The new Pay Equity Legislation

17 comments on “The new Pay Equity Legislation ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Antoine 1

   9 November 2017 at 8:12 am

   So where is “the new pay equity legislation” you refer to?

   A.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

     9 November 2017 at 8:14 am

     The Government will stop progress on the Employment (Equal Pay and Pay Equity) Bill and start work on new legislation that adheres to all the principles of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity.

     Is English your second language or something? Read the above passage and if you still cannot understand it, please don’t be afraid to ask for help.
     • Antoine 1.1.1

       9 November 2017 at 8:17 am

       Perhaps “No new pay equity legislation yet” would have been a better headline

       A.
       • mickysavage 1.1.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 8:47 am

         Its being worked on as we talk so it is a thing.
       • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1.2

         9 November 2017 at 12:10 pm

         Sure, exactly as promised. The status quo is better than National’s lemon bill for now, anyway.
         • tracey 1.1.1.2.1

           9 November 2017 at 12:51 pm

           Yes, cos the status quo is currently based on a Court of Appeal decision available for all to read for free.

           Those wishing to read the CA full decision can do so here:

           https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2014-NZCA-516-CA631-2013-Terranova-Homes-Care-Limited-v-Service-Food-Workers-Union-Inc-and-Bartlett.pdf?SubsiteID=1

           Also

           “There are four key problems with the Bill:

           1. It imposes an unnecessary hierarchy of comparators,

           2. It creates onerous requirements for women to prove merit in order to initiate a pay equity claim,

           3. It extinguishes women’s ability to seek back pay in a pay equity claim, and

           4. The transitional provisions unfairly and retrospectively deal with current claims and new claims until the Bill becomes law.

           “What the Government needs to do is bring a Bill to the house which is consistent with the already agreed joint Principles, is consistent with the Court of Appeal ruling in Bartlett v Terranova, and provides a constitutionally acceptable way of dealing with existing equal pay claims,” Wagstaff said.”

           So knocking the Bill out IS the first step to providing better equirt AND by knocking it out ensures the criteria set by the CA are the ones to be followed by Employers until a new Law is passed.

           “There are four key problems with the Bill:

           1. It imposes an unnecessary hierarchy of comparators,

           2. It creates onerous requirements for women to prove merit in order to initiate a pay equity claim,

           3. It extinguishes women’s ability to seek back pay in a pay equity claim, and

           4. The transitional provisions unfairly and retrospectively deal with current claims and new claims until the Bill becomes law.

           “What the Government needs to do is bring a Bill to the house which is consistent with the already agreed joint Principles, is consistent with the Court of Appeal ruling in Bartlett v Terranova, and provides a constitutionally acceptable way of dealing with existing equal pay claims,” Wagstaff said.”

           http://www.sfwu.org/article.php?group_id=1318
       • Foreign waka 1.1.1.3

         9 November 2017 at 7:31 pm

         I belief that you should give the process time and the new government the courtesy to get on with it. This impatient “are we there yet” sprouted is petulant.
         Lets not forget, there is almost a decade of files, documents with the proverbial small print to go through. Better to take the time and get it right than mucking about or just pulling the rug because things are “difficult”.
         I am sure that the comments by the then government that the settlement for the aged care workers was a “one off” has spurned the review.
   • tracey 1.2

     9 November 2017 at 10:49 am

     I think they have only been government for about a month. I might be wrong.
     • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1

       9 November 2017 at 12:12 pm

       Better way of putting it IMO is that Parliament only just sat properly for the first time yesterday, and the Nats tried to run out the clock during that sitting. Can’t blame them for not yet having a bill before the house when there’s literally been no time to get one there.

       (also, the very first bill WAS one that will help with functional pay equity- extending paid parental leave)

       I don’t recall John Key facing these unrealistic timetables.
       • tracey 1.2.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 12:38 pm

         No, well he had to wait for his “Forum” in 2009 which was going to be a do-fest not a talk-fest…and would give all the answers to the creation and protection of jobs during the GFC that we couldn’t get from him during the 2008 election. From memory we eventually got

         90 day trials (but only for big businesses so don’t worry, but then became for all businesses)
         Subsidies to employers to keep people in work
         Cycle trail
         • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.1.1

           9 November 2017 at 9:26 pm

           LOL yes, thanks for the reminder. Got that was incompetent. Makes the starting fumbles of this government look like bloody genius in comparison huh?
     • Antoine 1.2.2

       9 November 2017 at 12:52 pm

       I don’t mind their timeframe, I just objected to micky’s headline 🙂
       • tracey 1.2.2.1

         9 November 2017 at 12:55 pm

         Semantics and irrelevant int he context of the Bill knocked out.
2. Janice 2

   9 November 2017 at 8:51 am

   One of the first things that the Natz did in 2008 was to close down the office working for pay equity within the Labour Department. I recall requests through my networks for someone to take the documents relating to this work. The women working in the office felt that they had to walk out and leave all the work they had done on pay equity to be shredded. Perhaps someone else remembers this as well.
   • tc 2.1

     9 November 2017 at 9:28 am

     This is the type of action that needs to be highlighted by the govt so people can connect the dots. Keep doing this across all the portfolios so a picture of wilful and deliberate destruction is built up and hammered home over the next 3 years.

     This govt needs to bear in mind it’s got the MSM/corporatocracy up against it so a strategy that get the message out and repeats it over and over is required.

     Next election people need to go to the polls full of publicly available data about the gutting that’s been undertaken over the last 9 years and who benefited from it.
3. JanM 3

   9 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

   He he – Cinderella and the Ugly Sisters!
   • tracey 3.1

     9 November 2017 at 3:30 pm

     Let us not forget these 3 would be acting as part of an agreed strategy which would surely include Bill English and Steven Joyce.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS