Sacked. No reason given

Written By: - Date published: 6:37 pm, August 16th, 2010 - 68 comments
Categories: workers' rights - Tags:

Key said put up or shut up. The CTU and some gutsy workers are putting up. Will Key have the guts to answer them?

RALLY 21 & 22 August
Auckland * Wellington * Christchurch * Dunedin

Auckland
1pm, Saturday 21st August
QE2 Square (bottom of Queen St, opposite Britomart)

Wellington
1pm, Saturday 21st August
Civic Square

Christchurch
1pm, Saturday 21st August
Cathedral Square

Dunedin
11am, Sunday 22nd August
Assemble at Dental School, Great King Street
March to rally at the Octagon

68 comments on “Sacked. No reason given ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    16 August 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Will anyone in the MSM have the guts to put this to him ?

    • Marty G 1.1
      16 August 2010 at 8:04 pm

      they’re too busy giving him birthday cards.

    • bbfloyd 1.2
      17 August 2010 at 12:47 pm

      “brave mainstream journalist” would have to qualify as an oxymoron in this country.
      when the paymaster decides it’s in the company’s interest, then you will get “honesty”.

  2. Doug 2
    16 August 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Red Alert have had a go at this and lost.
    She is a Labour activist.

    http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen?xg_source=profiles_memberList

    • IrishBill 2.1
      16 August 2010 at 7:36 pm

      You’re right. People with political views shouldn’t have any right to speak out about anything that affects them. In that spirit, you’re banned for six months.

    • loota 2.2
      16 August 2010 at 9:55 pm

      Frak this site is a laugh a minute.

  3. Doug 3
    16 August 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Taken as a Badge of Honor.

    • Pascal's bookie 3.1
      16 August 2010 at 8:03 pm

      Yeah, you’re a regular keyboard commando. Very Special Forces division.

    • Marty G 3.2
      16 August 2010 at 8:05 pm

      Taken on a glass jaw without a sense of humour, more like.

      Doug. Do you think that political activists from opposition parties should lose their jobs?

    • Fisiani 3.3
      16 August 2010 at 9:18 pm

      You cannot express an honest opinion here without a ban. Wear your badge with pride.

      [You’ve had endless opportunity to express your ‘honest opinions’ here Fisi…and yet here you are posting away as merrily as ever. But you’ve just stated that you cannot do this without being banned. What do you want Fisi… to be proven right like Doug? Or do I just accept that nothing from you is really an ‘honest opinion’ and let you harmlessly dribble on as usual?…. RL]

      • felix 3.3.1
        16 August 2010 at 10:36 pm

        A startling admission from you, Fisi.

        • Fisiani 3.3.1.1
          17 August 2010 at 12:01 pm

          I’ve served out my first ban. Only a matter of time before I am ejected again. You can get away with profanities here but not with the inconvenient truth.

          • The Voice of Reason 3.3.1.1.1
            17 August 2010 at 12:15 pm

            I haven’t seen anyone here banned for telling the truth, petal. Stupidity, on the hand …

      • bbfloyd 3.3.2
        17 August 2010 at 1:14 pm

        last time i checked, the definition for reactionary name calling has not been changed to “honest opinion”. better get on to johnny and get it changed. same goes for plagiarism.

    • bbfloyd 3.4
      17 August 2010 at 1:17 pm

      have a close look at that badge. it’s simply been rolled in glitter. stop trying to polish it.

  4. Jenny 4
    16 August 2010 at 8:11 pm

    A brave young woman my heart goes out to her.

    I hope she finds a job soon.

  5. Doug 5
    16 August 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Marty G
    Do you think an MP should be sacked on the testimony of a Labour activist?

    • Marty G 5.1
      16 August 2010 at 9:16 pm

      MPs can’t be sacked.

      Key fired Worth as a Minister. Worth resigned from Parliament himself.

      Key says the sacking was not to do with Worth’s behaviour towards that woman. And if you still think that Labour would engage in a honey-trap to get rid of someone so useless as Worth using a known Labour activist, you’re really stupid.

  6. Graham 6
    16 August 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Ummm … there’s gotta be something missing here.

    Florence claims she was not given any warnings, any reasons, any sort of explanation. From the employer’s point of view, this doesn’t make sense. Why, as an employer, go through the hassle of taking someone on, putting them on the payroll, working out all the PAYE, finding out they’re actually pretty good at their job with people coming in and asking specifically for Florence – then sack them with no reason given?

    Assuming this was a genuine job opportunity, the employer now has to go through the whole rigmarole of hiring someone again. If I was an employer, I would far rather say to someone, “Hey, you work well, but you need to smarten up your dress sense, or turn up on time, or not smoke in front of the store where customers can see you, or …”. Most employers aren’t stupid, so why go through the hassle all over again?

    Gotta be more to this.

    • Marty G 6.1
      16 August 2010 at 9:18 pm

      yeah. Must be the worker’s fault if she was fired without cause being given. After all, every employer is a good and reasonable person who never acts arbitrarily or unjustly and would never dream of trying to cover for their unfair behaviour by refusing to give a reason for a dismissal..

      Hard to see why we need any labour or business laws at all, with these rational angels in charge of the nation’s enterprises.

    • RedLogix 6.2
      16 August 2010 at 10:51 pm

      Graham,

      Listen to the video again. It’s clear that the employer held fairly strong, possibly fundamentalist, religious views of some kind. Lotsa room for not seeing eye to eye with someone who doesn’t share the same fixed and rather narrow ideas.

      • Herodotus 6.2.1
        16 August 2010 at 11:01 pm

        RL it is not clear that the owner possessed these ideas. It is clear that the young lady perceived that. Now you are doing what many here accuse others of doing. Attacking the individuals and espousing your prejudices and the use of emotive language.

        • NickS 6.2.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 11:19 pm

          Lets put it this way, Christian music blows chunks (lyrically + subject wise, music composition not so much), , more so than much of the crap that has passed for popular music. Thus someone who chooses to force others to listen to it, are morons with extraordinarily bad tastes in music.
          /evil atheist conspiracy

        • RedLogix 6.2.1.2
          16 August 2010 at 11:27 pm

          Herodotus,

          Fundamentalist ideas are almost always fixed, narrow… and rather firmly held.

          All I stated that this could easily lead to ‘not seeing eye to eye with someone’ who didn’t share the same perspective. Scarcely emotive or attacking an individual. And of course it was merely a speculative response to Graham @ 6.0 above who was speculating that there ‘gotta be more to this’.

          Defensive some?

      • NickS 6.2.2
        16 August 2010 at 11:05 pm

        …The fundie aspect may just have been part of it, but I don’t think it was the main driver. What it looks more like is a case of exploiting her to fill a gap until the employer could do without her. In which case it was highly unethical, particularly for what was someone who due to their beliefs considers themselves very “moral”.

        However, the issues Florence is now having with finding work may actually have something to do with her employers religion, since bullshit is quite easy to spread around church goers very easily.

    • mcflock 6.3
      17 August 2010 at 1:38 am

      @Graham

      …or maybe, just maybe, DISMISSAL WITHOUT CAUSE IS UNFAIR BECAUSE IT IS ONLY NEEDED BY INCOMPETENT AND UNFAIR MANAGERS WHO BY DEFINITION WANT TO BE ABLE TO FIRE PEOPLE FOR UNFAIR, BIGOTED, OR JUST PLAIN FUCK-IGNORANT REASONS.

      Which is what anyone who gives a tinker’s damn about the majority of NZers (who aren’t business owners or managers) and can get two braincells working in tandem at any one time have been saying.

      • KJT 6.3.1
        17 August 2010 at 10:30 am

        As a former business owner and now in a management position.
        I do give a damn.
        I can run my business without treating my workers like shit and I do not think I should have to compete with people who allowed to bypass treating their workers with normal human consideration.
        Fortunately it is partly self correcting. I get the pick of the best workers.

        If this attack on NZ wages is allowed to continue we all lose. Wage earners buy our products.

        • The Voice of Reason 6.3.1.1
          17 August 2010 at 12:22 pm

          Spot on KJT, and from my experiance, you mirror most employers/managers in NZ, who do strive to be fair and reasonable and don’t actually want or need these changes. The fundamental weakness of Key’s drive to lower wages is that it also lowers the overall incomes of all Kiwis, bar the richest of the rich. Mind you, the Tories wouldn’t see that as a weakness, but a strength.

        • mcflock 6.3.1.2
          17 August 2010 at 8:39 pm

          interesting – I fell into the “good for employers” meme and lumped all bosses in with the likes of “too dumb to use anything BUT fire at will”.

          My apologies.

    • prism 6.4
      17 August 2010 at 8:52 am

      Graham Because no reason has to be given, then we never get to find out the truth. Good example of why this new legislation is unsatisfactory.

    • bbfloyd 6.5
      17 August 2010 at 1:33 pm

      graham.. i would agree that most employers aren’t stupid.
      on the other hand, i have worked for companies run by “fundamentalist” christian folk, and i have seen and experienced their approach. it is actually quite common practice for them to remove people who don’t measure up to their ideas of morality. there are no other criterion required. i have seen people sacked on suspicion of loose morals according to whichever paster is calling the shots.
      to go further, i myself was put through a series of interrogations when i foolishly let slip (to a workmate)that i had seen a church member smoking a cigarette.
      untill it was proved( person confessed) i wasn’t lying, my job was gone, and i was left with no doubt that my troubles were only starting.
      i found myself a new job as fast as i could, and vowed never to work for people like that again. if florence has come across a group like that, then my heart goes out to her.

  7. comedy 7
    16 August 2010 at 8:53 pm

    I expect to be banned but …………. who the fuck is in charge of the unions PR ? Isn’t it a basic tenet of a PR campaign that you don’t provide your opponent with ammunition to shove one up you ?

    Look up Florence on google and what’s the second thing that pops up ?

    • illuminatedtiger 7.1
      16 August 2010 at 9:03 pm

      So what?

      • comedy 7.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 9:06 pm

        So you are trying to convince the general public and I would suggest most people who see this and later learn of the subjects affiliation with a political party think two things.

        1. Hack
        2. Jack up

        • Marty G 7.1.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 9:14 pm

          Just how do you think this is a ‘jack up’? and I’m not sure what you mean by ‘hack’

          labour has thousands and thousands of activists. Is it any surprise that one of these people, having been unfairly treated, would be brave enough to stand up for her rights, more so than someone who isn’t politically active?

          • Herodotus 7.1.1.1.1
            16 August 2010 at 9:23 pm

            Who stood up for Miss Senchel when she was sacked because of whom she shared a bed with, and all that commentary from Trevor Mallard. Where was the calvery charge by unions and the like in support of her case, was Miss Senchel treated fairly?
            I hope for the union and like that this is not a iceberg case that could diminish the value of what is trying to be achieved, like how the Worth case was at best averagely managed, with what was exposed after digging ….belated.
            I am also amazed at how some contributors think that a worker can be discarded, most good coy know the value of staff, not to interchange workers every 90 days. I am sure that such repeated offending would attract the attention of the union movement.

            • Marty G 7.1.1.1.1.1
              16 August 2010 at 9:29 pm

              if Setchell (note spelling) had been a PSA member, the union would have been with her. Expecting them to help out freeriders when they’re already getting by on their bare bones is a bit rich.

              “most good coy know the value of staff,”

              so, it’s pray you’re lucky enough to get a good boss or you’re screwed? We have rights to protect us from bad behaviour, the kind of thing most people don’t do.

              • Herodotus …
                16 August 2010 at 9:48 pm

                Thanks for the spelling, the reason for her firing is OK then, or is it not Ok if you are in a union but ok otherwise?
                and being extremely poorly treated by the party that espouses workers rights If you can get please get me a tui from the fridge Marty
                I thought that it was the principle of the matter?
                from my experience the majority are ok bosses with ok employees. we have reverted retro to the 70’s with The pendulum swinging from worker v employee. To fire an employee was extremely difficult even with strong due cause drink driving with coy car, of theft. Now this has swung a bit to far the other way, but that is what you get when both sides are unable to communicate. Lab listens to Unions Nat Owners, both have just cause to be agrieved by what has and is being enacted into law, hopefully all we can expect is for small swings from side to side

                • bbfloyd …
                  17 August 2010 at 2:12 pm

                  c’mon H.. you do so well stringing all those long words together into even longer sentences, surely you could go one step further and make some sense with them. i can hardly wait…

    • bbfloyd 7.2
      17 August 2010 at 1:54 pm

      comedy…when you were doing that, what was the first thing that popped up? and were you sitting down when it happened?

  8. Doug 8
    16 August 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Marty G
    Strange how most all attacks on National are led by Labour activists.

    • Marty G 8.1
      16 August 2010 at 9:21 pm

      they’re not going to be led by National ones are they? Labour is the major opposition party, they are going to push most attacks on National

      Unless you’re claiming that she must be lying because she’s an activist or that how she was treated is justified because she was an activist, I fail to see what your point is.

    • bbfloyd 8.2
      17 August 2010 at 2:07 pm

      Doug….Duh?

  9. Fisiani 9
    16 August 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Still no evidence of unfair dismissal. Evidence of dismissal is not evidence of unfairness.

  10. Fisiani 10
    16 August 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Still no evidence of unfair dismissal. Evidence of dismissal is not evidence of unfairness.

    • Jenny 10.1
      16 August 2010 at 9:39 pm

      Fisiani:

      Evidence of dismissal is not evidence of unfairness.

      This is the whole point. Fisiani, employers are not required to give evidence, fair, or unfair. So to say that there is no evidence of unfairness is not only stating the obvious. But shows you are a shallow idiot.

      capcha – leaved

      • Fisiani 10.1.1
        16 August 2010 at 9:58 pm

        So all dismissal is therefore unfair?????
        Yet another foot in mouth job by the CTU

        • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1
          16 August 2010 at 10:06 pm

          So I guess you don’t consider being sacked for no reason “unfair”. That is to say, you think it is completely 100% fair, for all parties involved, for someone to work somewhere for 85 days and then be sacked without a reason.

        • IrishBill 10.1.1.2
          16 August 2010 at 10:10 pm

          No. Being fired without being told why you’ve been fired and without any chance to either argue the point or make a change to remedy the problem is unfair.

          You righties constantly cry and whine about getting banned from here despite the fact you get warnings and are told why you’ve been banned. Hell sometime you even get to make a case and have a ban lifted.

          Losing your job is a lot worse than being banned from the standard and yet you will blithely dismiss the rights of workers to a fair process while wailing and moaning about the very fair process you get here.

          Hypocrites.

          • RedLogix 10.1.1.2.1
            16 August 2010 at 11:06 pm

            Losing your job is a lot worse than being banned from the standard and yet you will blithely dismiss the rights of workers to a fair process while wailing and moaning about the very fair process you get here.

            Really Fisi….go away and have a long hard think.

        • bbfloyd 10.1.1.3
          17 August 2010 at 1:56 pm

          you slip is showing again fis..

        • bbfloyd 10.1.1.4
          17 August 2010 at 2:21 pm

          fis.. you really have to stop doing that stuff when you are writing… that’s nasty

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2
      16 August 2010 at 10:16 pm

      The lack of a reason is evidence of unfair dismissal. Without a reason given we have to make an assumption and that’s the only one that fits. If the dismissal was fair a reason would have been given.

  11. M 11
    16 August 2010 at 9:31 pm

    Hey Doug and all you other special people who seem to think her being on Labour grassroots nullifies her concerns at being fired under the 90 day bill…what if she was fired from the bookstore for being a member of the Labour party? Maybe that is why the decided to get rid of her? Would that be ok with you?

    Who knows why she was let go. As she points out they had taken on two workers at the same time so perhaps it was a comparison she wasn’t made aware of…perhaps the other worker didn’t dare raise the offence the christian radio station gave to some customers?

    This is not a fair process, to have no idea where you went wrong and to be fired for any number of reasons that would be discriminatory if they had to be actually declared. Good on her for speaking out.
    She is a very brave person to be put up for the scrutiny and abuse of every RWNJ in order to challenge the National Govt’s appalling treatment of workers.

  12. lenore 12
    17 August 2010 at 9:50 am

    I work with a lot of young people seeking work and many have made comments about being laid off abruptly from low/semi skilled jobs. Sometimes they noticed that a few weeks prior to being fired, they were what I call being “micro managed” ie a focus on the little things they were doing wrong. This is a current management tool that many employers and managers use in all sectors of work and at all levels. Prior to the 90 day act, it might have lead to the employee getting so stressed/ anxious that they start making mistakes and eventually they leave themselves (and I have worked with a lot of people in that position). Now for those jobs where it is easy to pick up new staff with minimum training, they can dispose of them more easily after 90 days Sure for those jobs where it is expensive to hire staff etc, employers will be less likely to let someone go – but they may do it under the guise of only wanting someone for contract type work anyway.

    For those workers, they feel gutted, worthless and expendable. The young people feel distrustful of employers and it demotivates them even further to seek work.

    I thought we had legislation based upon “good faith” relationships and am saddened that there are employers out there who are what I would say “milking” the effects of the recession where people are more willing to accept “bad faith” working conditions because they have less choice.

    As for people taking a stand on what is unfair dismissal – get real. the reason some of these people are in unskilled jobs are they have literacy issues, English maybe their second language – they don’t know their rights. They also may believe that they need this employer as a referee and so keep silent. When they seek new work – the prospective employer might look at their cv and ask why they left their last job so if they can’t get a referee from someone in their former work place, it is even more difficult. So they keep silent. These people often have never heard of the employment relations act or community law centres where they can get free legal advice or what their rights are. Even if they did, they are often not confident then to exercise their rights. Standing up to anyone is very stressful particularly when there is a power imbalance and many people from many different cultures are also brought up to avoid conflict.

    • bbfloyd 12.1
      17 August 2010 at 2:41 pm

      lenore… on the issue of “micromanagement”, i couldn’t agree more. i experienced this working in australia. working as a boilermaker/welder in WA, which at the time went through slow periods according to whether any new mining infrastructure was required or not. consequently i found i had to shift jobs quite often. at least 3/4 of my new employers spent an appreciable amount of time looking over my shoulder and jumping on any real, or perceived errors or methods deemed unacceptable. far from assisting me to learn their particular systems faster, it rapidly became counterproductive. my years in the trade and my proven background in fabrication and construction was completely disregarded as i was expected to adhere to systems that only worked when applied to narrow parameters.
      a young, inexperienced person being subject to this approach, and not having my knowledge and proven ability would rapidly become disheartened to the point of becoming incapable of doing the job they are paid to do. thus we have the “self fulfilling prophecy” scenario being played out.

  13. roger nome 13
    17 August 2010 at 10:09 am

    “”milking’ the effects of the recession where people are more willing to accept “bad faith’ working conditions because they have less choice. ”

    And it was exactly the same in the 1990s. The bottom line never changes. Once you take away universal controls from the employment relationship, something as simple as actually getting paid for the work you do becomes uncertain, because National have made it a competitive bottom-line issue for employers, i.e. if you don’t pay an 18 year old for half the hours they do in the first three months, are they going to pipe-up and complain? If they do, how long will they last when 20% of all other 18 year-olds are looking for work?

    The bad employers simply gain a competitive advantage over good employers. So – this law promotes bad behaviour on a mass scale. Great work NACT.

Links to post