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

  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
    Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
    Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruakura Inland Port development vital infrastructure for Waikato
    The Government is investing $40 million to develop an inland port at Ruakura which will become a freight super-hub and a future business, research and residential development for the Waikato, Urban Development and Transport Minister Phil Twyford, and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The funding has been has ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Appointments made to Defence Expert Review Group
    Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today the establishment of an Expert Review Group to review a number of aspects of the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) structure, information management and record-keeping processes.  The Expert Review Group’s work arises out of the first recommendation from the Report of the Government’s Inquiry ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • No active community cases of COVID-19
    There are no active community cases of COVID-19 remaining in the country after the last people from the recent outbreak have recovered from the virus, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “This is a big milestone. New Zealanders have once again through their collective actions squashed the virus. The systems ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Clean energy upgrade for more public buildings
    More public buildings will be supported by the Government to upgrade to run on clean energy, the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. Minister Shaw announced that Lincoln and Auckland universities will receive support through the Clean-Powered Public Service Fund to replace fossil fuel boilers. Southern, Taranaki, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Schools back donations scheme for the second year
    More schools have opted in to the donations scheme for 2021, compared to 2020 when the scheme was introduced. “The families of more than 447,000 students will be better off next year, with 94% of eligible schools and kura opting into the scheme,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “This is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ruapehu cycle trails gets PGF boost
    The spectacular Mountains to Sea cycle trail in Ruapehu District will receive $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund for two additional trails, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today. “This is an exciting development for the local community, and one that will provide significant economic opportunities ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Update to air border order strengthens crew requirements
    Additional measures coming into effect on Monday will boost our defence against COVID-19 entering New Zealand through the air border, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “As part of our precautionary approach and strategy of constant review, we’re tightening the requirements around international aircrew,” Chris Hipkins said. The COVID-19 Public ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • A true picture of Māori business activity
    A better picture of the contribution Māori businesses make to the economy will be possible with changes to the way information is collected about companies and trading enterprises. Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Small Business Minister Stuart Nash have announced a new option for Māori enterprises who are part ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • PGF funding for Taranaki projects
    The South Taranaki museum, a New Plymouth distillery and a Pasifika building firm will benefit from a Government investment totalling more than $1 million, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones says. The $1.05m in grants and loans from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) will help the recipients expand and create ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Fijian Language Week 2020 inspires courage and strength during COVID-19 pandemic
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says the theme for the 2020 Fijian Language Week reflects the strong belief by Fijians that their language and culture inspires courage and strength that is strongly needed in times of emergencies, or through a significant challenge like the global COVID-19 pandemic ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Trades training builds on iwi aspirations
    An investment of $2.025 million from the Māori Trades and Training Fund will support Māori to learn new skills while making a positive difference for their communities, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “K3 Development Limited Partnership will receive $2,025,000 for its Takitimu Tuanui apprenticeship programme, which will support the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Conservation Minister plants two millionth tree in Raglan restoration
    A long-term conservation project led by the Whaingaroa Harbour Care group in the western Waikato reaches a significant milestone this week, with the planting of the two millionth tree by the Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage. “Planting the two millionth tree crowns 25 years of commitment and partnership involving Whaingaroa ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Seniors – our parents and grandparents
    International Older Persons Day is a chance to think about the individual older New Zealanders we know and to confront ageism, Seniors Minister Tracey Martin said today. “What happened around COVID-19 is a reminder that our over-65s are a very large and diverse group of people and we need to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago