under a 90-day trial your boss can fire you for getting injured on the job. Or calling in sick. Or joining the union. Or rebuffing sexual harassment. All things which it would be illegal for someone to fire you for in any other circumstances.”

    That’s not my understanding of it, can anyone clarify?

    My understanding is the 90day law just removed workers’ access to the employment court. That effectively makes it too near impossible for the average person to get any justice if they’re unfairly dismissed, they’d have to pursue a civil claim which is beyond the means of most people

    I didn’t think the actual laws on dismissal were changed and the above practices are still illegal. Or has there been new laws passed that I’ve missed?

    • Lanthanide 8.1

      You’re correct, the 90-day bill provision removed the ‘unfair dismissal’ recourse for a personal grievance, but didn’t remove any of the other protected provisions for a personal grievance.

    • The 90 day rule actually does allow for dismissal in the above circumstances. It removes the right of workers to take personal grievances if they are fired in the 90 days. So, no PG, no mediation, no employment authority, no employment court, no court of appeal. No nothing.

      Because the employer does not have to give a reason for the dismissal, it’s virtually impossible to build a case any other way. Most cases that have been won that involved the 90 day law have been on technicalities or where there was proven abuse such as witnessed harassment.

      The intent and effect of the law is to allow workers to be fired without penalty. It’s working exactly as designed.

      • infused 8.2.1

        Yes they do you tard. A process has to be followed. You can’t just say ‘you’re fired’.

        Jesus christ,

        • te reo putake 8.2.1.1

          Actually, that’s exactly what it means. The process pretty much boils down to ‘you’re fired’. That’s the intent, and that’s how its working in practice. As I wrote, the few successful cases have been mainly on process failure, most often forgetting to get the employment agreement with the 90 day provision in it signed before work starts.

          Still, if you think there is a more substantial process to dismissing someone, feel free to spell it out.

          • Lanthanide 8.2.1.1.1

            Employment lawyers advise that a proper process has to be followed. Presumably because they expect that sooner or later, the court will find a case where a proper process wasn’t followed and will find against the company.

            • te reo putake 8.2.1.1.1.1

              Well, yeah. But so what? The point of the legislation is to allow unfair dismissals. That’s what it says on the lid and that’s what it delivers.

              Happy to ask the same question again; what’s the process?

              Edit: I forgot to mention that National changed the law so that procedural faults don’t have to be a decider in employment cases. Get that? Even if bosses get the sacking process wrong, that doesn’t mean they automatically lose the case.

              • infused

                Why would I explain it to you. How about you go hire some people and then come back to us. It seems it’s only tools like yourself that are not actually employing people that seem to be confused about the 90 day trial.

                • So tell us what the process is, genius. Let me guess … you haven’t got a clue?

                  • Lanthanide

                    A proper process would at a minimum include a notice/warning that performance was not up to expectations, with an indication of what those expectations were. Then a time-frame for improvement and an assessment of whether the necessary improvement has occurred.

                    Given that there is a 90 day limit here, and obviously the law makes it easier to fire someone, it doesn’t have to be a robust and exhaustive process. But it should be more than simply “sorry, you’re fired”.

                    • Tracey

                      can you give me the clause/s in the Act which refer to the proper process for dismissal under 90 day clauses?

                    • Lanthanide

                      Tracey, a large body of best-practice has built up around employment law from employment law cases. This is called “case law”.

                      The case law tells how to the law should be interpreted and applied in real life.

                      The employment lawyers are making this recommendation based on case law, not the act-as-written.

                      Lawyers, being cautious and conservative people, want to give the best advice to their clients to avoid costs and hassles.

                      It doesn’t mean that you *must* follow a proper process, merely the opinion of the lawyers that if you don’t, you may be open to a legal challenge. Eventually these cases will come through to the court and some precedents will be set and we’ll find out whether the lawyers were correct to be cautious or not.

                    • Cheers, Lanthanide. The process you outline is fair and is pretty much what should be expected under a probationary period arrangement as allowed in law now and also prior to the 90 day rule. However, under a 90 day trial, none of that fairness is needed.

                      Ironically, if a dinkum employer actually uses the process you outline and then dismisses someone just using the 90 day provision, they actually do expose themselves to the risk of a successful PG on technical grounds. That is, having begun a performance improvement regime, they cannot definitively rely on the 90 day provision alone as a reason for dismissal.

                      To put it another way, an employer would be best advised to take no risks, and certainly give no advice to an employee that if they improve, their job is safe, and certainly give no reason at all for the dismissal other than you are dismissed under the 90 day rule. Fair? No. Legal? Yes.

                      edit, just seen your reply to Tracey. You are right that case law will develop in time. However, the courts always look at the intent of parliament in helping to form a judgement.

                    • Lanthanide

                      @TRP: according to the employment lawyers that talked to us, the previous 90 day probation law amounted to no additional powers for the employer.

                      The gist of it was you could ‘slightly accelerate’ the standard process, but you must still follow a fair process during the probationary period.

                      For our company, 90 days isn’t long enough to weed out underperforming vs acceptable performing individuals. It is long enough to weed out completely incapable performers, and under the 90 day provision we can get rid of them, but the previous probationary standards would still require us to treat an incapable performer as merely an underperformer.

                    • tracey

                      Gee, thanks Lanth

                      Case Law you say. Well, well, well.

                    • tracey

                      S 103A Test of Justification

                      i.For the purposes of section 103(1) (a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection (2).
                      ii.The test is whether the employer’s actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.”

              • tracey

                From MBIE

                Trial periods

                Employers can make an offer of employment that includes a trial period of up to 90 days.
                Trial periods are voluntary, and must be agreed in writing and negotiated in good faith as part of the employment agreement.

                An employee who is dismissed before the end of a trial period can’t raise a personal grievance on the grounds of unjustified dismissal. They can raise a personal grievance on other grounds, such as discrimination, harassment or unjustified action by the employer.

                Employees on trial periods are entitled to all other minimum employment rights.

        • tricledrown 8.2.1.2

          Shithouse is a groveling idiot .
          Claiming one of his grandparents was a W W1 hero!
          Low ranking liar.

          • Pasupial 8.2.1.2.1

            tricledrown

            Woodhouse is almost as much of a compulsive liar as Key. The twisting of words, about his; Anzac day great-uncle, were something to behold:

            The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs told the ODT last month Trooper Frank Woodhouse, of the Otago Mounted Rifles, was his great-uncle.

            He found the name on a memorial on the Gallipoli peninsula commemorating New Zealanders killed in the campaign.

            ”It was a profound experience and I do feel a little more connected now.”…

            However it has emerged that the trooper shared only the Woodhouse surname with the MP.

            Family spokesman Gareth Woodhouse told Fairfax media the trooper was his great-uncle and the family had his medals.

            He had emailed the minister who replied with a “semi-apology”.

            http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/303064/woodhouse-admits-gallipoli-gaffe

            Then the next day:

            Veterans’ Affairs Minister Michael Woodhouse says he cannot recollect whether he blamed the Otago Daily Times for publishing a case of mistaken identity…

            The Dominion Post yesterday… reported Mr Woodhouse as saying his conversation with the ODT on April 25 was off the record…

            When asked if he had told The Dominion Post that his conversation with the ODT was off the record, he said: ”I’m not sure if I used the words off the record.

            ”If I described it that way, it wasn’t accurate,” he said…

            also made the comment to APNZ reporter Sophie Ryan on Anzac Day.

            She was certain the conversation was ”absolutely not” off the record.

            ”Their press secretary said, ‘Here’s his number, he will be really keen to talk because … he does have a relative link to the war’,” she said.

            Mr Woodhouse said, although he ”prematurely speculated” that Tpr Woodhouse was his great-uncle, there was ”no doubt in my mind that I was related to this guy”.

            http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/303134/mp-unsure-whether-he-blamed-odt

            And just in case that’s not enough, there’s always Woodhouse’s changing his Donghua Liu story three times within a single day:

            June 19:

            • 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters

            • 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.

            • 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277608

            • Tracey 8.2.1.2.1.1

              The thing that stands out for me, is how people seem reluctant to attribute this kind of behaviour, Bridges lie about bridges and the list of lies and back flips to the environment set by the leadership.

              If parents behave badly and without principles you find their children tend to behave that way. If a coach has no ethics, no moral compass, you find many players don’t either. So WHY in politics do some just go “they are human, not perfect” and in that statement we lowe rour expectations on our politicians and the result?

              Read this thread, read the Bridges bridge lie and his prior history, read Collins history, read Key’s litany of lies and misleading statements and so on.

              BUT this government and people on both sides of the political spectrum don’t actually demand higher levels of behaviour from our politicians. We set the law as the minimum and maximum standard and then wonder why they lie to us.

        • tricledrown 8.2.1.3

          Infused confused.
          That would be the intention of the law you would{house) think.
          All the employer does is not offer any hours inconvenient hr’s effectively constructive dismissal.
          Dismal Dickensian era employment law.
          These employers also are practising continual psychological abuse.

        • adam 8.2.1.4

          infused

          You again prove my point on the utter lack of morals, by the right wing in this country.

          You language is offensive.

        • millsy 8.2.1.5

          If you couldnt just say ‘your fired’ then the law wouldn’t be worth having (from a employers point of view)

        • tracey 8.2.1.6

          Interestingly most of the cases turn on whether the 90 day trial period was properly outlined and conveyed.

      • Skinny 8.2.2

        Interesting after seeing a lawyer from the EMA on TV news last night, having to try spin about the Zero hours contracts, her name was Jennifer I think, botox face to me. Anyway it reminded me of once listening to EMA lawyers on a conference call arguing that Nationals employment law changes like the fire at will Bill were a step too far and there was no need to meddle with Wilson/Labours ERA, that was quite a suprise.
        My partner at the time crossed over to the darkside and was a regional lawyer for them working from home, I was deliverying her a glass of wine. That old sexist prick (before the current snake Kim Campbell) that headed the bosses outfit said something I took exception too. I coughed out louder than meaning too ‘bullshit’ as I walked out the door, started laughing my head off when I could hear “what was that, who said that, then the not me who else is not this line.”

        My partner was furious, frantically waving her hands at me and mouthing all sorts of obscenities, which made me laugh harder, I couldn’t stop even knowing I was up for a tongue lashing when she got off the phone call, and I did 🙁

        Not too long after that incident we split up I told her it was never going to work me being a dirty old unionist and her taking on a job representing the bosses. Life panned out pretty good she goes out with an older business man and I have a younger women who shares a love of animals. 🙂

        • Tracey 8.2.2.1

          “her name was Jennifer I think, botox face to me.”

          Are you infused’s left-wing alter ego?

  9. infused 9

    Under a 90-day trial your boss can fire you for getting injured on the job. Or calling in sick. Or joining the union. Or rebuffing sexual harassment. All things which it would be illegal for someone to fire you for in any other circumstances.

    Can someone post some examples of this happening please.

    • tricledrown 9.1

      Infused my daughter has worked at 2 Zero hours jobs both international brands.
      The number of employment laws broken by these sadistic companies would astound you Infused.

    • millsy 9.2

      They could just get rid of you at the end of your 90 day period and just say that it was ‘something else’.

      You live in a day dream. If bossed really couldnt sack people under the 90 day law or doing the above, then they wouldnt be fighting to the death to keep it.

      • infused 9.2.1

        No, it just proves you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like most other people here.

        • thatguynz 9.2.1.1

          So “most other people here” have no idea what they’re talking about yet you are the enlightened one?? Why does this feel like a Tui billboard..

    • felix 9.3

      infused, the thing is they can fire you without giving any reason at all.

      So you might never know whether it was because you joined a union or not. Or because you took too long for smoko. Or because you just weren’t any good at the job. Or because you’re gay. Or because you’re not. Or because you called in sick. Or because you make a shit cup of tea and the boss is having a bad day.

      But all they have to say is don’t come monday.

      • infused 9.3.1

        It’s simply not the case and I challenge you to back that up with an example.

        • North 9.3.1.1

          “It’s simply not the case”. Tell us how it’s not the case. Examples have nothing to do with it. Tell us how the law proscribes that. Weakling.

        • felix 9.3.1.2

          An example of what, infused?

          I’m not taking the piss, I’m genuinely asking. Cos I don’t see how I could give an example of someone not saying something.

          Could you perhaps tell me which part of the law is in conflict with what I’ve said?

          Here’s the piece of legislation we’re talking about: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM1867204.html

          The relevant bit states:

          (2)Trial provision means a written provision in an employment agreement that states, or is to the effect, that—
          (a)for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days), starting at the beginning of the employee’s employment, the employee is to serve a trial period; and
          (b)during that period the employer may dismiss the employee; and
          (c)if the employer does so, the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.

          It’s in pretty plain language, but here’s an even mopre plain version from the MOBI website: http://www.dol.govt.nz/workplace/knowledgebase/item/1517

          • Lanthanide 9.3.1.2.1

            From the MOBI website: “the employer can dismiss the employee without the employee being able to take a personal grievance for reasons of unjustified dismissal.”

            So you can still bring a personal grievance for reasons of constructive dismissal.

            • felix 9.3.1.2.1.1

              But not for unjustified dismissal.

              So walk me through it. You employ me on a contract with a 90-day trial.

              A month later you fire me. No reason given.

              My recourse is what?

              • Tracey

                THIS is what I would also like the answer to?

              • Lanthanide

                Determine if there is cause for a constructive dismissal claim. If there is, lodge one. If there isn’t, move on.

                The point is, the law *does not* say you can fire someone under the 90 day law and be immune to *all* legal recourse from the employee.

                • I don’t think that’s the right phrase. A constructive dismissal is where an employee resigns because of the actions or inactions of the employer. That is, the employer makes life so bad for the worker that they have no choice but to resign.

                  Are you thinking of something else in employment law?

                  • Lanthanide

                    Hostile work environment. Employee performance deteriorates. Employee is terminated under 90 day period for poor performance. Employee lodges PG for constructive dismissal – their poor performance was due to hostile work environment perpetuated by the employer.

                    • That’s not a constructive dismissal because its a firing, not a resignation. Even if it were, if the employer does not give a reason for the dismissal (ie poor performance) then no claim can arise.

                    • Lanthanide

                      I’d be interested to see how a “fired for no reason” will stand up in the court. Has there been any case law on this?

                    • Good question! Probably not, because there’s no point taking a case on that basis. The 90 day provision does not require a reason to be given. That’s kinda the point of the provision; to allow dismissal without good cause as well as dismissal with good cause.

                    • Lanthanide

                      It’s easy to see how case law could be made: someone makes a claim that they were dismissed based on a protected area, the employer claims that they fired them for “no reason as they are allowed to do under the law”.

                      Employment court says “no, you must give a reason, so we can determine if the reason for dismissal is a protected one or not, which is still protected under the law despite the 90 days provision”.

                    • tracey

                      assuming an employee can afford to take the case and that an employer wouldn’t appeal it and so on. My best guess, based on experience, is that it has happened, but if challenged has settled. Hence it hasn’t got to case law stage. Of course I am very new to case law, only learning about it today (joking), and have done a cursory search only.

                      Oh, and read the Stoke case.

                    • Lanthanide

                      The government website seems to be down, but I found this: http://www.conferenz.co.nz/whitepapers/90-day-trials-lessons-smith-v-stokes-valley-pharmacy

                      (b) The employer must treat employees fairly and in accordance with the employment agreement in all other respects during the trial period. In Smith, the employment agreement required the employer to address performance concerns, which it did not do.

                      (c) The ERA (s67B) only negates the normal requirement to give reasons for the dismissal in writing when subsequently and formally called upon to do so. The ERA does not preclude an employer being obliged (when asked) to provide an explanation for the dismissal at the time of giving notice of termination during the trial period. The s4 good faith obligations appear to require employers to give an explanation for the dismissal at the time of giving notice.

                      (d) Notice of termination must be given in accordance with the employment agreement. The decision in Smith appears to preclude summary dismissal, although a payment in lieu of notice seems allowable if provided for in the agreement.

                      So, there we go. The employment court has already said that you can’t fire someone for “no reason” under the 90 day provision.

                    • tracey

                      LOLOLOLOL

                      It’s even clearer if you read the actual case, and more besides. It answers every legal question raised in this discussion, incluidng an examination of the Parliament’s intent.

                      http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/employment-court/documents/2010-%20NZEmpc%20111%20Smith%20v%20Stokes%20Valley%20Pharmacy%20-2009-%20Limited.pdf

                    • The court has no actual right to demand an answer to that question and the employer has the absolute right to not say why. If they chose to answer, they could simply say “it wasn’t working out”. End of story.

                      It’s up to the worker to offer proof that it’s an unfair dismissal under the very limited alternatives (harassment etc.). The onus is completely on the person making the complaint and the employer does not have to say a thing.

                      Again, the point of the provision to allow unfair dismissals to occur.

                    • tracey

                      TRP

                      Have a read of the case. It is very useful for an insight into Court interpretation in this whole 90- day trial

                    • Cheers, Tracey. It’s a bit more forceful in the ‘reasons’ section than I remembered ( I read it when it first came out) and I note reference to what a reasonable employer ‘would do’ rather than the watered down ‘could do’ we have today.

                      All in all, a good summary of the rights and obligations of the parties.

                    • tracey

                      TRP

                      Yea i read it way back then too. I was also wondering how some parts would look now with the watered down employer onus aspect.

                      This decision wouldn’t ave pleased this government, imo.

                • You_Fool

                  In reality however this is a case where the courts are basically rewriting the law with case law. It is similar to Sue Bradford’s anti-child abuse law where the law eventually got changed to be in-line with how the courts were actually finding. However in the 90-day fire at will law it is more that the courts/law system have not changed with the law (because the law is shit)

                  Hence what Lath was talking about further up – lawyers are advising employers to follow due process because they know that the courts will side with the employee as long as there is a technicality to be pulled up on. So De Jure the situation is stupid and shitty, but De Facto nothing has really changed and the law should be repealed and put back how it was

                  it is also why there are no cases to provide to Infused, because the courts are interpreting the law to still be the same (as much as they are able.)

                  • tracey

                    As far as I can tell the definitive case of 90 Day Trial periods was dated 2009 and appealed to the Employment Court in 2010

                    Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd

                    Also, many cases settle before getting to a decision which can distort the picture of employer and employee behaviours.

  10. felix 10

    Do we really have to choose?

  11. ScottGN 11

    Radio NZ just replayed the Woodhouse/Little interviews from Morning Report this morning on their evening roundup. You get the feeling Kim Hill is having a great time!

  12. North 12

    Was good to hear Kim Hill on Morning Report today pointedly requiring idiot Woodhouse to explain WHY he didn’t know such and such – “You are the minister after all……WHY don’t you know ?”

    Surely its 101 stuff……how the fuck can a minister in a government cry off with shit like “That’s not a matter the responsibility of MY ministry therefore I can’t blah blah blah…..” ?

    It really is outrageous for ministers in a government which preaches ‘responsibility’ to behave like this. One thing’s for sure……try that shit in any of the bars and public gathering places I’m familiar with……well – bunch of fives stuff !!! Shows the contempt in which these mongrels hold us. Just say ‘something’……’anything’. As long as it’s denial.

    • tc 12.1

      Kim shows that simple questions about minister competency has woodhouse all at sea.

      It’s that simple and yet gluon, dunc, paddy etc etc all seem incapable of it because they are owned and not serving an independent role.

      Key will never ever front Kim hill as she is not owned unlike Suzy and gluon.

  13. millsy 13

    Do you value your workers infused?

    Or do just see them as expenadable?

    Do you begrudge having to pay sick leave, holidays etc?

    Are you going to not let them have breaks?

    Would you pay zero wages if you could?

  14. repateet 14

    Question: Michael Woodhouse: a fool or a liar?

    Answer: Yes

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • $24 million boost for Gumboot Friday
    Thousands more young New Zealanders will have better access to mental health services as the Government delivers on its commitment to fund the Gumboot Friday initiative, says Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey.  “Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years to contract the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 hours ago
  • Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill passes first reading
    The Coalition Government’s Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which will improve tenancy laws and help increase the supply of rental properties, has passed its first reading in Parliament says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “The Bill proposes much-needed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that will remove barriers to increasing private ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    13 hours ago
  • Montecassino Commemorative Address, Cassino War Cemetery
    Standing here in Cassino War Cemetery, among the graves looking up at the beautiful Abbey of Montecassino, it is hard to imagine the utter devastation left behind by the battles which ended here in May 1944. Hundreds of thousands of shells and bombs of every description left nothing but piled ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    13 hours ago
  • First Reading – Repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
    I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill Mr. Speaker, I move that the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the Bill. Thank you, Mr. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    16 hours ago
  • First reading of 7AA’s repeal: progress for children
    The Bill to repeal Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has had its first reading in Parliament today. The Bill reaffirms the Coalition Government’s commitment to the care and safety of children in care, says Minister for Children Karen Chhour.  “When I became the Minister for Children, I made ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    17 hours ago
  • China Business Summit 2024
    Kia ora koutou, good morning, and zao shang hao. Thank you Fran for the opportunity to speak at the 2024 China Business Summit – it’s great to be here today. I’d also like to acknowledge: Simon Bridges - CEO of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. His Excellency Ambassador - Wang ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    19 hours ago
  • Assisted depatures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.    “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Assisted departures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.  “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing them ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government to rollout roadside drug testing
    The Coalition Government will introduce legislation this year that will enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Minister responds to review of Kāinga Ora
    The Government has announced a series of immediate actions in response to the independent review of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “Kāinga Ora is a large and important Crown entity, with assets of $45 billion and over $2.5 billion of expenditure each year. It ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pseudoephedrine back on shelves
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour is pleased that Pseudoephedrine can now be purchased by the general public to protect them from winter illness, after the coalition government worked swiftly to change the law and oversaw a fast approval process by Medsafe. “Pharmacies are now putting the medicines back on their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New Zealand-China Business Summit
    Tēnā koutou katoa. Da jia hao.  Good morning everyone.   Prime Minister Luxon, your excellency, a great friend of New Zealand and my friend Ambassador Wang, Mayor of what he tells me is the best city in New Zealand, Wayne Brown, the highly respected Fran O’Sullivan, Champion of the Auckland business ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New measures to protect powerlines from trees
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced that the Government will make it easier for lines firms to take action to remove vegetation from obstructing local powerlines. The change will ensure greater security of electricity supply in local communities, particularly during severe weather events.  “Trees or parts of trees falling on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani win top Māori dairy farming award
    Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani were the top winners at this year’s Ahuwhenua Trophy awards recognising the best in Māori dairy farming. Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka announced the winners and congratulated runners-up, Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board, at an awards celebration also attended by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • DJ Fred Again – Assurance report received
    "On the 27th of March, I sought assurances from the Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs, that the Department’s correct processes and policies had been followed in regards to a passport application which received media attention,” says Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.  “I raised my concerns after being ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • District Court Judges appointed
    Attorney-General Judith Collins has announced the appointment of three new District Court Judges, to replace Judges who have recently retired. Peter James Davey of Auckland has been appointed a District Court Judge with a jury jurisdiction to be based at Whangarei. Mr Davey initially started work as a law clerk/solicitor with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Unions should put learning ahead of ideology
    Associate Education Minister David Seymour is calling on the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) to put ideology to the side and focus on students’ learning, in reaction to the union holding paid teacher meetings across New Zealand about charter schools.     “The PPTA is disrupting schools up and down the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Craig Stobo appointed as chair of FMA
    Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly today announced the appointment of Craig Stobo as the new chair of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). Mr Stobo takes over from Mark Todd, whose term expired at the end of April. Mr Stobo’s appointment is for a five-year term. “The FMA plays ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Budget 2024 invests in lifeguards and coastguard
    Surf Life Saving New Zealand and Coastguard New Zealand will continue to be able to keep people safe in, on, and around the water following a funding boost of $63.644 million over four years, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Associate Transport Minister Matt Doocey say. “Heading to the beach for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Zealand and Tuvalu reaffirm close relationship
    New Zealand and Tuvalu have reaffirmed their close relationship, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says.  “New Zealand is committed to working with Tuvalu on a shared vision of resilience, prosperity and security, in close concert with Australia,” says Mr Peters, who last visited Tuvalu in 2019.  “It is my pleasure ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand calls for calm, constructive dialogue in New Caledonia
    New Zealand is gravely concerned about the situation in New Caledonia, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.  “The escalating situation and violent protests in Nouméa are of serious concern across the Pacific Islands region,” Mr Peters says.  “The immediate priority must be for all sides to take steps to de-escalate the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand welcomes Samoa Head of State
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met today with Samoa’s O le Ao o le Malo, Afioga Tuimalealiifano Vaaletoa Sualauvi II, who is making a State Visit to New Zealand. “His Highness and I reflected on our two countries’ extensive community links, with Samoan–New Zealanders contributing to all areas of our national ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Island Direct eligible for SuperGold Card funding
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has announced that he has approved Waiheke Island ferry operator Island Direct to be eligible for SuperGold Card funding, paving the way for a commercial agreement to bring the operator into the scheme. “Island Direct started operating in November 2023, offering an additional option for people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Further sanctions against Russia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters today announced further sanctions on 28 individuals and 14 entities providing military and strategic support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  “Russia is directly supported by its military-industrial complex in its illegal aggression against Ukraine, attacking its sovereignty and territorial integrity. New Zealand condemns all entities and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • One year on from Loafers Lodge
    A year on from the tragedy at Loafers Lodge, the Government is working hard to improve building fire safety, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “I want to share my sincere condolences with the families and friends of the victims on the anniversary of the tragic fire at Loafers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Pre-Budget speech to Auckland Business Chamber
    Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Kia ora and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for having me here in the lead up to my Government’s first Budget. Before I get started can I acknowledge: Simon Bridges – Auckland Business Chamber CEO. Steve Jurkovich – Kiwibank CEO. Kids born ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New Zealand and Vanuatu to deepen collaboration
    New Zealand and Vanuatu will enhance collaboration on issues of mutual interest, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “It is important to return to Port Vila this week with a broad, high-level political delegation which demonstrates our deep commitment to New Zealand’s relationship with Vanuatu,” Mr Peters says.    “This ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Penk travels to Peru for trade meetings
    Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk will travel to Peru this week to represent New Zealand at a meeting of trade ministers from the Asia-Pacific region on behalf of Trade Minister Todd McClay. The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting will be held on 17-18 May ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister attends global education conferences
    Minister of Education Erica Stanford will head to the United Kingdom this week to participate in the 22nd Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers (CCEM) and the 2024 Education World Forum (EWF). “I am looking forward to sharing this Government’s education priorities, such as introducing a knowledge-rich curriculum, implementing an evidence-based ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Education Minister thanks outgoing NZQA Chair
    Minister of Education Erica Stanford has today thanked outgoing New Zealand Qualifications Authority Chair, Hon Tracey Martin. “Tracey Martin tendered her resignation late last month in order to take up a new role,” Ms Stanford says. Ms Martin will relinquish the role of Chair on 10 May and current Deputy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Joint statement of Christopher Luxon and Emmanuel Macron: Launch of the Christchurch Call Foundation
    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and President Emmanuel Macron of France today announced a new non-governmental organisation, the Christchurch Call Foundation, to coordinate the Christchurch Call’s work to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.   This change gives effect to the outcomes of the November 2023 Call Leaders’ Summit, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Panel announced for review into disability services
    Distinguished public servant and former diplomat Sir Maarten Wevers will lead the independent review into the disability support services administered by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. The review was announced by Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston a fortnight ago to examine what could be done to strengthen the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Minister welcomes Police gang unit
    Today’s announcement by Police Commissioner Andrew Coster of a National Gang Unit and district Gang Disruption Units will help deliver on the coalition Government’s pledge to restore law and order and crack down on criminal gangs, Police Minister Mark Mitchell says. “The National Gang Unit and Gang Disruption Units will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand expresses regret at North Korea’s aggressive rhetoric
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today expressed regret at North Korea’s aggressive rhetoric towards New Zealand and its international partners.  “New Zealand proudly stands with the international community in upholding the rules-based order through its monitoring and surveillance deployments, which it has been regularly doing alongside partners since 2018,” Mr ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Chief of Defence Force appointed
    Air Vice-Marshal Tony Davies MNZM is the new Chief of Defence Force, Defence Minister Judith Collins announced today. The Chief of Defence Force commands the Navy, Army and Air Force and is the principal military advisor to the Defence Minister and other Ministers with relevant portfolio responsibilities in the defence ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government puts children first by repealing 7AA
    Legislation to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has been introduced to Parliament. The Bill’s introduction reaffirms the Coalition Government’s commitment to the safety of children in care, says Minister for Children, Karen Chhour. “While section 7AA was introduced with good intentions, it creates a conflict for Oranga ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Defence Minister to meet counterparts in UK, Italy
    Defence Minister Judith Collins will this week travel to the UK and Italy to meet with her defence counterparts, and to attend Battles of Cassino commemorations. “I am humbled to be able to represent the New Zealand Government in Italy at the commemorations for the 80th anniversary of what was ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Charter schools to lift educational outcomes
    The upcoming Budget will include funding for up to 50 charter schools to help lift declining educational performance, Associate Education Minister David Seymour announced today. $153 million in new funding will be provided over four years to establish and operate up to 15 new charter schools and convert 35 state ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • COVID-19 Inquiry terms of reference consultation results received
    “The results of the public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has now been received, with results indicating over 13,000 submissions were made from members of the public,” Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says. “We heard feedback about the extended lockdowns in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • The Pacific family of nations – the changing security outlook
    Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, other Members of Parliament Acting Chief of Defence Force, Secretary of Defence Distinguished Guests  Defence and Diplomatic Colleagues  Ladies and Gentlemen,  Good afternoon, tēna koutou, apinun tru    It’s a pleasure to be back in Port Moresby today, and to speak here at the Kumul Leadership ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-05-22T00:00:37+00:00