Nat Minister unhappy, leaks Key email

53 comments on “Nat Minister unhappy, leaks Key email ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   18 February 2009 at 9:47 am

   Yet more evidence of an indolent MSM in collusion with the big-business captured National Party – surprise surprise
2. Redbaiter 2

   18 February 2009 at 10:09 am

   I dunno what the point of the post is. If it is to allege disloyalty within the National Party then its a pretty thin allegation. If its to say that a “stimulus” package is necessary in NZ then I disagree. Lets get one thing straight here. The word “stimulus” is just a euphemism, as most socialist terms are.

   What Krudd and Zerobama are doing is so bad, its hard for me to find a term that I consider accurate. I don’t know. Banditry? Vandalism? Nope, just completely inadequate.

   The socialist’s “stimulus” is merely a grab bag of politically correct nonsense. Left liberal obsessions brought from dreamworld to some kind of intangible reality by means of money that doesn’t exist.

   The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and even a casual look at where the money is going shows a staggering level of corruption and pork barrel politics.

   $4.2 billion to ACORN for example, the fraudsters who played a big part in the campaign of trickery and deceit and gangsterism that brought Zerobama to the white house. What the damn hell does this stimulate except more fraud.

   Handouts in Australia coincided with massive increases in turnover at gambling outlets.

   I’m surprised that Key and the Nationals appear to understand that to follow in the footsteps of Krudd and Zero would be the wrong path, but hell, if they truly do realise this, maybe there is actually some small degree of hope for them and New Zealand in the long term.

   PS-

   ..and journalists, show some spine you yellow politically partisan scum. You traitors to the concept of democracy.

   The word “stimulus” is propaganda.

   If you had an iota of self respect, you would stop using it.
3. TomS 3

   18 February 2009 at 10:15 am

   Does anyone else just not read anything that starts with “Redbaiter?”
4. Daveski 4

   18 February 2009 at 10:19 am

   Sigh … the Standard is getting very sloppy indeed.

   Spin busting myth # 1 – clamp down on workers rights

   The 90 bill only affects new employees and only those working for companies with 20 employees or less.

   [and those people are workers, eh? SP]
5. Alex 5

   18 February 2009 at 10:24 am

   “Sigh the Standard is getting very sloppy indeed.

   Spin busting myth # 1 – clamp down on workers rights

   The 90 bill only affects new employees and only those working for companies with 20 employees or less.”

   Obviously new workers aren’t workers?
6. Tane 6

   18 February 2009 at 10:25 am

   I’m with TomS.

   Daveski – workers in their first 90 days are still workers. Trying to argue that the removal of the right of workers to appeal against unfair dismissal is not removing workers’ rights is, frankly, absurd.
7. Brett Dale 7

   18 February 2009 at 10:29 am

   What is wrong with that email? It seemed truthful of the situation that New Zealand is in?
8. Tane 8

   18 February 2009 at 10:32 am

   Read the linked Hager piece Brett. All is explained.
9. Worker 9

   18 February 2009 at 10:33 am

   Don’t see anything in this that JK hasn’t already been open with to the NZ public. It has probably been leaked on purpose to show that what JK is saying in public is what he is also saying within his party.
10. Brett Dale 10

    18 February 2009 at 10:33 am

    Okay, I will have it a read, we all know how fair and balanced Hager is.
11. Tigger 11

    18 February 2009 at 10:51 am

    Is Redbaiter on drugs? Or working in Key’s office?

    National have no plan – the sooner the population sees that the sooner this mess of a government can collapse in upon itself and be shunted on.
12. Steve Pierson 12

    18 February 2009 at 10:59 am

    Doubt Redbaiter works in Key’s office, he’s unemployable.
13. Tigger 13

    18 February 2009 at 11:06 am

    And can a rightie explain to me why National are cutting jobs at MSD in a time of high unemployment? I mean, yeah it’s the government’s biggest employer but I figure with more people on welfare and out of work their might be MORE work for MSD, not less…

    Not to mention why you would pull much needed money out of the building sector by canning work on various government buildings (including that soft furnishings budget!)….pulling money out of the economy is hardly going to help our bottom line. If the government stops spending then we’re all up the creek… Mr Key, is it that your friends build roads and don’t supply soft furnishings? And I thought you said you had gay friends!
14. djp 14

    18 February 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Why is it that you guys advocate almost every fallacy enumerated in the classic “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlett

    Download it here: http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/
15. Daveski 15

    18 February 2009 at 2:23 pm

    At the risk of getting caught up in a semantic war of attrition, a change that affects a small group of people does not by definition affect all workers. Semantics admittedly but it’s no worse that implying that all workers are now worse off under National which is what is being implied.

    To take your logic further, increases to the top tax bracket affect all workers because all workers potentially can earn $60K +.

    While semantics, it’s simply not try that all workers rights have been slashed by National – that’s simply your spin.
16. Tane 16

    18 February 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Daveski, the removal of rights from one sector of the workforce actually does affect other sectors in various ways, but I’m not interested in getting into the semantics of your argument here because I think it’s irrelevant.

    This is all actually very simple. What the post said was: “we’ve seen a clamp-down on workers’ rights”, and we have.

    The removal of rights at work by definition means there’s been a clamp-down on workers’ rights. To argue otherwise is simply absurd.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    18 February 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Daveski, also remember that since you no longer work with one employer for life, the 90-day bill will affect a lot of people. Weren’t the estimates at around 500,000 a year (the number of people who move from one job to another)?

    That’s a bit more directly relevant that your tax example, because these are people actually affected, not hypothetically, if they get a whopping pay rise.
18. Daveski 18

    18 February 2009 at 2:47 pm

    MP – the issue only arises if one works for an organisation employing 20 or less staff which is the other point I was making.

    It’s not absurb to argue that it does not or will not affect every worker or indeed every worker who changes job.

    Likewise, one could argue that the impact of the law benefits the unemployed as employers may be more willingly to take risks.

    You simply can’t make blanket statements based on your perspective and try to present it as unarguable fact.
19. BLiP 19

    18 February 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Daveski said:

    ” . . . You simply can’t make blanket statements based on your perspective and try to present it as unarguable fact. . . ”

    The National Party removed the rights of workers by deception in a move designed to circumvent democracy. That is fact. Your wriggling around trying to soften the reality of the situation doesn’t make it any less of a fact and nor does it soften the impact of the legislation.

    Why are you defending this?
20. Billy 20

    18 February 2009 at 3:07 pm

    The National Party removed the rights of workers by deception in a move designed to circumvent democracy. That is fact.

    If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it, received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive.
21. BLiP 21

    18 February 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Billy said:

    ” . . . If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it, received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive. . . . ”

    Under urgency without warning? Yep – you’re right. It was deceptive. It was also hypocritical given Goober John Key’s statement in relation to National wanting to keep New Zealanders in employment and then the first thing it does is pass fire-at-will legislation.
22. Daveski 22

    18 February 2009 at 3:29 pm

    BLIP

    An important point. I’m not defending something on principle eg blindly defending the EFA which is a no-go topic here for obvious reasons.

    I’m simply pointing out to argue that “all workers” have been screwed by the National Government is complete spin which largely goes unchallenged here because of the nature of the govt.

    Myth # 2 was that the Nats will cut your wages. Even when proven to be wrong, the spin continues.

    I respect your right, and that of Tane, MP, and others to view the legislation as potentially negative for some workers. But it is patently not true to state as fact workers rights have been removed without considerable qualification.
23. Matthew Pilott 23

    18 February 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Daveski, ‘rights’ have been unequivocally reduced. That is a cold, hard and unarguable fact.

    You had many workplace rights, none of which apply for a period of 90 days in new employment, for all workers, unless they are employed by a large organisation.

    There may be benefits to having these rights removed, but that does not make the statement false; rather, your view of what a ‘right’ is isn’t correct.
24. mike 24

    18 February 2009 at 3:42 pm

    You guys make me laugh – the same idiots who were screaming blue murder about the Nats borrowing a few billion more than Labour did are now crying that we aren’t going to be in enough debt.

    Also, please don’t quote Rod Oram as if there is any balance to his articles he’s just as deluded as hager
25. Tane 25

    18 February 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Daveski, I’m not wasting any more time on you. You’re free to spend all day constructing semantic arguments about how removing the rights of workers isn’t removing workers’ rights. Frankly I’ve got better things to do.
26. Daveski 26

    18 February 2009 at 3:44 pm

    My last sentence in my last post missed the word “all” which leaves the comment looking a little naive to say the least.

    MP The potential impact of the law is limited to new workers for organisations employing less than 20 workers. Happy to agree with you that “rights” for people in these situations may have changed.

    That is not the same as calling it a “clampdown on workers rights”.

    I’ll happily withdraw from this discussion (unless suitably riled :)) – I’m not trying to stir anything up but there is at least IMO an issue with the statement. Accept it will be seen differently by others here. I’ll move on.
27. Tane 27

    18 February 2009 at 3:45 pm

    And Mike, stop being stupid. Economic circumstances change, and when that happens your policy responses need to change with them. If you don’t understand this then there’s no helping you.
28. BLiP 28

    18 February 2009 at 3:48 pm

    Daveski

    Okay – you were right – it is semantics. There are still 108,000 workers affected by the new law. I would posit that the legislation provides the thin end of the wedge for the removal of other workers rights. But, yes, okay, not ALL workers are affected immiedaitely by this one Act.

    Wages have been reduced, or will be reduced, by the so called tax cuts National is planning – another example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer
29. the sprout 29

    18 February 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Hardly surprising that email was leaked and dissent within National is brewing – I’d be very worried if I were part of that caucus and hoping to get re-elected in 2011.

    It won’t take very long at all for the Key administration to get a reputation as a Do Nothing Government as economic and social woes increase while all they can come up with is symbolic but ineffective gimmicks.

    “…we need to focus and target our efforts to achieve maximum impact”

    Yep that’s the truth John, at this rate you’ll need to sell every little half-arsed imitation of a real plan as hard as you can for anyone to believe anything’s being done at all.
30. sweeetdisorder 30

    18 February 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Oh dear, just when labour thought they were on a roll again, along comes tonights tv3 poll. Will Goff last till spring? I think not.
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    18 February 2009 at 6:30 pm

    sweeetdisorder – I don’t think Labour ‘thought they were on a roll’ as such and in a position to improve on polls (three years out from the election, I’m sure the panic will set in!) but nice of you to acknowledge they were doing well.
32. mike 32

    18 February 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Read em and weep lefties:

    National 60%
    Labour 27%
    Greens 7%

    Preferred PM:

    John Key 52%
    Helen Clark 14%
    Phil Goff 4%

    And isn’t this the poll you guys hang your hat on. Bye bye phil…
33. sweeetdisorder 33

    18 February 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Mat

    yes, I thought they were just starting to ask a few telling questions, but then I am a polli geek and most of what I see/hear/read goes unreported/unexamined.

    oh well, too bad, never mind.
34. monkey boy 34

    18 February 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Wow – if that is the Nats in trouble, I wonder what they look like when they are on a roll!! No wonder Key wants Helen ‘shipped off’ as soon as possible so he can ‘dismantle her legacy’!!
    Might I suggest that on this recent poll, Phil Goff has much better motives for this than John Key?

    http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/02/labours-love-is-lost.html
35. jimbo 35

    18 February 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Tane,

    It seems you believer that the 90 day “fire at will” act (as you keep misrepresenting it) is a case of “removing workers rights” because it impacts on whether or not currently unemployed people will be in employment 6 months from now. Is that right?

    In that case, to be consistent you must also believe that raising the minimum wage is “removing workers’ rights”… Why? Because raising the minimum wage stops people who are currently prepared to work for less from getting a job. The worker has lost his “right” to set the price of his labour at a low enough rate to get back into the workforce.

    The phrase “removing workers’ rights” is rolled out by the Left when it doesn’t want to properly debate the merits of a particular policy. It’s basically a shorthand way of saying “You (the Right) are wrong and do not care about people as much as I do. My motivations are more pure than yours so therefore my policies are the best”.

    You don’t want to debate “semantics” so fair enough. Just thought I’d say the “workers rights” refrain has been abused so much by the Left, and thrown around with such astonishing intellectual laziness, that no-one really gives it any credence.
36. Felix 36

    18 February 2009 at 10:01 pm

    jimbo,

    Or maybe it’s because the bill removes a bunch of workplace rights for the first 90 days.
37. Pascal's bookie 37

    18 February 2009 at 10:13 pm

    jimbo. so it’s like you lot with “property rights” then?
38. Oliver 38

    19 February 2009 at 2:44 am

    I think that those two paragraphs of email drive home an important point. The govt has sweet fa money floating around to use because Labour managed to screw the govt’s books. Therefore the new national govt has to be careful. Nothing wrong with that. they also want to avoid borrowing so much that we’re forever screwed trying to pay it off. nothing wrong with that either.
39. r0b 39

    19 February 2009 at 4:47 pm

    If, by deception, you mean they campaigned on it [abolish worker’s rights bill], received a mandate and then enacted it, then I guess, yes, they were highly deceptive.

    It’s not like you to spout such arrant nonsense Billy. National didn’t “campaign on it” – if you can find any reference to it anywhere in National’s speeches or campaign material I will be very surprised. It was on their web site, and discussed on sites like this one, so it was seen by what – 0.1% of voters? They didn’t campaign on it, they had no mandate for it, they enacted it under urgency in a gross violation of the democratic process.

    Arguably, in fact, National didn’t campaign on anything except not being Labour, and tax cuts. Now that they are government it is abundantly clear that they haven’t a clue. Buckle up NZ, the next 3 years will be bumpy.
40. jimbo 40

    19 February 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Felix, anyone who”s been in a job for over 90 days has “lost” absolutely nothing.

    Let’s be absolutely clear who you’re referring to when you refer to “workers’ rights” (i.e. who you’re “fighting for”).

    Your “worker” in this case is someone who (a) didn’t have any job at all until he was (b) taken on board by an employer who wanted to give him a chance, but who (c) didn’t turn out to be what the employer was looking for (or was maliciously fired by the employer despite being fine at their job).

    Amongst (c), there are at least the following categories:
    (1) Despite doing everything right, boss maliciously fired them.
    (2) Despite doing everything right, boss fired them because of economic downturn.
    (3) Unable to do the job – intentionally misrepresented their ability during interview.
    (4) Unable to do the job – job turned out to be “bigger” than they were expecting. Just couldn’t step up despite making best efforts.
    (5) Lazy.
    (6) Criminal.

    Sure, the Act might need extra protections for category (1) and (2) people above, but to broadly state that “workers rights” have been taken away in the case of a previously unemployable, lazy employee who misrepresented his CV in order to get a job is total nonsense. Why do you fight for such a person? Why not help employers deal with them?

    This is not about “Workers’ rights” – it’s about trying to reddress an INFORMATION IMBALANCE. A potential employee might TELL YOU he is hardworking, competent and able to do the job, but in actual fact he could turn out to be wrong on all counts.

    Similarly, an employer could TELL YOU that the job is good hours, has fun co-workers, and is interesting. If you take that job but change your mind within the first 90 days, you can walk away without paying one cent compensation to the employer.

    The 90 day probation period evens up the information disparity that exists when new worker meets new job/employer – workers can leave at any time for any reason at all if they find out their decision to accept the job offer was “wrong”.

    In short, to say 90 days probation is taking away workers rights is, frankly, so intellectually lazy it’s laughable.

    Pascal – don’t understand your property rights comment.
41. Tane 41

    19 February 2009 at 5:21 pm

    jimbo. It helps to know the law before making an arse of yourself on the Internet.

    A lazy, criminal or incompetent employee can be sacked now, it just requires natural justice and a fair process. That fair process is the way we find out which ones are the lazy, criminal or incompetent ones, and which ones are just being unfairly treated by their boss.

    No worker wins by losing the right to a fair process, and in fact it’s the good ones who have the most to lose.

    That right-wingers are now absurdly trying to argue the removal of the right to a fair process in employment isn’t a removal of work rights shows just how desperate they are to defend this indefensible law.
42. jimbo 42

    19 February 2009 at 5:28 pm

    r0b – the latest polls show that, on balance, National’s voters have absolutely no problem with the law (or the way in which is was passed). It’s therefore a bit of a moot point to argue about how many people know the details of the policy beforehand.

    Like many others who comment here, you provocatively insist on referring to it as “abolishing workers’ rights”, which shows you’re not really equipped to properly assess the pros and cons of the measure.

    For the record, I think passing the law under urgency was a bit stupid politically. It was designed to make the new govt appear to be decisive and delivering on its promises. I think using urgency for political expediency should have been avoided, if nothing else to contract with the actions of the previous govt.
43. jimbo 43

    19 February 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Tane –

    You’re making an arse of yourself by casting around the insults – why the need to fall into ad hominem attacks?

    You’ve selectively chosen one tiny piece of my post and avoided responding to any parts of it that cannot be attacked on woolly grounds like “workers’ rights” or “fair process”.

    I understand the law and the reasons for it. Clearly there have been concerns that “fair process” is too complicated in certain circumstances. Employers are losing money and time because of “procedural missteps”. That potential for loss of time and money means employers are less likely to take a chance on a new, unproven employee.

    The new law effectively says – if the SUBSTANCE of the employer’s position is right, but the PROCEDURE that they followed during the first 90 days was wrong, nevertheless the employee has to leave.

    The new law is evening up (during the first 90 days) some of the “unfair” consequences of dogmatically sprouting “DUE PROCESS DUE PROCESS”, without bothering to consider the wider effects of such an approach.

    The law is saying “due process will now be different during the first 90 days”.

    You said “No worker wins by losing the right to a fair process, and in fact it’s the good ones who have the most to lose”. Care to lay a bit more meat on that bone? What do you mean? Why do “good ones” suffer from this law when these good ones are currently unemployed and presumably desperate to be given a chance to prove themselves.
44. Tane 44

    19 February 2009 at 5:48 pm

    It’s quite simple. Right now if you’re a competent employee your job is safe except in situations of redundnacy. Once the new law comes into effect your job is not safe – you can be sacked for no reason at all.

    If you’re lazy, incompetent or criminal you can be sacked now anyway for your laziness, incompetence or criminality.

    The reality is this law punishes competent employees the most and leaves all new workers in small businesses in fear that their economic livelihood could be taken out from under them at any time without warning.

    All this “desperate to prove themselves” rhetoric is nonsense. Aside from the slavish master-servant employment relationship you seem to be promoting, there’s no evidence that allowing bosses to sack their workers more easily will create any new jobs. Jobs exist because there is work to be done, not because it’s easier to fire people.

    You complain a lot about how hard it is to manage people. Well I’ve got news for you buddy, according to every international measure we’re one of the easiest places in the world to employ people and to do business. If you can’t even manage the basic task of managing people competently then you shouldn’t be a manager, it’s that simple.
45. r0b 45

    19 February 2009 at 5:58 pm

    It’s therefore a bit of a moot point to argue about how many people know the details of the policy beforehand.

    There are moot points (all good fun), and there is re-writing history (which is a form of propaganda). Billy was rewriting history. But I can’t stay to chat alas…
46. jimbo 46

    19 February 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Tane,

    Disagree – it’s NOT simple – it’s a careful balancing between the interests of society as a whole and the people who will be affected by the law (i.e. employers, new employees and potential new employees). You guys THINK it’s simple and keep sloganeering – you’d do your cause a lot more favours if you actually engaged on substance.

    For example, your first paragraph is scaremongering and simply not correct. I am a competent employee who has been with my current employer for 2 years – are you saying I can now be fired?

    Right now, if you’re an employee and you’ve been in a job for 90 days or more, nothing has changed at all. This applies whether you’re competent or not. So let’s keep the focus on those first 90 days and on people who previously did not have a job (or who decide to move jobs). It’s not “workers”. At best, it’s a subset of “workers” or it’s a new category called “people who want to become workers” (which they will as soon as they get through the first 90 days).

    Before the Act, if an employer filled a job and it didn’t turn out right (for any reason at all), that employer was faced with the prospect of significant cost and expense to implement “due process”. Employers were saying “this whole process is putting us off taking the risk of employing someone”.

    Society NEEDS economic risk-takers. Without risk-taking, there will be no growth.

    So the Act has responded to a perceived problem with the status quo by saying “lets modify due process during the first 90 days”. The reason the Act does this is because Parliament believes the modification will have positive incentive effects (that outweigh any associated negative incentive effects).

    I can list the positive effects of the law for ages. You can list the negative ones. (Previous threads have canvassed a lot of it.) On balance, Parliament has decided that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones and therefore society is better off if we pass the law.

    Sprouting on about “trampling works rights” or “eliminating due process” doesn’t make your position any better – or morally superior – to mine.

    If your definition of “workers rights” is so broad as to include “a right during the first 90 days of employment to the dismissal process as it existed immediately before
    passage of the law”, then yes, this new law takes away a workers’ right.
47. jimbo 47

    19 February 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Tane – I missed the bit in your comment about how I was promoting a “slavish master-servant employment relationship”. Made me laugh.

    God knows how you read that into any of my posts – I can only imagine that you’ve got a sloganeering gremlin in your computer madly adding things into any text on your page!
48. Matthew Pilott 48

    19 February 2009 at 6:38 pm

    jimbo, are you living in a 70’s utopia where you get a job and are in it for life, or are you with us in this brave new millenium where people change jobs on average every five years?

    The implication therein that the law will affect more than just those new to the workforce.

    Hence ‘workers’.

    The law does not take away “a workers’ right.” It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.
49. jimbo 49

    19 February 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Matthew – are you living in a 1920’s nightmare where all employers are factory-owning, cigar-smoking, fat capitalists who exploit penniless workers under candlelight or have you entered the brave new millenium where (gasp!) society’s growth depends in large part on the efforts of small employers who are (often) no better off than many “workers”?

    You’ve come blazing into the debate, rattled off a pithy little insult to try and imply I’m a head-in-the-sand conservative who’s opinions are arguments are therefore without merit. You’ve made ABSOLUTELY ZERO attempt to address any of the substance in my previous posts.

    Your last paragraph is so bad you’ve decended into self-parody (basically proved my point about the descent into thoughtless sloganeering). I’m assuming you did it on purpose to be ironic.
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    19 February 2009 at 7:39 pm

    jimbo, take a breath and read it again.

    You said:

    So let’s keep the focus on those first 90 days and on people who previously did not have a job (or who decide to move jobs). It’s not “workers’. At best, it’s a subset of “workers’ or it’s a new category called “people who want to become workers’ (which they will as soon as they get through the first 90 days).”

    To which I made the point that

    “… people change jobs on average every five years?

    The implication therein that the law will affect more than just those new to the workforce.

    Hence ‘workers’.

    To analyse, since you insisted on not getting it the first time around, it’s not some special new subset of workers, the law change can affect anyone and everyone. Hence ‘workers’, not your proposed subset, by which you were trying to dismiss the full effect and scope of the law.

    You also posited that:

    “If your definition of “workers rights’ is so broad as to include “a right during the first 90 days of employment to the dismissal process as it existed immediately before passage of the law’, then yes, this new law takes away a workers’ right.”

    To which I replied:

    “The law does not take away “a workers’ right.’ It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.”

    which, to the best of my knowledge is true, whether you choose to dismiss it as parody or not.

    To explain further, again because you chose not to understand: currently when newly employed you have the full plethora of Workers Rights. When the law comes into force, you’ll have no workplace rights for those 90 days. Hence taking away every right of every worker (referring to workplace rights, btw, not human rights, in case that needs to be spelled out…). The 5% exception is due to the fact that 95% of empolyees are in companies with fewer than 20 employed, as far as I gather.

    To be honest, I didn’t think it was that bad a comment, and it did address two points you made fairly directly, both of which seemed fairly fundamental to your argument.
51. Matthew Pilott 51

    19 February 2009 at 8:47 pm

    First line was a bit unnecessary though, sorry.
52. jimbo 52

    20 February 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Matthew,

    The “due process” for the first 90 days of employement has changed. That is unargued.

    The “workers right” you’re arguing for is the *right* for the due process regime for the first 90 days to remain exactly as it was before the law was passed. Do I have that correct? In my view, that’s an incredibly strained view of what a “workers’ right” is.

    No one in society has the “right” for laws to remain static. I don’t have the “right” to drink up to the drink-driving limit as it existed 20 years ago. If that limit changed, it would be ridiculous to say that I’ve lost a “right”.

    To say all workers have had a “right” stripped away from them is, in my view, misleading and inflammatory.

    There is a subset of people currently working who are immediately affected by the law. Whatever % of the workforce are currently less than 90 days into their job with a small employer. ALL people not currently working are also affected in a positive way (they DO NOT have a job right now, the new law makes it more likely they will be offered one).

    Of course “everyone” is affected. That’s what happens when society changes its laws.

    Let’s look at your last paragraph again:

    “It takes every right of every worker in their first 90 days of employment, with the exception of about 5% of employers due to size.’

    You start off with the saying workers lose “every right” during their first 90 days, which is demonstrably wrong. You then switch from employees to employers because the numbers look better for your argument. The 5% of employers due to size end up employing a major chunck of the workforce, do they not? It would have been far more intellectually honest of you to give us the following: “Except for 50% of workers who are employed by companies that won’t be subject to the new law” (FAOD I have no idea whether it is 50%, but I wouldn’t be surprised).

    That’s why the argument never makes progress. It’s clouded by impassioned rhetoric rather than fair and reasoned debate.

    Labour will never repeal this law.
53. jimbo 53

    20 February 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Matthew –

    I’ve only just noticed that you genuinely believe ALL workplace rights have been lost for the first 90 days. That is a comical reading of the law and also a total misunderstanding of what is usually regarded as being part of the “plethora of workplace rights”.

    I’m pretty sure (1) health and safety laws, (2) sexual harassment, (3) your legal right to be paid, (4) overtime/hours worked restrictions, (5) right to strike, etc have not been done away with for 90 days…!

    The one “right” that has changed in the dismissal process. Don’t over-egg it.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS