Redundancy protection – it’s only fair

20 comments on “Redundancy protection – it’s only fair ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vidiot 1

   11 September 2009 at 3:25 pm

   If it’s such an essential piece of legislation, why wasn’t it brought in under the previous government ? Oh that’s right they were more concerned with the big picture (ETS) than the common person.
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     11 September 2009 at 3:31 pm

     The partisan sniping is fascinating v, but do you support the idea or not?

     cause if not, that line of attack is pretty fucking weak.
     • vidiot 1.1.1

       11 September 2009 at 3:42 pm

       I am sure if Labour had concentrated on local affairs / policies that appealed to middle NZ (in their last term), they would have done a lot better at the polls last November. Fringe policies only have imho a limited appeal.
       • Bright Red 1.1.1.1

         11 September 2009 at 4:09 pm

         to be fair. climate change is hardly a fringe issue.
   • Bright Red 1.2

     11 September 2009 at 3:55 pm

     why wasn’t every problem that ever existed solved by the First Labour government? That’s my question.
     • Maynard J 1.2.1

       11 September 2009 at 4:34 pm

       Especially problems that were not really problems at the time!
2. NeillR 2

   11 September 2009 at 3:28 pm

   If Labour hadn’t fucked up the economy we wouldn’t need a bill like this.
   • Armchair Critic 2.1

     11 September 2009 at 3:37 pm

     Either you don’t know what you are talking about, or you spelled “fixed” wrong. Hint, it doesn’t have a “u”, a “c” or a “k” in it.
     Good to see you agree the bill is needed.
   • Bright Red 2.2

     11 September 2009 at 4:13 pm

     What a dumb thing to say.

     Drought. Housing bubble burst. Oil spike. World Financial crisis. – they’re what stuffed the economy.

     Give one argument as to how it’s labour’s fault
3. ieuan 3

   11 September 2009 at 3:30 pm

   I agree with vidiot, why didn’t Labour bring this in during the last government?

   As an employer it surprises me that there is not a minimum level of redundancy pay set by law in employment contracts.
   • Daveo 3.1

     11 September 2009 at 3:44 pm

     Because Dyson fucked around. Trevor got onto it, got the Public Advisory Group report done and then put it into the election manifesto – too late by then though.

     Great to see Darien Fenton getting onto this. She’s one of the few in there really battling for working people.
4. Strathen 4

   11 September 2009 at 4:04 pm

   I don’t have an issue with this coming in.

   The negatives I see are when businesses make people redundant earlier because of the cost involved. There could be instances where trading through the negative times could save jobs, but a responsible employer will probably make a job redundant earlier to ensure there is money there to pay the employee out.

   Personally I didn’t accept jobs that didn’t have this clause in the contract. I was taught young about certain things I needed in my contract, or to get extra pay if they’re omitted. I’d like to see contract awareness raised in our schools and possibly added to the curriculum. I’d like to see a lot more real life skills added to the schools, but that’s another topic altogether.
   • Maynard J 4.1

     11 September 2009 at 4:38 pm

     The extra cost only accrues on an annual basis (extra two weeks’ redundancy pay) so I do not think people will get laid off earlier. unless they can pick the bubbles bursting a few years before the rest of us but choose not not make hay while the sun shines!
5. Bright Red 5

   11 September 2009 at 4:16 pm

   So. Let’s just get this straight. Aside from vidiot etc running distraction, the right doesn’t actually have any objection to redundancy protection? Awesome.

   You shold make sure National listens to you.
6. Policy Not Politics 6

   11 September 2009 at 4:51 pm

   National would do well to support this Bill through to Select Committee, the idea certainly has merit and would afford protection to those who need it most. One potential downside is the commencement date. If employers were required to pay from the date of the Royal Assent then there could be an employer outcry, this could be mitigated if there is plenty of time between National announcing their intention to pass it into law and the actual passage. One downside is that empoyers might want to make people redundant just prior to the Bill becoming law, which can easily be countered by making it retrospective from the date the policy was adopted by the Government as is sometimes the case with taxation legislation.

   What I would like to see is an employee redundancy fund established alongside these protections. The Bill, as currently drafted, places all the burden on the employer where, with a bit of quid pro quo, it could garner support from all sides. A clause authorising all empoyers to levy no more than 1% from each employee salary (and it they do levy it must come from everyone employed by the Company – that includes management and Directors) which is to be ringfenced in a separate redundancy account, an account which is also protected against insolvency claims in the event the company goes into liquidation.
   • Daveo 6.1

     11 September 2009 at 5:04 pm

     If you did that you’d just be forcing workers to fund their own redundancy, which may not even eventuate. You’d also be effectively taking away the redundancy rights of people who’ve already negotiated them.

     Redundancy is a recognition of service. If the boss makes you redundant then the boss should pay. Other countries do it and it works fine for them, I don’t see why New Zealand should be any different.
   • Daveo 6.2

     11 September 2009 at 6:51 pm

     Something else I have to wonder – would you require CEOs who get massive severance payouts to to fund it themselves through a pay cut? Or does that only apply to workers?
     • Policy not Politics 6.2.1

       11 September 2009 at 7:13 pm

       Everyone would contribute – even the CEO. So if a CEO was earning $7m per year, then he would contribute $70,000 each year to the fund, a worker of $50,000 only $500 and one on $30,000 just $300. So it is the ones at the top who will be funding the redundancy.

       Why do you think a CEO is not a worker? Sure, they only put in 80-100 hours per week for the company, but i guess it does not count as work. Its easy stuff right? As for their severance payments, I do not believe in them – but it is an example of a worker negotiating a good package for themselves, something the unions are all for. The Redundancy Bill is not a negotiated agreement between employer and employee, it will be forced on employers, so it is only reasonable that the it is approached in a good faith manner.

       And how on earth does it take away peoples redundancy rights? It is not the be all for the Company – it is a contingency fund. This way, all workers can be assured that there is something for them if the company goes under or has to make people redundant. It is similar to a superannuation fund.
7. graham 7

   11 September 2009 at 6:31 pm

   typical labour all power to the unions we out of power as soon as they get elected they tell the unions to get stuffed
8. malcolmm 8

   11 September 2009 at 9:22 pm

   What are the downsides of this legislation?

   I think it’ll harm the unemployed. You’re only looking at one side of it: Person has a job, then gets made redundant, then gets their redundancy money. Nice.

   Other side: Person is unemployed. Small company trying to grow and needs staff. Chance of going bust or needing to downside in the next 2 years? Pretty high. So the 8+ extra weeks of notice + redundancy pay is a significant potential cost for the employer. Where does that money come from? Either the employer puts off employing or they can only offer less money.

   The legislation artificially increases the price of employing someone. Increase the price and you lower demand. So less jobs.

   Say I want a job and am happy to work for X. And employer is happy to pay X. Lovely, we can do a deal and I get a job. But now the government comes long and says, well if Malcolm is happy to work for X, we’re going to make the employer pay more than X, by forcing them to pay out if they need to get rid of me. So the government is buggering up my little deal with the employer by inflating my price.

   It might seem trivial, but the legislation increases the cost of employing, at the very time when a lot of people are looking for jobs. That’s bad.

   cheers

   Malcolm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS