National: Not Our Future marches across New Zealand Aotearoa

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 1:52 pm, August 29th, 2014 - 52 comments
Categories: john key, national - Tags:

Three weeks before the election, action is being taken across the country voicing a rejection of the National Government’s track record and direction. Rallies are being held in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin to oppose National’s attacks on workers, abuse of the environment, inequality, cronyism and dirty politics.

“This government has increased the power of the few over the many and the ability of business to profit from dirtying our land, rivers and sea. It has dealt backhanders out to its mates while using government employees to attack and smear those bold enough to stand up for the New Zealand we used to have. Their prescription for the next 3 years is for more of the same” says Joe Trinder, Mana Candidate for Manukau East, who will speak at the rally.

The marches will include music, street theatre and speeches from some of those opposed to National’s programme for New Zealand, in a line up that includes environmental, political, social and union groups.
These include Edward Miller from Kiwis Concerned About the TPPA,
Robert Reid – First Union,
Rachel Mackintosh – EPMU,
Tim O Shea, Maui’s and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ,
Ashley Tata – Auckland Action Against Poverty,
Miriam Pierard – Auckland Central InternetMANA candidate,
Michael Wood – Labour candidate for Epsom,
Andrea Rushton SFWU
and Joe Carolan -Unite Union.

and Music from Jenny Lange (folk)
Matt Billington (punk) and
Phil Thoms (Herbs – Reggae).

The Auckland rally starts at Aotea Square, Wellington at Te Papa marching to Parliament, Dunedin held at the Octagon and the Christchurch rally at Haley Park, all beginning 1pm. Auckland Event organiser Jeremy Randerson says “These rallies will unite the opposition to the current government; our strength is in the diversity of our voices brought together. For me, I am calling for leadership in the country that supports living wages, a clean environment and an independent New Zealand, rather than a programme of trashing our environment for short term gain and a steady concentration of power and resources into the hands of a select few. This is not the country I grew up in and not one I will allow to be handed on to our children”.

Facebook details are here.

52 comments on “National: Not Our Future marches across New Zealand Aotearoa ”

Comments are now closed

The Pink Postman 1

29 August 2014 at 2:06 pm

What the debate proved to me is that David Cunliffe is the leader the majority of members voted for. There will be no more doubting his ability. Now lets get on with winning this election and turfing out this corrupt sleazy lot .
- Tania 1.1
  
  29 August 2014 at 6:17 pm
  
  Yes lets get on with winning this election
disturbed 2

29 August 2014 at 3:04 pm

Demonstrations, yes yes yes.

People power will win all around the country, to get rid of tyranny Gone Key.
Power to the people.
- Kiwiri 2.1
  
  30 August 2014 at 12:24 pm
  
  Indeed.
  
  For citizens or organisations today who are reticent, hesitant or doubtful about stepping out, I say to you (paraphrasing Martin Niemoller):
  
  First they came for the communists, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a communist;
  
  Then they came for the socialists, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a socialist;
  
  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a trade unionist;
  
  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a Jew;
  
  Then they came for the Labour Party and supporters, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a Labour Party member or did not want the Party to be smeared;
  
  Then they came for the Green Party and supporters, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not a Green Party member or did not want the Party to be smeared;
  
  Then they came for the Internet Party and supporters, and I did not step out to speak, march or make a stand —
  because I was not an Internet Party member or did not want the Party to be smeared;
  
  Then they came for me —
  and there was no one left to step out to speak, march or make a stand for me.
emergency mike 3

29 August 2014 at 3:17 pm

Love the Key/Nixon photo.
Valleyman 4

29 August 2014 at 3:42 pm

Would someone please extradite Key to Hawaii, so NZ can rebuild back to the great country it once was before Key came & wrecked it.
Bob 5

29 August 2014 at 3:53 pm

Haha, more negativity and marches! Just when Cunliffe started turning the Labour campaign around with positivity during a strong performance last night, the next day a bunch of activists perpetuate the negativity that has surrounded this election.

I’m sure all of the activists that visit this site will be beatign their chests saying how it will ‘strengthen the left vote’ or some crap, but look at how this type of campaigning has helped Internet Mana, it turns voters off and if it doesn’t cause the polls to fall then it will help the voter turnaout fall on election day. I am all for it!

[lprent: I think that the real issue is with idiots from the right who think that Labour is the whole of the left. I guess that they have their heads stuck in the arsehole of the 1980s still eh?

Personally who I vote for has little to do with my behaviour, just as I don’t usually hold the actions of parties against individuals here. I just look at individual behaviours.

However if you want me to view it that way, then I’ll be happy to make an exception in your case. Just tell me who you most commonly vote for. Then I will treat you as if you behaved like other members of that party. Just at present saying “National” would not be a good idea. Nor would “none” as that would most likely mean I would treat you as a strong anarchist/libertarian as the extremes in the non-party party.. ]
- One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
  
  29 August 2014 at 4:07 pm
  
  Negativity? That’s funny, coming from a National Party follower.
  
  What Bob is trying to say, gentle reader, is that getting involved in politics, or expressing yourself other than in terms approved by Bob, is wrong, for losers.
  
  Bob wants people to switch off politics altogether because the facts show this favours the Right. So he applies his negative labels to citizens, who after all have a duty to participate in democracy.
  
  There’s nothing negative in getting involved in politics, Bob’s problem is that when people do, his side loses.
  - Bob 5.1.1
    
    29 August 2014 at 4:45 pm
    
    Can you just start another “fuck John Key” chant OAB?
    Express yourself, like a ‘winner’, the public love it!
    
    Nothing negative about ‘Not our future’ aye? Such a positive message!
    - One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
      
      29 August 2014 at 4:55 pm
      
      Chanting, rote-learning, slogans, are anathema so far as I’m concerned: (the short version) that road leads to death-camps. So, no, you won’t find me chanting anything.
      
      However, I’m talking about you, not to you. What possible use can your bad faith arguments and Slateresque jibes be to anyone? Eat shit and die, Bob.
  - dave 5.1.2
    
    29 August 2014 at 10:06 pm
    
    oh I am so over slaters/bobs they are the past and we are the future so lets go aotea square tomorrow enjoy ourselves and let the slaters wallow in the shit they created for themselves
- Bob 5.2
  
  29 August 2014 at 4:51 pm
  
  lprent – Have you read the speakers? Michael Wood – Labour candidate for Epsom, what about Andrea Rushton SFWU, Joe Carolan -Unite Union, Robert Reid – First Union, Rachel Mackintosh – EPMU, wait, aren’t these Unions the big money backers of Labour?
  
  I’m not saying Labour IS the left, but the left sure as hell can’t in the election without Labour can they? And when the majority of speakers are either Labour MP’s or major donors too Labour then yes, I do think this is Labour destroying the good work of Cunliffe last night.
  
  I have voted for National and the Greens (twice each) and once for NZ First, so take your pick, I’m not worried.
  - One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1
    
    29 August 2014 at 5:00 pm
    
    Yep, Green voter here too. Why are you so afraid of freedom of expression, Bob?
    - Bob 5.2.1.1
      
      29 August 2014 at 5:19 pm
      
      I’m not afraid of freedom of expression at all! I just think dropping back into negative campaigning ‘Not our future’ is a poor move.
      If they were campaigning on ‘Change our future for the better’ or any positive slogan I think it would be much more effective. People by nature turn off to negativity which I can only assume is exactly why Labour chose the ‘Vote Positive’ slogan and National chose ‘Working for New Zealand’. Positive, upbeat message get people on side, ‘Not our future’? Good luck with that.
      - karol 5.2.1.1.1
        
        30 August 2014 at 8:01 am
        
        Yes, let’s use the corporate techniques of marketing, manipulation and persuasion, rather than stand up and speak truth to power.
      - Foreign waka 5.2.1.1.2
        
        30 August 2014 at 8:36 am
        
        Bob, it is time to declare color in his election. By that I don’t mean necessary party color but affiliation to the subject at hand. Protesting against poverty, corruption and environmental degradation is timely. These are issues that affect all people in this country except the 10% who can buy their way out of everything stepping over bodies underneath. Time for change, time for a positive change.
  - lprent 5.2.2
    
    29 August 2014 at 5:25 pm
    
    Yeah right. Unite union doesn’t donate to Labour from what I have heard. I guess that is just your imagination?
    
    How many of those have donated to the Greens, how many to Internet Mana?
    
    How many of the speakers have you left out?
    
    These include Edward Miller from Kiwis Concerned About the TPPA,
    …
    Tim O Shea, Maui’s and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ,
    Ashley Tata – Auckland Action Against Poverty,
    Miriam Pierard – Auckland Central InternetMANA candidate,
    …
    
    and Music from Jenny Lange (folk)
    Matt Billington (punk) and
    Phil Thoms (Herbs – Reggae).
    
    Good. For instance so if we now if we look at the arseholes like you who donated money, labour or their vote to National and who then benefited from thieving the public assets after the last election? What are they paying to National this election?
    
    How many of the thieves benefited from swiping my assets are in Rotary, Lions, and… In fact we’d have to say all of those organisations are just the thieves organisations of NZ.
    
    I guess in you I’m hosting a thief.
    
    You are a dickhead. The problem is that once you apply that moronic logic then what we wind up with is a civil war.
    
    People may possibly have other motives for donating their time and resources. But I guess you are too busy nailing people to crosses to understand how much of a fool you are.
    - Bob 5.2.2.1
      
      29 August 2014 at 5:50 pm
      
      Oh, good point, only 4 of the 9 speakers are somehow involved with Labour, I take it all back, good point lprent, you got me there.
      
      You have completely missed the point! Negative campaigning turns people off, if Michael Wood wasn’t there I could take your point, but the fact that Labour is involved along with at least 3 of their major donors points to them condoning negative ‘Not our future’ campaigning while having their hoardings say ‘Vote Positive’, do you not see the brand damage?
      
      “Good now if we look at the arseholes like you who donated to National and who then benefited from thieving the assets last election? What are they paying to National this election?”
      I’m starting to think I should contact them, do they pay for comments like mine? Is that what parties on the left do (which is why you assume it of me)?
      I have never donated to any political party, I have never joined a political party, I have never received money from any political party or associate of a political party, in fact I have never even met a politician in my life. I love politics and all of the workings of it too much to ever sully myself by getting involved directly.
      - lprent 5.2.2.1.1
        
        29 August 2014 at 6:52 pm
        
        Have you ever listened to Michael (I occasionally turn up at his kids birthdays) rather than listening to your own reflexive bigotry. From what you have said here, you’d like his ideas.
        
        Bob 5.2.2.1.1.1
        
        29 August 2014 at 6:55 pm
        
        I have only heard him on The Nation and he just sat there bagging National and Act, he didn’t impress me at all. Maybe if he stuck to a positive message like I have been saying, I would have a better opinion of him. This is exactly the point I have been making!
        
        adam 5.2.2.1.1.2
        
        30 August 2014 at 12:13 pm
        
        I find Michael one of the most reasonable and intelligent people I’ve ever met. And as a communal anarchist that can be annoying – the being reasonable part. He is very tolerant man, with a lot of love in his heart. He’d never attacks any one in a nasty way – he is just so nice. I find it funny anyone would think they could attack him, be they either left or right wing. He is just not a target, and he is naturally positive. A man who continually stands in seats he can not win with good grace and dignity deserves your respect Bob, not some cheap shots. As for The Nation interview, I think your reading your own prejudiced into his responses.
  - lprent 5.2.3
    
    29 August 2014 at 5:36 pm
    
    Incidentally, I’ve voted Values once, labour 5 times, then labour 7 times and Labour candidates once. This time it will be greens for party and Shearer for electorate.
    
    It doesn’t mean that I am Labour or that I am responsible for what they do. They are just happen to be the least objectionable each time.
    - Bob 5.2.3.1
      
      29 August 2014 at 6:00 pm
      
      Out of interest, any particular reason for the move away from Labour this time?
      I was personally thinking if shit really hit the fan with National (some hard proof against Key, could be the Dotcom release….) I would vote Labour this time, especially after the debate last night along with their housing (excluding capital gains tax) policy, rather than going back to the Greens (although negative marches like this push me more towards Winston again).
      - weka 5.2.3.1.1
        
        29 August 2014 at 6:23 pm
        
        Why do you vote exactly?
        
        Bob 5.2.3.1.1.1
        
        29 August 2014 at 6:52 pm
        
        I vote on who I think will help NZ as a whole the most.
        I think the left generally forget human nature when writing policy, they think they are helping those most in need, but human nature will generally find the path of least resistance, so if you make life to easy for people they won’t reach there potential (think WFF and the disincentive to improve your position as you can end up earning more and get less in you back pocket).
        I think the right generally forget about those in most in need, they try pushing people to their potential while standing on the heads those who need help (think Ruth Richardson).
        I vote left or right depending on where I feel the country currently sits, if there are no jobs being created, no houses for people, if our education system isn’t working, if our health system isn’t helping those that are most vulnerable I will try to vote to fix what I see as the biggest issue at the time.
        I think the John Key National government has fit my vote more than any party in the past (by bringing the right back to he center, think breakfast in schools, free health care for under 13’s) while making sensible changes linked to the right (tax cuts to those working while changing abatement rates for WFF making it easier for Kiwi’s to strive for the best for their family, 90 day trial so people get a chance to prove themselves where they may not have had the chance before).
        I don’t think they have been perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and there are a number of things mentioned on this site to back that up, but on balance I think they are the closest to where I sit at the moment (you may think I am rabid right wing as I don’t generally get into a circle jerk on this site, I generally only comment when I don’t agree with the sentiment with the exception of calling a win for Cunliffe last night).
        
        Why do you vote Weka?
        
        weka …
        
        29 August 2014 at 7:56 pm
        
        I also vote on who I think will help NZ most, but more bigger picture I think (so I will vote tactically at any election that enables that). I’m probably hardwired to vote on the left, but beyond that we face huge issues in terms of AGW, Peak Oil, overpopulation etc, and the only parties that are even half way addressing those are all on the left. So while I do look at policy in the way you do (each policy and its impact and how it fits with the general wellbeing of the country), I’m more interested in where we are going.
        
        I’ll admit, it’s hard for me to get my head around someone voting National, NZF, Labour, GP over time without them changing their political philosophy or worldview.
        
        Bob …
        
        29 August 2014 at 9:28 pm
        
        I have never understood why people only vote left, if the left wing had all of the answers no one would ever vote right (and visa versa). Communal living in my mind, is far too complex to be stuck to one way of thinking. Look at the world, is there any country that has got policy exactly right?
        I understand your concerns around AGW, Peak Oil and overpopulation, but from the way I look at things (spoiler alert: I’m about to get abused) I don’t believe in AGW (more accurately, I don’t believe in CAGW), but I believe in cleaning up our air and waterways for the health and survival of the human race. Without clean air and water we are doomed, so this is one area that I am trying to come up with solutions personally,
        Peak oil is one area where I have a bit of faith in ‘market’ thinking, as petrol prices have gone up people have purchased more and more efficient vehicles and the market has moved to make vehicles even more efficient (including Hydrogen cell technology and Electric Hybrid), I am not too concerned by the time this is taking again due to not believing in CAGW (long story started by a Uni lecturer of mine).
        Overpopulation is one area of concern I do share with you, but from my way of thinking left wing politics perpetuates this by incentivising people to have more children (WFF, increasing DPB for every additional child while receiving payments), I will get abused for this thinking and for good reason because I know it isn’t the childs fault they are born into these situations, and they need to be supported. I don’t have the answer to this unfortunately, so until I have a eureka moment I will likely just critique any policies that are put forward.
        
        I am a problem solver by nature, so I am open to any ideas that I think will fix the problems I see arising, this is why I vote all over the spectrum. Currently, I like Mana’s financial transaction tax, the Greens rental housing WoF policy, Labour’s Kiwibuild policy, Winston First’s Government business channeled through Kiwibank policy, National’s fiscal handling of the GFC, their education policy (excluding the disaster that is Novapay) along with their record on health and policing and tax reform (excluding the rise in GST) and the Maori Party holding them in line.
        The Internet Party, ACT, Consevatives and United Future can all disappear as far as I am concerned.
        
        weka …
        
        29 August 2014 at 9:44 pm
        
        “I have never understood why people only vote left, if the left wing had all of the answers no one would ever vote right (and visa versa).”
        
        I agree with this, which is why I support MMP as a first step towards representative democracy. I think there are many crucial elements to the traditional conservative world view that used to be embodied in the old right. The main problem is that the neoliberal capture in the 80s has shifted the centre too far right, so a big pull to the left is warranted. As for always voting left, most people aren’t swing voters, and this creates a kind of stability.
        
        My ideal is to increase the number of parties in parliament at the same time as evolving co-operative processes that enable different parties to work together in different ways. We’re still far too much in a combative, winner take all situation. I’d like to see govt use processes the enable much more direct representation, and that the is devolved rather than centralised (both at the party and geographical level).
        
        This is the main reason I vote GP (apart from the environmental issues). They’ve pioneered co-operative politics in this country, despite often being hobbled by the forces of regression like the MSM. I think the IP will have an influence here too, because we now have generations of people who have learnt out to work together outside of traditional structures, and the internet has enabled a increase in exploring new processes.
        
        Other than that I would see power and control as the biggest problem, which is another reason to not vote on the right. The GP face a challenge of not becoming corrupted as they gain power, but at the moment I still largely trust their integrity. Ultimatel we need a system whereby integrity doesn’t get corrupted, and again I just don’t see how this change could come about under a right of centre country.
        
        Flipnz …
        
        30 August 2014 at 7:55 am
        
        +1 Weka and Bob. Good points.
        
        One Anonymous Bloke …
        
        29 August 2014 at 9:49 pm
        
        Sensitive wee sausage mistakes ridicule for abuse, quantum mechanics for religion, and muddled notions for choice.
        
        One Anonymous Bloke …
        
        30 August 2014 at 8:24 am
        
        “National’s fiscal handling of the GFC, their education policy (excluding the disaster that is Novapay) along with their record on health and policing and tax reform”
        
        Their education policy is a deliberate cynical and vindictive attack. Their heath policy is to privatise by stealth: more vandalism. The Police are juking the stats, and if you think Ministerial guidance had no part in that little corruption I have a cabbage boat to sell you.
        
        Speaking of the tax “reform”, it wasn’t fiscally neutral.
      - lprent 5.2.3.1.2
        
        31 August 2014 at 12:13 pm
        
        I always make up my mind about who I am voting for mid-term. In this case it was after the 2012 Labour conference when the caucus went on a ham-fisted and outright stupid witchhunt about a non-existent ‘coup’ attempt by Cunliffe.
        
        I wrote about it then.
        
        The Labour caucus has improved quite a lot since then. The problem is that they finally realised that they really had a problem almost a year after that post.
        
        The changes that they did from about August 2013 onwards were the kinds of things that they should have been doing in Jan 2012. It means the campaign is kind of rough because they wound up with two major staff shifts in less than 2 years and the transitions weren’t clean.
        
        They have a good shot at forming a coalition government, But they’re going to have to compete with the Greens who have been spending the last 6 years looking more and more competent.
        
        Labour may have a chance at getting my 2017 party vote. But they’re going to have to work for it.
- Murray Olsen 5.3
  
  30 August 2014 at 3:09 am
  
  There’s nothing negative about fighting for a better country. There’s even music. It’ll be a celebration of leaving the years of darkness.
- Stephanie Rodgers 5.4
  
  30 August 2014 at 10:24 am
  
  Nothing negative at all about people coming together to stand up for a better, fairer future for their country. Collective community action is pretty much one of the most positive things a society can have.
Karsten 6

30 August 2014 at 1:08 am

A more positive message than “not our future” would certainly be welcome. The phrase “take back democracy” has been going around my head a lot lately.

@weka good points about integrity — the lack of it seems to be one of the biggest problem with the current government. What I find even more infuriating than the individual despicable actions in the case of e.g. Collins is the complete absence of remorse… the lack of understanding that those sorts of actions are completely unacceptable for a cabinet minister or member of parliament. Apparently it’s all law of the jungle, just don’t get caught. (Or if you get caught, just say “we’ve moved on from there” and trust the MSM to fall in line)
D'Esterre 7

30 August 2014 at 3:54 am

@Murray Olsen: hear hear! I don’t at all see this as negativity, and I’d be there if I could. More power to you all, and I hope these rallies force the willfully blind defenders of Dear Leader to reevaluate their position.
@Bob: you don’t like negativity, yet you’ve voted for Winston?? Go figure…
crocodill 8

30 August 2014 at 5:09 am

Don’t mistake “via negativa” (describing what something is by comparing with what it isn’t) for negativity. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with being negative. Sometimes things are bad and should be said to be bad. Sadly, something tells me no one will notice. Soundbite politics and the googlesque/new age/Oprah “be positive” movement well and truly has people backed into a repressed corner.
- One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
  
  30 August 2014 at 8:25 am
  
  “National not…” – I was always taught that two negatives make a positive.
  - crocodill 8.1.1
    
    30 August 2014 at 11:52 am
    
    True. It’s a minefield of misapplied metaphors, analogies and close-enough likeness out there. I heard that if potatoes start off badly you should just pull them out and start again… the context? What to do with bad kids. Sheesh. That’s what we have to contend with. No wonder the Feminists get worked up over some women being compared to stolen fashion accessories.
    - One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1
      
      30 August 2014 at 2:00 pm
      
      lol
outofbed 9

30 August 2014 at 8:32 am

The most effective use of time would not be marching, it would be door knocking.

We know from experience how this march is going to be portrayed on the evening news.

Don’t get me wrong there is nothing wrong with protest marches,

God knows I have been on a few.

But the election is poised on a knife edge and we need to use our resources in the most effective way possible.

I am a Green Party activist I have no time to march today I am to busy delivering billboards!
- karol 9.1
  
  30 August 2014 at 8:36 am
  
  Door knocking, billboards: very good things to be doing.
  
  We need to be campaigning on diverse fronts.
  
  The main streets and city squares are good campaign sites. There will be space on the marches/rallies for those with a messsage about the direction we want and the kind of future we want.
  - Bob 9.1.1
    
    30 August 2014 at 2:15 pm
    
    “We need to be campaigning on diverse fronts” That is true, but when was the last time National used a march as part of their campaign?
    If it was such a good idea don’t you think both sides of politics would do it?
    - One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1
      
      30 August 2014 at 2:38 pm
      
      Authoritarian followers hate this stuff, I’ll grant you that, and if we let that shabby lot dictate terms we deserve Judith Collins as PM, never mind Justice Minister.
M. Ross 10

30 August 2014 at 9:12 am

Labour as a group may choose to “be the good guys” and decline to harp on about the ills done to the people of NZ under a Nat government. The people have seen the little they have, lessened to make way for the cronies and put dirty money in Nats and the top 1% hands. It’s like the poorest are paying for welfare for the richest! People are not happy and they have a voice. The best thing that can happen for the liberal movement is to mobilize these disenfranchised by grass roots mobilization! We see our jobs go overseas to be done poorly, our farms sold, and our systems exported. It’s immediate gratification with no thought of the future economies our children inherit. Go grass roots rallies! It’s not negative, it’s the truth!
- Bob 10.1
  
  30 August 2014 at 2:17 pm
  
  Speaking on the 1%, how did the ‘Occupy’ protest go getting the public on side? I seem to remember National’s polling going up while this was going on…..
  The public (generally) don’t like problems, they like solutions.
Sable 11

30 August 2014 at 10:12 am

Good job. Its about time someone stood up to this utterly disgraceful government. I see another complaint has just been laid against old Collins. Its time for these creeps to go.

All that’s needed now is nationwide protest against the equally disgusting standards of mainstream journalism in this country. They are a BIG part of the problem and in no small way enablers for right leaning squalid standards of government…
Coffee Connoissuer 12

30 August 2014 at 11:07 am

the 90 day rule is one I wish Labour would leave alone. we had so many issues with the staff that we hired prior to this that we simply stopped hiring staff unless we were really desperate. The 90 day rule gave us the confidence to start hiring again and even creating a couple of new positions and giving people a chance they otherwise wouldn’t have had. It has allowed our business to grow and we are working on getting the profits up to the point where we can afford to pay all of our staff a living wage.

It is the biggest help to SMEs ever in my 7 years running a business. It gives us confidence that if we select the wrong person we have an opportunity to work with them to get them to where we need them to be but if they don’t make the required changes, we can end there employment, learn the lessons we need to and not make the same errors in judgement with hiring the next person.

To date this has worked exceptionally well for us simply because of the confidence it provides.
Apart from one person right at the very beginning (which you could call a teething problem) we haven’t had to use the 90 day rule to get rid of anyone and have hired several new staff since it started.

What is not seen by many is how in my view and in my experience the 90 day rule is better for workers. This is because of A the confidence it gives businesses to hire and B that thanks to the courts the responsibilities employers have to help employees when issues do arise during the trial period are very clear. This makes it much easier for employers to know exactly what they need to do to fulfil their obligations to the new employee and actually fosters an environment in the business that helps the new employee.

My experience has seen employees get the help they need in transitioning into the new role and gives me the employer an employee who at the end of the 90 day period adds value to the business and is a good fit with the rest of the team.
The employee has a career with the opportunities that come from a growing business.
- crocodill 12.1
  
  30 August 2014 at 12:06 pm
  
  My experience of that legislation is that although it works for employers, helping them into the euphemism that means “work with them to get them to where we need them to be but if they don’t make the required changes, we can end there employment” I’ve not experienced anything going the other way. And that’s the issue. There is no encouragement for good relationships between people. It’s philosophical “bad faith”. Yes I understand not every employer is good with people and that hiring is a nerve racking process for employers, not just on a financial level. But 90- day bill is an imbalance that trains those, already with more power, to evade personal development or learning to use their power constructively.
  
  What you’re suggesting on one hand is that employers have nothing, nothing at all, to learn from employees. No one can bring anything of use to a business that hasn’t sprung from an employers/owners mind. What’s more, if an employer doesn’t know how to get the best out of staff, it’s the employees fault. Employers miss the “opportunity” to learn how to deal with people by navigating the tricky area of conflict resolution, maybe not even that area, maybe just even mixing with people and perspectives they’ve never encountered before. 90 day disadvantages the mind of the employer without them ever knowing. It’s like another person says up the page that National “pushes people to find their potential”. Well difficulties in the workplace also push employers to find new skill too. It’s not the only way, but with a 90 day bill it rules it out. The “easy out”, I’m told by what appears to be the employer class, is what everyone takes. Go figure.
  
  Beside which, people were being constructively dismissed long before 90 day bill – decades before. All it did was make it easier for people to act unethically, should they “choose” – a bit like a law that opens loopholes in tax law.
  - Coffee Connoissuer 12.1.1
    
    30 August 2014 at 7:16 pm
    
    No I’d disagree. SMEs especially are often running thin on resources and are more focused on running the business, doing what needs to be done. In our work we are often hiring people with zero experience and they are given plenty of training. What the 90 day bill has done for me is allow us to create an environment that encourages us to help the employee succeed. We want them to be successful. We need them to be successful. If they are they add a wealth of benefit to our business.
    Under the old system it is so hard to get rid of staff that under perform that the environment created was more adversarial (at least from my observation as an employer. Because it was so hard to get rid of poor staff under the old regime Where there is an issue, employers almost have an incentive (wrong word but hope you get my drift) to just issue warnings at the first sign of real trouble.
    At this point the employer thinks he has an issue so needs to follow process in case the issue can’t be resolved. The warning does bugger all for the new staff members confidence and risks creating animosity early on. It almost creates an ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ environment which isn’t healthy.
    Now under the 90 day rule we have a real team environment going and have not had to get rid of a single staff member (except for one early on where we hadn’t understood what we needed to do i.e. what our obligations were and we paid for it). since the 90 day rule came into effect, nor would we want to. On understanding our obligations around the 90 day trial period it had the effect of changing our behavior and the way we approached our employees. Now for the first time ever we are all one team.
    
    On having nothing to learn from employees…. no never said that at all….
    I have learnt plenty from our employees. I am but one person, I certainly don’t have the monopoly on good ideas. I haven’t always been a business owner. I have done 20 years working for other people and know from that experience that some of the best ways to improve any business will come from those at the coal face…provided the right environment has been created.
    
    What’s more, if an employer doesn’t know how to get the best out of staff, it’s the employees fault.
    Now this is an interesting point and no its not the employees fault but it still results in employees getting fired. the 90 day rule has changed that for us because we were forced to change the way we did things. We have an obligation to give staff feedback and help them if there’s an issue and we do this. In fact under the 90 day rule employers are forced to do this and it is a good thing for both the employer and the employee. As I said, haven’t had to get rid of anyone since we figured out what we have to do on our end.
    
    Employers miss the “opportunity” to learn how to deal with people by navigating the tricky area of conflict resolution
    We no longer have things that get to the point of conflict. That’s the thing. Because the relationship we have with staff starts on a much better footing issues get resolved much earlier on and in a far more informal nature. It doesn’t escalate to the point of conflict anymore. Nor do I want to. I want to enjoy work. Having to deal with conflict isn’t fun for anyone.
    
    Lastly because our relationship with our staff is 1000% better we know there strengths and weaknesses much better. We can and do give them feedback on the areas that we need them to. Because we understand their strengths and personality much better, when we do have a new opportunity almost always it has been filled internally. This means an existing staff member gets a shot at something bigger and better. It also creates a new vacancy on the ground level where we can give someone with zero or a limited skillset an opportunity.
    
    here’s the kicker. that’s the only thing stopping me voting left.
    - One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1
      
      30 August 2014 at 7:21 pm
      
      I bet you went bankrupt and everything under the fifth Labour government. If the ninety day betrayal is the only thing that’s keeping you voting National that’s sad. For you.
Coffee Connoissuer 13

31 August 2014 at 9:18 am

“I bet you went bankrupt and everything under the fifth Labour government.”

Not sure where that comment came from – very random. Doesn’t really dignify a response.

‘The 90 day betrayal’ so based on that comment can you explain exactly how have you been adversely affected by the 90 day rule?

Actually was just trying to give you the reality of the situation. In our business more people get better opportunities under the 90 day rule. We haven’t had to use it, it has fostered an environment that works better for both parties and because of the responsibilities we have as an employer we now have a fantastic team environment.
That is the most important thing for me this election. It is a democracy afterall.
If you want to look at it from an altruistic point of view .. I can help more people get out of poverty with the 90 day rule in place.
Instead of just running with the preconceived ideas about it or whatever information has been fed to you heres what’s happened in the real world in our business.
Do with the information what you will.
But if you dismiss it then that doesn’t say much for you genuinely wanting workers to be better off. What it does perhaps say is that your more interested in the ‘politics and who’s right (in theory) than fixing actual problems.

But hey that’s cool, if it gets abolished we will simply go back to only hiring staff when it becomes absolutely necessary to.
So much for Labour wanting to help SMEs as they said I guess.