web analytics

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

  • Three District Court Judges appointed
    Attorney-General David Parker today announced the appointment of three new District Court Judges.    Two of the appointees will take up their roles on 1 April, replacing sitting Judges who have reached retirement age.     Kirsten Lummis, lawyer of Auckland has been appointed as a District Court Judge with jury jurisdiction to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 hour ago
  • Government announces list of life-shortening conditions guaranteeing early KiwiSaver access
    Government announces list of life-shortening conditions guaranteeing early KiwiSaver access The Government changed the KiwiSaver rules in 2019 so people with life-shortening congenital conditions can withdraw their savings early The four conditions guaranteed early access are – down syndrome, cerebral palsy, Huntington’s disease and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder An alternative ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Reserve Bank to take account of housing in decision making
    The Reserve Bank is now required to consider the impact on housing when making monetary and financial policy decisions, Grant Robertson announced today. Changes have been made to the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee’s remit requiring it to take into account government policy relating to more sustainable house prices, while working ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 hours ago
  • Investment to reduce cochlear implant waitlist
    The Labour Government will invest $6 million for 70 additional adult cochlear implants this year to significantly reduce the historical waitlist, Health Minister Andrew Little says. “Cochlear implants are life changing for kiwis who suffer from severe hearing loss. As well as improving an individual’s hearing, they open doors to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    10 hours ago
  • Māori wards Bill passes third reading
    The Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill passed its third reading today and will become law, Minister of Local Government Hon Nanaia Mahuta says. “This is a significant step forward for Māori representation in local government. We know how important it is to have diversity around ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Government delivers 1,000 more transitional housing places
    The Government has added 1,000 more transitional housing places as promised under the Aotearoa New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan (HAP), launched one year ago. Minister of Housing Megan Woods says the milestone supports the Government’s priority to ensure every New Zealander has warm, dry, secure housing. “Transitional housing provides people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    23 hours ago
  • Second batch of Pfizer/BioNTech doses arrives safely – as the first vaccinations take place in the...
    A second batch of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines arrived safely yesterday at Auckland International Airport, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins says. “This shipment contained about 76,000 doses, and follows our first shipment of 60,000 doses that arrived last week. We expect further shipments of vaccine over the coming weeks,” Chris Hipkins said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • $18 million for creative spaces to make arts more accessible
    The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Carmel Sepuloni has today announced $18 million to support creative spaces. Creative spaces are places in the community where people with mental health needs, disabled people, and those looking for social connection, are welcomed and supported to practice and participate in the arts ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Moriori Claims Settlement Bill passes first reading
    Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Andrew Little today welcomed Moriori to Parliament to witness the first reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. “This bill is the culmination of years of dedication and hard work from all the parties involved. “I am delighted to reach this significant milestone today,” Andrew ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government action reduces child poverty
    22,400 fewer children experiencing material hardship 45,400 fewer children in low income households on after-housing costs measure After-housing costs target achieved a year ahead of schedule Government action has seen child poverty reduce against all nine official measures compared to the baseline year, Prime Minister and Minister for Child Poverty ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Entries open for the 2021 Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards
    It’s time to recognise the outstanding work early learning services, kōhanga reo, schools and kura do to support children and young people to succeed, Minister of Education Chris Hipkins says. The 2021 Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards are now open through until April 16. “The past year has reminded us ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Jobs for Nature benefits three projects
    Three new Jobs for Nature projects will help nature thrive in the Bay of Plenty and keep local people in work says Conservation Minister Kiri Allan. “Up to 30 people will be employed in the projects, which are aimed at boosting local conservation efforts, enhancing some of the region’s most ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Improvements to the Holidays Act on the way
    The Government has accepted all of the Holidays Act Taskforce’s recommended changes, which will provide certainty to employers and help employees receive their leave entitlements, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood announced today. Michael Wood said the Government established the Holidays Act Taskforce to help address challenges with the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • NZ’s credit rating lifted as economy recovers
    The Government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and faster than expected economic recovery has been acknowledged in today’s credit rating upgrade. Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P) today raised New Zealand’s local currency credit rating to AAA with a stable outlook. This follows Fitch reaffirming its AA+ rating last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Speech to National Remembrance Service on the 10th anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake
    Tena koutou e nga Maata Waka Ngai Tuahuriri, Ngai Tahu whanui, Tena koutou. Nau mai whakatau mai ki tenei ra maumahara i te Ru Whenua Apiti hono tatai hono, Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate Apiti hono tatai hono, Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora Tena koutou, Tena ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government reaffirms urgent commitment to ban harmful conversion practices
    The Minister of Justice has reaffirmed the Government’s urgent commitment, as stated in its 2020 Election Manifesto, to ban conversion practices in New Zealand by this time next year. “The Government has work underway to develop policy which will bring legislation to Parliament by the middle of this year and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New creative service aims to benefit 1,000 peoples’ careers
    Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and Social Development Hon Carmel Sepuloni today launched a new Creative Careers Service, which is expected to support up to 1,000 creatives, across three regions over the next two years. The new service builds on the most successful aspects of the former Pathways to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Honey exporters busy meeting surging demand
    Overseas consumers eager for natural products in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic have helped boost honey export revenue by 20 percent to $425 million in the year to June 30, 2020, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor says.   “The results from the latest Ministry for Primary Industries’ 2020 Apiculture Monitoring ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government delivers more wellbeing support for young people
    Thanks to more than $10-million in new services from the Government, more rangatahi will be able to access mental health and addiction support in their community. Minister of Health Andrew Little made the announcement today while visiting Odyssey House Christchurch and acknowledged that significant events like the devastating earthquakes ten ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Government eases visa restrictions for visitors in New Zealand
    Two month automatic visitor visa extension for most visitor visa holders Temporary waiver of time spent in New Zealand rule for visitor stays Visitor visa holders will be able to stay in New Zealand a little longer as the Government eases restrictions for those still here, the Minister of Immigration ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Push for sustainable tourism gathers pace
    The Tourism and Conservation Ministers say today’s report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) adds to calls to overhaul the tourism model that existed prior to COVID19. “The PCE tourism report joins a chorus of analysis which has established that previous settings, which prioritised volume over value, are ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Government extends dietary supplements regulations
    The Government is providing certainty for the dietary supplements industry as we work to overhaul the rules governing the products, Minister for Food Safety Dr Ayesha Verrall said. Dietary supplements are health and wellness products taken orally to supplement a traditional diet. Some examples include vitamin and mineral supplements, echinacea, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand to join the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime
    The Government is joining the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (the Budapest Convention), Justice Minister Kris Faafoi and Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications Dr David Clark announced today. The decision progresses a recommendation by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack to accede to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Appointment round in 2021 for Queen's Counsel
    Attorney-General David Parker announced today that an appointment round for Queen’s Counsel will take place in 2021.  Appointments of Queen’s Counsel are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General and with the concurrence of the Chief Justice. The Governor-General retains the discretion to appoint Queen’s Counsel in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government support for businesses kicks in
    The new Resurgence Support Payment passed by Parliament this week will be available to eligible businesses now that Auckland will be in Alert Level 2 until Monday. “Our careful management of the Government accounts means we have money aside for situations like this. We stand ready to share the burden ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Final preparations to ensure Phase 1 of the vaccination rollout is ready to go
    A dry run of the end-to-end process shows New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccination programme is ready to roll from Saturday, when the first border workers will receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins says. “The trial run took place in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch yesterday afternoon, ahead of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Free Period products to be available in all schools and kura
    From June this year, all primary, intermediate, secondary school and kura students will have access to free period products, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Associate Education Minister Jan Tinetti announced today. The announcement follows a successful Access to Period Products pilot programme, which has been running since Term 3 last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government accounts remain in good shape
    The latest update shows the Government’s books are again in better shape than forecast, meaning New Zealand is still in a strong position to respond to any COVID-19 resurgence. The Crown Accounts for the six months to the end of December were better than forecast in the Half-year Economic and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New DOC strategy champions responsible enjoyment of the outdoors
    The Department of Conservation’s (DOC) new Heritage and Visitor Strategy is fully focused on protecting and enhancing the value of New Zealand’s natural, cultural and historic heritage, while also promoting a sustainable environmental experience, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “It has been a quarter of a century since DOC first developed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand to conclude its deployment to Afghanistan in 2021
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Defence Minister Peeni Henare have announced that New Zealand will conclude its deployment of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) to Afghanistan by May 2021. “After 20 years of a NZDF presence in Afghanistan, it is now time to conclude ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Supporting Māori to Succeed in Trade – International Inter-Tribal Trade and Investment Organi...
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. This is a special time in our country. A little over a week ago, it was the anniversary of the signature by Māori and the British Crown of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), a founding document in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Prime Minister’s statement on the arrest of former dual citizen in Turkey
    The Government is in contact with relevant authorities in Turkey following the arrest of a former Australian and New Zealand dual citizen there, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said. “Contingency planning for the potential return of any New Zealander who may have been in the conflict zone has been underway for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Household incomes rise but more work needed
    Figures released today by Stats NZ show there was strong growth in median household incomes in 2020, before surveying was halted due to COVID-19. Stats NZ found the median annual household income rose 6.9 percent to $75,024 in the year to June 2020 compared with a year earlier. The survey ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Business support under COVID resurgence confirmed
    Legislation will be introduced under urgency today to set up a new Resurgence Support Payment for businesses affected by any resurgence of COVID-19. “Since the scheme was announced in December we have decided to make a change to the payment – reducing the time over which a revenue drop is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand welcomes appointment of new WTO Director General
    Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O’Connor congratulated Nigeria’s Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on her ground-breaking selection as the next Director General of the World Trade Organization last night.   Dr Okonjo-Iweala will be the first female and first African Director General of the organisation.   She has a strong background in international ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government delivers on promise to working low-income families
    From 1 April 2021, people getting a benefit will be able to earn more through work before their benefit payments are affected, Social Development and Employment Minister Carmel Sepuloni has announced. “Overall, around 82,900 low-income people and families will be better off by $18 a week on average,” says Carmel ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • First batch of COVID-19 vaccine arrives in NZ
    The first batch of COVID-19 vaccine arrived in New Zealand this morning, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed. The shipment of around 60,000 doses arrived as airfreight at Auckland International Airport at 9.34am today. “The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine’s arrival allows us to start New Zealand’s largest-ever immunisation programme,” Jacinda Ardern said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Prime Minister’s statement on alert level changes
    Good evening Cabinet has met this evening to make decisions on our response to the three cases reported earlier within a household in Auckland. Shortly I will ask Dr Bloomfield to set out some further information we now have relating to these cases. New Zealanders have enjoyed more freedoms for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First ever nationwide funding of mental health services for Rainbow young
    For the first time, the Government will provide targeted nationwide funding to services that provide mental health support to Rainbow young people Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced. The announcement fulfils an election commitment to allocate $4 million specifically targeted to Rainbow mental wellbeing initiatives aimed at young people. There ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Billion dollar milestone for regional economies
    A significant milestone in support to the regions has been passed with more than one billion dollars pumped into economic development projects to back local jobs and businesses. Economic and Regional Development Minister Stuart Nash says the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) has now invested $1.26 billion in regional projects since ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago