Sick April Fool’s Joke

Written By: Ben Clark - Date published: 7:18 am, April 1st, 2011 - 72 comments
Categories: business, employment, minimum wage, Unions, wages, workers' rights - Tags: 90 day policy, fire at will, four weeks annual leave, sick leave

Today National has a terrible April Fools for workers around Aotearoa:

– The 90 day fire-at-will law extends to all workplaces. The EPMU is putting in some good work to get this excluded from many workers’ contracts, but the vulnerable will still be targeted by some unscrupulous employers, and workers will be afraid to leave jobs for better ones – that they may be fired from without recourse. Surely everybody deserves at least a reason as to why they’ve been sacked?

– Business owners will be able to stop union access to their workplaces, making it very hard for unions to talk to their members and improve their conditions, or to be able to check on those conditions. Surely after Pike River we should be looking at adding checks, not removing them. If you’re an employee, unions are on your side; this shows that the government evidently isn’t.

– Employers will be able to insist a worker gets a doctor’s note after just 1 day sick, without “reasonable grounds”. This will clog up our GPs, preventing them from doing important preventative and primary care work. It will also mean workers face being ~$30-40 out of pocket for being ill – hopefully temporarily if they realise the boss has to pay. Employment law expert Max Whitehead says removing the test of reasonable grounds was “going too far” and left the law open for “unscrupulous employers to abuse it.”

– In a further attack on conditions, employers will be able to ‘encourage’ employees to ‘sell’ their fourth week of leave – meaning just 3 weeks break for some of our more stressed, low-paid workers.

– The minimum wage goes up 25c/hour. Clearly John Key isn’t aspirational for those on Struggle Street as they get granted 2% extra (less than the increase in GST!) when inflation is 4%, and the petrol they need to get to work is rising much faster. It’s a shocking slap in the face as John Key granted himself $1000/week worth of tax cuts this year.

As Andrew Little put it in the EPMU campaign:

These new laws aren’t about making good management better. They’re to protect bad employer behaviour. And they’re designed to make it harder for workers to have their voices heard in the workplace

Of course, most employers are reasonable people so these reductions in conditions will be ignored by them. But there are bad eggs out there, and, to paraphrase Twain, we make our laws to control the lesser man. (Right conduct controls the greater one.)

And even the good employers won’t be increasing wages much this year, as they didn’t last year, despite that high inflation eroding your pay-packet. Without the minimum wage going up much, those who’d pay a bit more still have to compete with those who won’t. And with the economy so flat under National’s mismanagement, a lot of employers don’t have much extra to share around. That was the folly of tax cuts for the rich – those who don’t spend, have more; and those who do, have less.

And that’s bad for business.

72 comments on “Sick April Fool’s Joke ”

Comments are now closed

Lanthanide 1

1 April 2011 at 9:18 am

On National Radio this morning, Telecom have said they won’t be using the 90-day provisions.

Meanwhile Foodstuffs (who employ ~1500 in distribution centres and administration in Wellington) will be using it. Their justification is that it allows them to hire people that they might not otherwise have, and they can take risks on people who might be a bit shaky in their first couple of weeks but by the end of 90 days can be up to speed.

Even if we accept that Foodstuffs has a valid argument, the question becomes “why do you put the clause into all new employee contracts, instead of only those who you see as being ‘risky’?”
- vidiot 1.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 11:04 am
  
  “why do you put the clause into all new employee contracts, instead of only those who you see as being ‘risky’?”
  
  Why prejudge a person ? Include it by default and if a problem should arise, you can then deal with it.
  - Lanthanide 1.1.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 11:10 am
    
    By saying you are going to use the provision for risky workers, by including it in everyone’s contract you are pre-judging everyone as being risky.
    
    Cuts both ways.
    
    I really, honestly, see nothing wrong with interviewing candidates, and depending on how the interviews go, choosing to include the provision or not include the provision. It basically becomes another differentiating factor – you might offer the good prospects higher salaries and the worse prospects lower salaries for the same position. If you have to pay the same salary regardless, you could leave the provision out for good prospects and include it for bad ones, rather than having a blanket policy of including it in all contracts.
    - vidiot 1.1.1.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 11:33 am
      
      From personal experience – A couple of years back we employed a new technical sales guy that we had known for a couple of years through industry connections. He came across as being a nice guy, had a good technical knowledge and seemed to be an ideal candidate for the role.
      
      After 3 weeks in the office, it appeared to management & staff that he was doing what was needed (making appointments, making calls, meeting end users) to fulfill the role requirements, however in reality it was all a sham.
      
      The 1st thing that tipped management off was the ‘car service’ he charged to the company credit card for $2k for his personal car – he thought it was fine to do that becuase he had used his car to do one 10Km (yes 10 kilometers) trip in it (when he could of used the shared company car). He then made some rather random claims about attending meetings and having his car towed. On checking with the clients, he was never actually there at any stage (no appointment made, no person visited at all), it was all in his head.
      
      When confronted, the guy lost it badly and was terminated there & then. We then spent the next 12 months waiting for the personal grievance to be lodged, which thankfully never came.
      
      To this day, we don’t know why or how this guy went from an industry ace to a ‘raving loony’, we have our opinions (most likely an early P user), but you just don’t know.
      - Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 11:47 am
        
        I see absolutely nothing there that requires the 90 fire at will bill. He could have been fired instantly with no comeback on you for close to everything you mention.
        
        vidiot 1.1.1.1.1.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 12:11 pm
        
        Even with something as clear cut as this, he could have contested managements actions, dragged it off to the employment court, etc etc etc
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        1 April 2011 at 1:26 pm
        
        How?
        
        No lawyer would have touched it and doubt if the DoL would have either even for mediation.
        
        Lanthanide …
        
        1 April 2011 at 8:56 pm
        
        It hasn’t happened to me, but it did happen to my ex. They had a guy on a fixed term contract, who was clearly completely incompetent. They dismissed him (with everything done completely by the book), and it got dragged through a personal grievance and mediation, and get ended up getting a 10k payout, because that was less risky than going in front of a judge who, most of the time, will side with the claimant.
        
        I don’t think the guy actually ended up getting to keep much of the money in the end though, had to pay his lawyer a lot. They’re the only ones who really win most of the time.
        
        mcflock …
        
        1 April 2011 at 2:25 pm
        
        “We then spent the next 12 months waiting for the personal grievance to be lodged, which thankfully never came.”
        
        Given that there’s a 90-day cutoff for PGs to be lodged, methinks that this is a perfect example of managers who would do better to upskill themselves rather than clutching at 90-day fire at will as the solution to their HR problems.
      - Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.2
        
        1 April 2011 at 12:46 pm
        
        An employment advocate was talking about this on the radio this morning. He said that it is quite clear the personal grievance area needs to be addressed and moderated, but that the 90 day provision is going completely too far, and doesn’t even address a lot of grievance cases (eg after 91 days you’re back in the same boat if the person turns out to be a scammer).
- John Adams 1.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 12:17 pm
  
  Why no big demos down there? Sounds like you have a good reason to be pissed off and take to the streets like we did in London this week.
  - big bruv 1.2.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 12:54 pm
    
    There are no demo’s John because while they are indeed left wing nut jobs they are not total scum like the people who caused so much damage in London.
big bruv 2

1 April 2011 at 9:19 am

So..wages up.
The ability to cash up one weeks leave.
Easier to find work given that more employers will be ready to take a chance.
Working environment free from union stand over tactics.
No longer will hard workers be forced to carry those who decide they want a ‘sickie’

There is nothing in this legislation that good workers should be afraid of, it is great for business and even better for the workers.
- The Voice of Reason 2.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 9:52 am
  
  I guess you haven’t read the detail, Bruv. There is no change to ‘union standover tactics’, whatever you think that means. The cashed up holidays will not benefit workers as employers will simply offer that option instead of a pay rise and no employer under the current fire at will provisions appears to have used them to ‘take a chance’ on a worker, so it’s not likely extending the provision will make any difference, except to further casualise the workforce.
  - Deadly_NZ 2.1.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 2:20 pm
    
    But is it not also a coincidence that the 90 day law. (90 days = 1/4 of the work year so therefore 1 weeks Annual leave) and the cash up law come into law on the same day.. could be a case of : “You want to stay in work after the 90 days???” you “yes” them ” Then cash up your 1 weeks leave or goodbye”
    
    A typical thing that Big Bruv would love… Cash in your leave or lose your job.
    
    “There is nothing in this legislation that good workers should be afraid of, it is great for business and even better for the workers.”
    
    Really I would be really scared because of the fact that there are a lot of BAD bosses out there, who will happily exploit this and any other laws they can just to make a profit!
infused 3

1 April 2011 at 10:09 am

Fantastic.
randal 4

1 April 2011 at 11:12 am

so national is supposed to be the party of business.
well?
where is the new business?
Peter Martin 5

1 April 2011 at 11:29 am

‘It’s a shocking slap in the face as John Key granted himself $1000/week worth of tax cuts this year.’

25 cents per hour is an annual increase of around 500 dollars per year. Seems it would take a minimum wage worker over two years to earn what Key gets for doing no extra, per week…
- Lanthanide 5.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 1:00 pm
  
  That’s $520/extra a year before tax. Tax rate at minimum wage is 19.5%, so $418.60/year extra after-tax. If you’ve got a student loan, take another 10% off to get $366.60/year extra.
  
  It’ll take you 2 years, 4 months, 20 days to earn an extra $1,000 or 2 years, 8 months, 22 days with student loan.
  
  This is assuming a full time minimum wage job. Most minimum wage jobs are part-time.
- Blue 5.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 3:52 pm
  
  John Key donates his entire salary to charity, so his charities got a pay rise. Does Goff, or ANYONE in the loony left do the same?
  - Pascal's bookie 5.2.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 4:14 pm
    
    Yeah. I heard he doesn’t change his alarm clock at the end of daylight savings either. He uses the extra morning hour to massage the feet of the dying downt’ hospice.
    
    Also, it’s no one’s business what he spends his salary on. If he chooses to spend it on heroin, or give it all away, that’s his business. Bloody sickening the way some people go on about it with their fanciful notions. It’s a private matter.
  - felix 5.2.2
    
    1 April 2011 at 4:20 pm
    
    Blue, we’ve had this discussion here a million times. As best as can be discerned Key does no such thing.
    
    The only reference for this little blue lie is an article from before the 2008 election in which Key is quoted as saying that he already donates “a good part” of his salary to “charities and other good causes” and intends to continue doing so if elected PM.
    
    If you can find any other reference then be my guest, but so far in 3 years no-one else has managed to find one.
    
    More importantly I also note that no-one has ever taken me up on my challenge to define what is specifically conveyed by the phrases “a good part” and “good causes”.
    
    What we know so far is that – according to Key – he takes an unspecified amount of money at unspecified intervals and does something unspecified with it, including giving an unspecified portion of the first unspecified portion to something he considers charitable and spending the rest on things he considers good.
    
    If you think you can parse his statement any more accurately than that then please be my guest, but again, in 3 years no-one has managed to get it any closer to a specific meaning.
    
    In short, you’ve been duped. Key is very good at saying nothing while sounding like he’s saying whatever you want him to be saying.
  - Irascible 5.2.3
    
    1 April 2011 at 4:27 pm
    
    Has anyone ever seen the proof that Key actually donates his entire salary and other misbegotten monies to charity? How much of your claim is mere PR puffery coming from your employer’s office?
    Key has no credibility as an honest broker so why should I believe you, Blue?
  - Irascible 5.2.4
    
    1 April 2011 at 4:28 pm
    
    Has anyone ever seen the proof that Key actually donates his entire salary and other misbegotten monies to charity? How much of your claim is mere PR puffery coming from your employer\’s office?
    Key has no credibility as an honest broker so why should I believe you, Blue?
ak 6

1 April 2011 at 11:42 am

Read today’s announcement from Porker Benfit and shiver:

This Government is looking very hard at the welfare system and, rather than making piecemeal adjustments, we’re likely to be making very substantial changes.”

Note the two “very”s and the “likely”.

Looks like Slimey’s decided that a bennie-bash election would be nice to have.
- Deadly_NZ 6.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 2:21 pm
  
  Yeah bend over here it comes and NO vaseline!!!
big bruv 7

1 April 2011 at 12:06 pm

Key would be smart to make beneficiaries and benefits an issue in the upcoming election.

The productive working sector of NZ is being squeezed by our overly generous welfare system, what makes it all the more annoying for those who work for a living is the news that today sees an increase in benefits for all bludgers.

Given the tight nature of the economy the very least Key should have done is to freeze all benefits if not reduce them.
- anarcho 7.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 12:29 pm
  
  fuck you.
  
  [lprent: That is a pointless insult. You haven’t had any previous warnings – so read the policy and figure out how to control yourself. Because next time we start your reeducation program. ]
  - tsmithfield 7.1.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 12:49 pm
    
    “fuck you.”
    
    So how does that contribute to any rational debate? I thought a moderator might have jumped on that.
    - lprent 7.1.1.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 1:04 pm
      
      Be patient. This is a volunteer operation that is done in between our paid work. We work in sweeps whenever one of us has time to read comments. In my case that can be anything from 10 minutes to 2 hours depending on what I am coding or debugging.
      
      In this case it is about 30 minutes after the comment was left, and about 45 minutes from my last sweep. If you’d like to pay us we could have a more prompt moderating service? Otherwise you get more than you pay for 😈
  - Blue 7.1.2
    
    1 April 2011 at 3:54 pm
    
    Looks like anarcho is pretty attached to the benefit we pay for him 🙂
  - anarcho 7.1.3
    
    1 April 2011 at 4:00 pm
    
    oops, sorry, working-class reaction to a nazi.
    
    Will endeavor to construct 300+ word arguments outlining his stupidity and ignorance, cos you never know eh, he might just change.
    
    And Blue, no, it’s called empathy. Experienced it before?
    - Colonial Viper 7.1.3.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 4:51 pm
      
      I felt for the little young possum I found the other day, just before I bashed it painlessly to death with a brick.
      
      In fact, I felt for it so much, I’m now looking for another possum to do exactly the same thing to.
      
      Is that what you mean by empathy? Or at least, the Right Wing version of it?
- Tiger Mountain 7.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 12:54 pm
  
  Shonkey has long signalled the likelihood of the Natz playing the “bash the dirty filthy bennie” card in this years election. Christchurch may have put a spanner in this cynical plan though, have 60,000 new bludgers really suddenly appeared BB?
- Armchair Critic 7.3
  
  1 April 2011 at 1:15 pm
  
  With a million or so people receiving some kind of benefit, according to Paula Bennett, it would be smart to make benefits an election issue? Potentially alienating a million people, almost all of whom can vote, constitutes smart in your opinion. Bizarre.
  Please ensure you tell Mr Key, I’d love him to piss off a big chunk of the electorate.
  - big bruv 7.3.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 1:20 pm
    
    You think it is a good thing to have a million people on a benefit of some sort?
    
    No wonder we fell so far behind Aussie during the Clark years.
    - Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 1:30 pm
      
      You think it’s smart to have the majority of people living in poverty through no fault of their own?
      
      We started catching up with Ausie during the Clark years after the 4th Labour and National governments put us far behind.
    - lprent 7.3.1.2
      
      1 April 2011 at 1:40 pm
      
      Your history appears to be quite flawed (like most of your idiotic pronouncements).
      
      We stopped falling behind aussie during the Clark years and even started reversing the trend that National created in the 1990’s. I’m sure someone will yet again give you some links to read. Unfortunately from past experience, I’m also sure that you will not read them.
      - big bruv 7.3.1.2.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 1:54 pm
        
        Rubbish!
        
        3% real wage growth during the Clark reign of terror is not ‘catching up with Australia’
        
        You really must stop trying to rewrite history Iprent.
        
        lprent 7.3.1.2.1.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 2:21 pm
        
        What was the real median wage growth through the 1990’s? Negative as I remember it with a steady separation of the median from the mean as a smaller and smaller proportion of the population sucked up all the economic benefits.
        
        Sure the wage growth was slow in the 00’s – but at least it kept growing. But it wasn’t frigging negative or flat like it is whenever national gets the treasury benches. Sure it didn’t keep up with aussie during that whole decade except towards the end when the aussie wage growth reduced. But a large part of that was simply because we had to employ the unemployed that National caused with their piss-poor economic management in the 90’s.
        
        Mind you gross wage growth doesn’t really cut it as a measurement either. It is like boasting about productivity gains when you’re simply moving the less productive to being non-productive on unemployment (another favorite stupidity of people like yourself).
        
        If you want an effective measurement, then you are best to look at GDP growth per capita because it looks at the whole economy against the whole population. Happily Marty has done a graph that is simple enough for you to understand. Note that it is in constant dollars from Q1 2000 to Q4 2010 with inflation removed and comes directly from the government economic sources in the post.
        
        I’d love Marty to do the same graph for the 1990’s showing the drop into the abyss that is Nationals usual economic management
    - Armchair Critic 7.3.1.3
      
      1 April 2011 at 1:49 pm
      
      Not even a good attempt at a distraction. Pissing off a million voters is electoral suicide. I’ll support John Key doing everything he can to prevent his party’s re-election – your plan has the potential to be very effective.
      On the subject of your distraction:
      1. Having a million people on a benefit is terrible, I think this is about as far as we will agree. The need for something like a benefit is created by a variety of factors, most of which the current government seems to have aggravated, rather than addressed. The alternative of withdrawing the benefit would, IMO, increase poverty and hardship amongst the aforementioned million people, and I don’t support that.
      2. The gap between NZ and Australia increased most significantly during the Bolger and Shipley governments. The gap was relatively static during the Clark government, and has recommenced its increase under the Key government.
      Overall your comment seems to be a fact-free zone.
- Deadly_NZ 7.4
  
  1 April 2011 at 2:26 pm
  
  Yes he may and if he does then it’s goodbye from him (as he waves goodbye from the jet taking him bach to hawaii) and it’s goodbye from english and the rest as they are consigned to the political doldrums for a Looonnnggg time. And you Big Bruv can go and cry else where as you are nothing but an irritation ( like a mossie buzz)..
- bbfloyd 7.5
  
  2 April 2011 at 10:06 am
  
  BB,, i’m quite surprised that the people responsible for your supervision aren’t keeping a tighter watch on your use of computor time.. i thought the whole idea of recovery was to help people to avoid indulging in unhealthy and damaging obsessions…
  
  someone needs to have a talk with the nurses on your wing..
  
  meanwhile, the rest of us, here in reality land brace for the dark times ahead. well done to the nats for encouraging emmigration(to anywhere you can get to that isn’t here) in this step towards tory perfection. what do we need skilled professionals for when cooking and serving lunch or drinks, keeping the beds made, and labouring on their driveways and private golf courses will be the only skills required for anyone foolish enough not to have wealth?
tsmithfield 8

1 April 2011 at 12:47 pm

Coincidently, we are just looking to hire someone for an engineering maintenance position. The 90 day bill has given us the confidence to do that. Given the shaky nature of the Christchurch economy, we would probably have just got people to work longer overtime hours if not for the 90 day bill. However, as it is, someone is getting a chance for a job. Hopefully it will work out well both for the employee and us.
- Lanthanide 8.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 1:04 pm
  
  Or, you know, could have hired someone on a 90 day fixed-term contract, with option to extend longer anyway. Clearly you have work that needs to be done (you were suggesting overtime for existing workers).
  
  I think the only reason a fixed 90 day contract wouldn’t have suited you is because you’re deliberately intending to get rid of whoever you hire within 90 days, and you can easily do so for no reason whatsoever.
- fraser 8.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 1:06 pm
  
  what? you couldnt have taken someone on under the old trail period set up? or a short fixed term contract to try them out?
  
  its a serious question – i cant think of any business that couldnt have used the previous law to set up a trial period – i would be interested to know if and why some businesses couldnt have used what was already there
  - tsmithfield 8.2.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 1:46 pm
    
    I checked the “fixed term” contract option with our employment lawyer a few years back. According to him a fixed term contract applies where the work as a defined termination point. This is not the case with the job we are offering. Taking someone on and then making them redundant if the economy goes south is another option. However, this also is messy for a number of reasons.
    - Deadly_NZ 8.2.1.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 2:28 pm
      
      Messy how???? Oh yes of course you WOULD have to pay them redundancy… Under this law it’s thanks and fuck off!!!
    - mcflock 8.2.1.2
      
      1 April 2011 at 3:13 pm
      
      get another lawyer. One who’ll show you how to clearly define a termination point for a job.
  - bobo 8.2.2
    
    1 April 2011 at 5:18 pm
    
    Seen it first hand in late nineties when I graduated from tech but couldn’t find work in my chosen industry I ended up working on casual full-time basis at refrigeration factory, used to lay me off after 3 month term for a couple weeks saying they didn’t need me then call me back a week or so later so you had no rights as a permanent employee.. just cheaper option for them.
- Colonial Viper 8.3
  
  1 April 2011 at 4:58 pm
  
  Coincidently, we are just looking to hire someone for an engineering maintenance position. The 90 day bill has given us the confidence to do that.
  
  You’re a moron.
  
  Either you have engineering maintenance which needs to be done or not. Either you have the staff to do it or not.
  
  If you don’t get a staff member, then it doesn’t get done, and you leave your engineering equipment unmaintained.
  
  90 day right to fire does not change any of the above.
  
  In other words, you are a shitty engineering manager.
Ron 9

1 April 2011 at 1:49 pm

You’re dead right, fraser. I have yet to see an example of “bad employee” that couldn’t have easily been handled under the old laws. None of the above couldn’t have been dealt with easily with a warning system and clear contract clauses about appropriate behaviour and practice.

It seems to me that the only thing the 90 fire at will law does is to make it easier for lazy employers who don’t want to use best practice employment processes.
Vinsin 10

1 April 2011 at 1:50 pm

In my personal experience the easiest way to rort employment law is to just put employees under a casual contract, if the employee doesn’t work out all you need to do is put the employee “on-call” and of course never call them in.

I still fail to see how the 90 day fire-at-will bill will be used for anything other than firing people. As someone looking for full-time work again after working for two years on a casual contract and not getting any leave, I consider this new bill to be just a further erosion of my rights as a human being, and ultimately I wonder if perhaps it’s time to leave this low income, high inflation, high taxed shit-hole.
- Armchair Critic 10.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 1:59 pm
  
  …ultimately I wonder if perhaps it’s time to leave…
  I thought so too, but at present I’m more inclined to vote the bastards out. And suggest to people I know to do the same.
- big bruv 10.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 2:05 pm
  
  What ‘rights’ are you talking about Vinsin?
  
  The right for you to mortgage your house, risk everything and start a business?
  
  The right for you to have to do an honest days work?
  
  The right for you to do as your employee directs?
  
  Or the right for you to be a disruptive influence in another persons business and cause that business to fail because the owner cannot get rid of you even though you are causing the business to fail.
  
  As for you leaving….yes please, we do not need any more people in NZ who think that it is other peoples job to take care of you.
  - Colonial Viper 10.2.1
    
    1 April 2011 at 2:17 pm
    
    we do not need any more people in NZ who think that it is other peoples job to take care of you.
    
    You may want to live in a dog eat dog cage mate, b utI want to live in a supportive community where people are more willing to help each another out.
    
    Funny thing is, many small rural blue voting towns get this concept very well.
    
    What ‘rights’ are you talking about Vinsin?
    
    The right to be a participant in society, the right to be a participant in the economy, the right to have a say over what happens in your community, the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
    
    All alien to you bruv
    
    The right for you to mortgage your house, risk everything and start a business?
    
    National is screwing over small business owners, and not just in Christchurch. The taps are off, no one is spending, Key and English are lengthening the unemployment queues.
    
    National is fraking with the small business owners you claim to champion bruv.
    
    And yes, those small business owners are closing up and losing their homes.
    - big bruv 10.2.1.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 2:21 pm
      
      “The right to be a participant in society, the right to be a participant in the economy, the right to have a say over what happens in your community, the right to be treated with dignity and respect.”
      
      If you want those rights, or you want to have a say then you should be a contributor to that society, not a parasite or taker.
      Respect is earned, long term dole bludgers and DPB breeders do not deserve respect at all.
      - Deadly_NZ 10.2.1.1.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 2:32 pm
        
        BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz yep just like a mosquito!!!!!.
        
        And we all know how to get rid of mossies it’s either slap or spray Or my favourite a repellent!
        
        Draco T Bastard 10.2.1.1.1.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 4:49 pm
        
        We could even use the repellent that the RWNJs always suggest – higher taxes. Although, it never seems to work – when we put taxes up they don’t leave 🙁
      - fraser 10.2.1.1.2
        
        1 April 2011 at 2:59 pm
        
        so tax payers arent contributors? hmmm interesting
        
        mcflock 10.2.1.1.2.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 3:16 pm
        
        neither are workers, by the looks.
      - Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.3
        
        1 April 2011 at 5:01 pm
        
        Respect is earned, long term dole bludgers and DPB breeders do not deserve respect at all.
        
        Wrong, unkind souls like you are the ones who deserve no respect.
  - Vinsin 10.2.2
    
    1 April 2011 at 2:29 pm
    
    “The right for you to mortgage your house, risk everything and start a business?” Sure why not.
    
    “The right for you to have to do an honest days work?” Again agreed, that I consider to be my right, although honest can be a rather subjective word.
    
    “The right for you to do as your employee directs?” I assume you mean employer and yes I agree, of course within reason.
    
    The right to be disruptive etc. is pure bullshit. There are more than enough provisions in current law to get rid of an employee that is not performing, you can even negotiate a fair package if you require urgency and can’t go through the dismissal process properly. If nothing else this bill is a pure “Fuck you” to this country’s workers, and as someone who paid the highest amount of tax possible for two years I feel more than aggrieved that my tax dollars currently fund a self-destructive government without any idea of what it’s doing.
    
    As to your further bullshit “we do not need any more people in NZ who think that it is other peoples job to take care of you,” I never said it’s other people’s job to take care of me, I simply said it might be an idea to leave this shit-hole, as this government seems to do nothing but roll out bad policies ad nauseum. Remember that amazing cycle way idea, taskforce 2025, the rolling maul approach to the recession where we had tax cuts that we couldn’t afford, then a tax rise with gst to recoup the losses, the bailing out of SCF etc. I could go on but to be honest it’s just too tiresome to explain how fucked this country is after only one term of National, and I don’t think we’d survive another one.
    - The Voice of Reason 10.2.2.1
      
      1 April 2011 at 2:48 pm
      
      Nicely put, Vinsin. The real irony is that Big Bruv is a proven bludger himself and a fool 24/7, not just on the first of April. You’ll have noticed that he doesn’t actually do any work either, just spends his days and nights typing with one hand while using the other to stroke his, er, ego. He’s a sad, bitter little man, who transfers his self loathing into a public hatred of humanity.
    - big bruv 10.2.2.2
      
      1 April 2011 at 3:33 pm
      
      Oh we will survive another term of the Nat’s Vinsin, in fact we will survive at least another two terms.
      One can only hope that during the next two terms Key remembers he is leading the National party and not Labour lite.
      
      The rest of your comments are laughable, the mess we are in is a direct result of Labours failed policies, remember that Labour took NZ into recession before any other country in the world.
      
      The tax cuts were, and remain, vital, what we do have that is unaffordable is a massive public service, a bribe made by the Labour party by way of WFF, Interest free student loans and a welfare system that rewards parasites for breeding and sitting on their backsides.
      
      On top of all that we also have a moronic Labour party leader who thinks that taxing, borrowing and spending is the way to get the economy moving again.
      
      So Vinsin, you may not like Mr Key ( you are in the minority, remember he is the most popular PM of all time) but the majority of Kiwis love the guy.
      - felix 10.2.2.2.1
        
        1 April 2011 at 4:22 pm
        
        fap fap fap fap
- Lanthanide 10.3
  
  1 April 2011 at 9:05 pm
  
  Actually you’re wrong about using casual contracts to do an end run around the law.
  
  If you’re on a casual contract, but the work actually turns out to be fairly regular, then the employee is actually deemed to be on a full time or part time contract.
  
  That’s basically what the Hobbit fiasco was over – people who had contracts that said X, but their bosses treated them as Y, and so the court found that actually they were really Ys and their X contract was void.
  
  Of course this needs to be proved, and if you’ve got an arsehole boss then it may not be worth it (end up losing the job completely or they make your life miserable). But at the same time, if they’re really using you as permanent staff, then you’d win when taking it to court.
Ron 11

1 April 2011 at 1:52 pm

your lawyer is wrong, tsmithfield. Any number of non-profits operate annual contracts for staff as their income streams are so reliant on annual funding applications. There is no problem with employing someone on a fixed term if you want a fixed term.
- Colonial Viper 11.1
  
  1 April 2011 at 2:18 pm
  
  Particularly if there is a sound business reason for having a fixed term contract.
  
  And being subject to annual funding rounds is such a reason.
- Draco T Bastard 11.2
  
  1 April 2011 at 4:52 pm
  
  I think you’ll find that TSmithfields real complaint is cost – people who take up fixed term contracts are paid more to cover the increased downtime that they’re subject to.
Tom Lee 12

2 April 2011 at 6:18 am

Hahaha, fantastic. Have you seen Gmail Motion? http://mail.google.com/mail/help/motion.html Or this fake news story really got me this morning: http://blog.homeworkparadise.com/45/student-have-quite-possibly-gone-a-bit-too-far/