What it’s about

101 comments on “What it’s about ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   2 March 2009 at 12:50 pm

   But an employer wont fire a good worker, there is no point.
   • Quoth the Raven 1.1

     2 March 2009 at 12:56 pm

     Yes all employers are perfectly rational, they’re never petty and vindictive.
   • Tane 1.2

     2 March 2009 at 1:01 pm

     Oh, I am getting tired of arguing this. I was even tired writing the post but felt it had to be done.

     Employers fire “good workers” unfairly, it happens already. It’s just that right now people in that situation have a right to appeal. That right’s been removed.

     You’re also assuming a level of rationality for employers that, like all human beings, they simply don’t have. People are influenced by fear, prejudice, jealousy, malice and any other emotion you can name. That’s why we have employment laws, so that people’s livelihoods aren’t subject to arbitrary whim.
   • Felix 1.3

     2 March 2009 at 1:12 pm

     No Brett,

     A good employer won’t fire a good worker.
   • Akldnut 1.4

     2 March 2009 at 3:36 pm

     Brett you must be living in the same world as that bloody rabbit 4-5 posts ago.
     There are a number of cicumstance changes that could and would lead to a good worker being sacked.
2. gingercrush 2

   2 March 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Its you that doesn’t get it. This new law allows employers to get rid of someone that has been found to be either lazy, not a good employee etc etc and be able to rid them without going through an unnecessary process of firing them. Yes some people will get fired when they themselves were good workers. Yes some employers will abuse such a system. But overall, it is a standard process seen in a number of countries that will prove to have been a good thing.
   • Matthew Pilott 2.1

     2 March 2009 at 1:07 pm

     It also allows them to get rid of someone because they are black, have ‘the wrong attitude’, get on their boss’ nerves, or do one of any number of tiny, inconsequential actions that might annoy someone briefly, but wouldn’t warrant them losing their job.

     What you don’t get is that you could already be got rid of for the reasons you give – the law change means you can now be fired for something that is not grounds for dismissal. That’s the only change – what is difficult to get about that?!
     • gingercrush 2.1.1

       2 March 2009 at 1:14 pm

       It removes that process which takes more than just saying someone is no longer employed. As everyone who has even owned a business or been employed knows. And as for someone being fired for being black. If that was the case, they could make a claim. And surely if you’re that racist that you would fire someone for being black. You wouldn’t hire that person in the first place?
       • Steve Pierson 2.1.1.1

         2 March 2009 at 1:22 pm

         A person fired on racist or illegal grounds can’t make a claim gingercrush, that’s the bloody point. As long as the employer says the reason for the dismissal is performance, the employee has no right to challenge the dismissal in any way.

         It invites and protects abuse, that’s not good policy
         • IrishBill 2.1.1.1.1

           2 March 2009 at 1:35 pm

           They don’t even have to say the dismissal was performance. In fact they don’t have to give a reason at all.
         • RedLogix 2.1.1.1.2

           2 March 2009 at 1:42 pm

           Just yesterday I had a mate visit (we were planning some refit work). Last time we met he said he had gotten onto the wrong side of a senior (not direct) supervisor at his day job. I won’t bore the crap out everyone with the details, suffice to say after over 12 months on the job with no problems; suddenly less than fortnight after a bit of ‘verbal barney’ on the job, he is being summoned to a meeting to discuss ‘perfomance issues’.

           I ask you to trust me here. I’ve known this man over 10 years. We’ve been through some pretty tough jobs together… you could not hope to employ a more capable, hard-working and effective employee. Yet out of the blue he has ‘performance issues’? My arse.

           Fortunately he was there longer than six months, but if that were not the case, how very easily this supervisor would be able to abuse this law change to unilaterally sack my friend, with no legal recourse or hope of justice whatsoever.

           Bad law. National will come to regret it.
     • Brett Dale 2.1.2

       2 March 2009 at 1:36 pm

       It allows them to get rid of someone that is Black?

       Why would someone fire someone because of the colour of their skin, Matthew?
       • Tane 2.1.2.1

         2 March 2009 at 1:41 pm

         Because they’re irrational Brett. Because people are not always rational at all times.
         • QoT 2.1.2.1.1

           2 March 2009 at 2:39 pm

           Does it worry you, Tane, that this still needs to be explained to people? It worries me. I mean, even working on my usual assumption that Brett’s facetiousness button is jammed permanently to “On”, there are people who sincerely think that way.
   • lprent 2.2

     2 March 2009 at 1:11 pm

     Perhaps we should just raise the penalties for employers abusing this ‘right’. I’d suggest a wall and a firing squad because frankly lousy employers cause a bad name for all employers. At present the penalties are a bit lax.

     Of course the problem would be that under this law, they couldn’t be prosecuted anyway. An employee rejecting unwanted sexual advances would be fired by the employer for inadequate performance (in their opinion). The employer could just keep cycling employees until they found compliance. The same for the various other types of employer abuse that I’ve seen.

     In the absence of laws protecting vulnerable workers – perhaps we should institute lynch mobs for poor employers? Of course that wouldn’t reduce the number of contributors to the NACT, would it?

     sarcasm mode off…
   • Tane 2.3

     2 March 2009 at 1:24 pm

     Actually gc, Australia’s looking at repealing it. It was a similar law over there that led to the downfall of the Howard government.
3. Steve Pierson 3

   2 March 2009 at 1:30 pm

   Brett. Reasoning doesn’t stop being flawed just because you keep repeating it. In your case, quite the reverse.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   2 March 2009 at 1:49 pm

   Sorry, Irish, you’re quite right. And the Nats voted down the amendment that would have required a written reason to be supplied to the employee.

   Brett. it allows dismissal without a reason having to be given and without the worker having recourse to any authority if they believe the dismissal was illegal or in breach of human rights. so, yes, one could be fired for being black. It’s a little worrying that you have to ask such a basic question about a law you’ve been so keen to support.
5. Brett Dale 5

   2 March 2009 at 1:52 pm

   But if someone is going to fire someone simply because they are black, surly they wouldn’t hire them in the first place.
   • Felix 5.1

     2 March 2009 at 1:59 pm

     Ok Brett,

     What if you hired someone who seemed ok but they turn out to be really fucking thick. It doesn’t affect their performance, it’s not a hard job and they do the job well.

     But you just decide that you don’t like them because they’re thick. They say really, really dense things all the time, they can’t grasp the most basic logical concepts and you just don’t like thick people.

     Fair enough to fire them?
   • Ari 5.2

     2 March 2009 at 2:57 pm

     What if they’re gay? 😛
   • Akldnut 5.3

     2 March 2009 at 4:00 pm

     Brett you don’t take into account a new business owner who dosn’t like the colour of a recently new employees skin. My complaint is not the intention of the law which is apprently to improve business but with the associated cost that comes with it ie. employee vulnerability (regardless of race , creed, colour or gender) and unreasonble ASSHOLE employers (because there are a few out there and that was before this law came into effect).

     The balance has gone way past being reasonable. A step into the past….. my oh my, what short memories Kiwis have.
6. RedLogix 6

   2 March 2009 at 1:55 pm

   Well fuck me Brett, maybe they just TURNED black two weeks into the job.
   • higherstandard 6.1

     2 March 2009 at 1:56 pm

     “Now stop that or the nigger gets it” ………. holds gun to own head
7. higherstandard 7

   2 March 2009 at 1:55 pm

   How much notice does an employer (or employee) have to give under this new law ?

   What are the penalties for those employers who chug through staff in three monthly intervals ?

   I’d also be interested in some informed debate about which industries you see this law being abused in and the rationale as to why it would be abused in those industries ; low training costs etc etc.

   In between the emotive outbursts on both sides what we tend to forget is that most employers/employees aren’t rat bags.

   I suspect this law will be a bit of a fizzer all round with little impact on the employment market in terms of extra hiring or extra firing.
   • RedLogix 7.1

     2 March 2009 at 2:04 pm

     In between the emotive outbursts on both sides what we tend to forget is that most employers/employees aren’t rat bags.

     Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but in my experience about 1/3 are great leaders you would crawl over broken glass for, 1/3 are decent people if a tad uninspiring… and the other 1/3 are sociopathic incompetents whose sole purpose is making life as miserable as possible for every poor bastard they wield their petty tyrannical power over.

     (And at my age I have a decent sample size to draw on.)
     • higherstandard 7.1.1

       2 March 2009 at 2:06 pm

       I’m probably as aged if not more aged than you and I’d suggest it’s more like 5%, 90% and 5%.
       • RedLogix 7.1.1.1

         2 March 2009 at 2:12 pm

         Ok.. I go with your 5%, but that is still one hell of a lot of people at risk here. Especially in minimum-wage, high turnover occupations where the workers are already highly vulnerable already.
         • higherstandard 7.1.1.1.1

           2 March 2009 at 2:16 pm

           See comment further down re suck it and see.

           In terms to the swines that are out there (at various levels) in some companies they’re just as likely to keep people there to make their lives a misery.
8. gingercrush 8

   2 March 2009 at 1:58 pm

   I think I’m thick. It seems I am incapable of finding this legislation online.
   • Steve Pierson 8.1

     2 March 2009 at 2:16 pm

     It amends the Employment Relations Act. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0106/latest/DLM1765606.html
9. Steve Pierson 9

   2 March 2009 at 2:02 pm

   Brett. It’s an example you dumbfuck. How about this one instead, you could be fired for getting pregnant (cue Brett: ‘but I’m a dude, I can’t get pregnant’)

   HS. Most employers aren’t ratbags, but there’s no reason to make laws to enable and protect thsoe who are.

   fastfood, hospitality, they’re industries that already ahve vulnerable workers, who will be even more vulnerable now.

   And remember, this is just the start. National/ACT wants all workers to be covered, not just those working for SMEs. In the original policy, to which they would like to return, the probatioanry period would have been automatic and there wouldn’t have even been the nominal protectiosn for human rights there are now.
   • gingercrush 9.1

     2 March 2009 at 2:06 pm

     No offense but is it necessary to call someone a dumbfuck? In fact, its quite disturbing to watch some of the comments being made here in that several people seem to be engaging in personal attacks and calling people dumbfucks, assholes etc. Does this blog really want to go down the route of Kiwiblog where commentators are constantly being personally attacked? One reason I post here rather than at Kiwiblog is because this stuff wasn’t happening. And yet sadly, personal attacks here are becoming more and more common.
     • George Darroch 9.1.1

       2 March 2009 at 2:10 pm

       Yeah, personal attacks aren’t cool. Your blog, and I don’t have to be here if I don’t like it and all, but just saying it doesn’t set a great tone.
     • Felix 9.1.2

       2 March 2009 at 2:13 pm

       In this case, at this stage of the conversation, after this many repetitions, with such simple concepts involved, and with the established pattern of behaviour taken into account?

       Yes. It is necessary.

       Or as Brett would put it, “Just don’t be a dumbfuck and you have nothing to worry about”.
   • Felix 9.2

     2 March 2009 at 2:09 pm

     So just don’t get pregnant and you have nothing to worry about.

     An employer won’t fire an un-impregnated worker, there is no point.
     • higherstandard 9.2.1

       2 March 2009 at 2:13 pm

       Pregnancy is rather a bad example for a number of reasons which I’m sure you all can figure out.
       • QoT 9.2.1.1

         2 March 2009 at 2:42 pm

         Oh, HS, do go on. I’m dying to know what makes pregnancy a bad example. What with it being a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act and all.
         • higherstandard 9.2.1.1.1

           2 March 2009 at 2:45 pm

           see below where I’ve replied to SP.
   • higherstandard 9.3

     2 March 2009 at 2:10 pm

     I think this will be a case of “suck it and see”

     There’s little to be done at present – if after a month or six of the law being in place there are cases of abuse it’s up to the parties in opposition, the Unions and the MSM to kick up a hell of a fuss.

     That’s just me opinion though.
10. Brett Dale 10

    2 March 2009 at 2:10 pm

    Felix

    If a worker is a bit dense, but still does his/her job well, then its the employer that is thick if they fire them.

    Its also that employer’s right to let someone go, who they cant work with.

    Clinton:
    Yes Im a dumb fuck, but at least I could come up with a better name to post under than Steve Pierson, how about, Brian McGee?
    • Felix 10.1

      2 March 2009 at 2:15 pm

      How about kiwiman?
11. Brett Dale 11

    2 March 2009 at 2:19 pm

    felix:

    Kiwiman is dead, I perfer thrillhouse.
12. RedLogix 12

    2 March 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Brett,

    Still haven’t figured out how a worker could be sacked for being black then?

    I gave you a big fat hint above, but do I have to spell it out?
    • Felix 12.1

      2 March 2009 at 2:23 pm

      Brett doesn’t see race.
13. Brett Dale 13

    2 March 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Anyone could and should be sacked if they dont do their job properly.

    I also think there will be only a very small percentage of employers that will sack a good worker because they don’t like the colour of their skin or their religion or their culture, etc etc etc.

    By the way, how many people have been sacked so far because of the colour of their skin?

    Zero?
14. RedLogix 14

    2 March 2009 at 2:25 pm

    But if someone is going to fire someone simply because they are black, surely they wouldn’t hire them in the first place.

    Come on buddy think about it.
15. Steve Pierson 15

    2 March 2009 at 2:25 pm

    HS. It’s a good example. It’s a breach of human rights to discrminate against someone for being pregnant (check the BORA) and firing someone for being pregnant is completely protected by this new law.

    Brett, sorry for my outburst but the blog is for having real discussions yet we seem to spend half the time trying to get you up to handling the basic concepts. Ignorance isn’t in itself a sin, being so damn sure of yourself at the same time is annoying.
    I don’t get the Brain McGee thing.
    • Felix 15.1

      2 March 2009 at 2:30 pm

      SP,

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZKiLx9X320
    • higherstandard 15.2

      2 March 2009 at 2:43 pm

      For the sake of clarification ….. if someone gets pregnant during the probationary period ..

      1. they might not know they’re pregnant
      2. they could almost certainly hide that fact from an employer if they wanted to
      • QoT 15.2.1

        2 March 2009 at 2:46 pm

        And that would make it okay to fire them WHY HS?
        • higherstandard 15.2.1.1

          2 March 2009 at 3:28 pm

          Did I say it was OK to fire them because they were pregnant … no I said it was a poor example to use as it is most unlikely to be a situation which comes up in relation to this legislation.

          Now off to interview someone……. note to self….. must remember to ask them if they’re pregnant so as not to hire them if they are.
          • QoT 15.2.1.1.1

            2 March 2009 at 7:33 pm

            So … pregnancy is a bad example because Wimminz Is Sneaky B*tches?

            Please, HS, please do ask your interviewee if they’re pregnant. Or married, even. Or planning to have kids. I always love to see rightwing douchebags deliberately, callously, and with no sense of shame breaking the law.
      • Ari 15.2.2

        2 March 2009 at 3:32 pm

        Why should employees be encouraged by the law to hide that sort of thing? Good employee relations are important, not just for reliability but also for productivity.

        That’s even aside from the foct, as QoT already mentioned, that you should not be able to fire people for that. 😉
      • Akldnut 15.2.3

        2 March 2009 at 4:24 pm

        HS someone who is 4-5 maybe even 6 mths pregnant might not be showing and could be employed but won’t hide it for ninety days.
        Whereas I have known a women who worked right up till the last week as recently as last month and she is already back at work after 1 1/2 weeks.
        Under this law had she been a new employee it would probably have been “OUT THE DOOR LADY”.
        It just makes good business sense.
        How many employers do you no that would have held her job. Her being a new mother – I suspect not many
        • higherstandard 15.2.3.1

          2 March 2009 at 4:33 pm

          Alkdnut and Ari

          It makes good sense for employers to ask female staff if they are pregnant or plan to get pregnant within the next x months before they hire said employees as they may not wish to employ/train a staff member who will be off work for a period of time/may not be able to do the job they’re employed to do.
          • QoT 15.2.3.1.1

            2 March 2009 at 7:36 pm

            Good sense? Only if you’re a sexist pig.
16. Brett Dale 16

    2 March 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Felix:

    100 correct.

    When the last thing we notice is the color of skin,
    And the first thing we look for is the beauty within,
    When the skies and the oceans are clean again,
    Then we shall be free.

    Steve:

    Brian McGee, was the name Homer Simpson used on this fake ID to buy beer when he was 17.
    • QoT 16.1

      2 March 2009 at 2:46 pm

      Brett, seriously. Does someone actually need to explain to you that race isn’t actually always immediately apparent? GODDAMMIT I HAVE DONE *SO* WELL TODAY, I REFUSE TO GODWIN THIS.
      • Matthew Pilott 16.1.1

        2 March 2009 at 3:03 pm

        heh, I see what you mean. Just say it, I dares ya… Remeber, Brett doesn’t see race. Maybe that extends to religion, if ya know what I mean…
    • Quoth the Raven 16.2

      2 March 2009 at 7:47 pm

      Brett – You could just say the old maxim race is racism. Try getting some rightwingers to agree with you on that one Brett.
17. Steve Pierson 17

    2 March 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Oh, yeah, he sings the song. great reference. now, I’m overcome with warm feelings toward you.

    God I’m a forgiving chap.
18. Matthew Pilott 18

    2 March 2009 at 3:01 pm

    So, have we got to the point yet whereby we realise people aren’t always rational, the old law dealt with reasons why you’d fire someone when there were grounds for dismissal, and the new law merely allows you to get rid of someone when there are no grounds for dismissal?

    HS – if someone doesn’t know they were pregnant during a probationary period, then I’d wonder how their employer would be able to find out and act upon that information. I don’t think that particular scenario is of much value to the debate.
19. The Voice of Reason 19

    2 March 2009 at 3:05 pm

    What about personal responsibility? If I hire the wrong person, why should that person be fired, when it was my fault for not interviewing properly, doing the reference checks, etc? Why am I not copping the order of the boot myself for my own failings?

    As it happens, I have hired a lot of people down the years. I’ve only fired one and a process was followed that ended with both parties happy. No drama, no distress. It’s not hard to end an employment relationship fairly, if you know what you are doing and are committed to fairness in the first place.

    This is a charter for bullies, bigots and workplace rapists to abuse their employees. It’s great that the unions are setting up a website to name and shame abusers. Should we also start a sweepstake on when the first boss is physically attacked by a sacked worker, because all reasonable avenues of appeal have been removed? Would I be safe to assume the senseless sentencing trust would take the side of the worker?
    • higherstandard 19.1

      2 March 2009 at 3:31 pm

      “No drama, no distress. It’s not hard to end an employment relationship fairly, if you know what you are doing and are committed to fairness in the first place.”

      Barry Matthews ?
      Clint Rickards ?

      In the case of these two wouldn’t it have been nice for their boss to be able to just say “clear your desk and fuck off I never want to see or hear from you again”
20. BLiP 20

    2 March 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Given the impact employers now have on the lives of new staff perhaps its time we look at licensing them? Legislate for all employers to have to pass a test of how to deal appropriately with staff, the minimum conditions like hours of work and safety protocols required for employment. At least there could be some assurance that employers know the minimum required. At the moment, there is no such guarantee.
    • higherstandard 20.1

      2 March 2009 at 3:36 pm

      Given the impact employees now have on business perhaps its time we look at licensing them? Legislate for all employees to have to pass a test of how to deal appropriately with customers, clients, other staff and their employer.

      At least there could be some assurance that employee would have know the minimum required of them.

      At the moment, there is no such guarantee.

      ……. From the opposite viewpoint … and just as silly in relation to most employees or employers.
      • BLiP 20.1.1

        2 March 2009 at 3:51 pm

        Better unemployed than exploited
        • higherstandard 20.1.1.1

          2 March 2009 at 4:08 pm

          I quite agree.
    • Billy 20.2

      2 March 2009 at 3:39 pm

      That’s what we need in a recession BLiP. Ways to make it harder to employ people.
21. RedLogix 21

    2 March 2009 at 3:29 pm

    This is a charter for bullies, bigots and workplace rapists to abuse their employees.

    Absolutely. Well put.

    Most folk here under the age of say 40 will have little or no first hand memory of the amount of sexual crime that used to be commonplace in many workplaces.

    Anyone recall the crude old joke that went, “What’s the difference between a politician and a foreman? Well the politician needs to know the FACTS about the COUNTry.. and the foreman needs to know the..” . hell you can work it out for yourself.

    Point is, it was only funny because it was true. Most working class women your mother’s age almost certainly had direct or very close experience with this kind of thing. And the perpetrators only got away with it because their victims were afraid of speaking out and loosing their jobs. It was very real, and very pervasive. A dark ugly secret from the so-called ‘good old days’.

    Now I do know that current law still extends far better protection than it did 30 plus years ago, But this law change need only ONE clear and well publicised example of an employer exploiting it to sexually abuse young and vulnerable employees, and National will have made themselves a very big stick to be quite justly beaten with.
    • higherstandard 21.1

      2 March 2009 at 3:40 pm

      “This is a charter for bullies, bigots and workplace rapists to abuse their employees.”

      “Well put”

      No it’s not well put at all – it’s that kind of bombastic over reaction that makes people turn off or get into opposing corners as per the anti smacking debate.
      • RedLogix 21.1.1

        2 March 2009 at 4:09 pm

        So exactly how would you put it then? Non-bombastically as it were.

        And could you locate for me which other corner were you proposing to occupy re workplace sex abuse? Just curious.
        • higherstandard 21.1.1.1

          2 March 2009 at 4:13 pm

          Don’t be a buffoon to suggest that this legislation is giving carte blanche for sexual abuse, bullying and bigotry is absurd and will obscure the real debate that needs to occur.
          • RedLogix 21.1.1.1.1

            2 March 2009 at 5:53 pm

            Across the board? No I would imagine that most people would know how to stand up for themselves these days. The kind of disgraceful behaviour our mother’s generation had to put up is far less tolerated nowadays.

            But at the margins, yes this law change will embolden some bastard employers to exploit vulnerable workers, in ways they felt they couldn’t get away with before. And the deeply negative employment outlook we are currently facing, will only exacerbate the power imbalance. As I said above, it will only take ONE egregious case to make this whole thing backfire on National badly.

            And why would even that ONE case be an acceptable price to pay?
22. The Voice of Reason 22

    2 March 2009 at 4:31 pm

    HS: Clint Rickards is the wrong example to use. Eventually, he did part company with the Police, after negotiation and in accordance with their internal process. Had he be found guilty of the crimes for which he was charged, he would have been fired instead.

    He did however, acknowlege some appalling behaviour, mostly based around his (and others’) misuse of the power imbalance in the relationships they had with young women in the BOP.

    The Fire at Will legislation legalises that power imbalance in our workplaces. Imagine if Rickards was an employer at the time, not a copper. Now imagine he’s an employer offering your Mum, sister or daughter a job.

    Geddit?
    • higherstandard 22.1

      2 March 2009 at 4:40 pm

      VOR

      Nope I don’t geddit – Clint Rickards behaved like an unmitigated cunt abusing his position – his employer should have been able to sack him forthwith for behaviour unbecoming (at the very least).

      The legislation does not legalise the power imbalance in workplaces – as I understand it employees are legally able to walk out of a job at will (unless their contract forbids it).

      To suggest that this legislation seeks to condone or allow the kind of behaviour displayed by Rickards is absurd.
      • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1

        2 March 2009 at 10:38 pm

        A coupla points:

        In a conversation about gender issues and such, when discussing Clint Rickards behaviour towards young women, unmitigated cunt is a fucking stupid choice of epithet. At any other time it’s also pretty shit. I’ve not seen you use it before, so I guess you used it deliberately, which implies that you thought about it. Just not very hard. Jesus wept man, I realise you meant to say that he was the worst of the worse, but isn’t it a bit fucking wrong that the word you chose to express that contempt was… tick tick tick brain working yet doctor?

        re the asking about intent to have a baby at the job interview. All hunky dory is it? So what happens if the candidate says and means ‘no’, but doesn’t know she is already pregnant? Or gets pregnant in the first ninety days without intending to? Sack her I guess, oops can’t do that it’s against the law… oops no it isn’t. Thanks National!
        • higherstandard 22.1.1.1

          3 March 2009 at 8:29 am

          “Jesus wept” from an atheist felchtard ??

          Let me repeat Clint Rickards is a MENDACIOUS C.U.N.T if you don’t like the terminology go and have a cry at the next FA meeting
          • Pascal's bookie 22.1.1.1.1

            3 March 2009 at 9:14 am

            Who’s crying? And why shouldn’t an atheist blaspheme?

            Say what you want. I don’t fucking care. Others will judge you by your words though. There’s some stuff in your god book about that. Seems that’s something else I know more about than you.

            If you don’t like me calling you out for your hypocritical bullshit, tough luck.
          • higherstandard 22.1.1.1.2

            3 March 2009 at 9:21 am

            If you don’t fucking care why not just walk away instead of weeping all over the blog.

            I’d suggest the only subjects that you know more about than me are the benefits of life service at felchtards anonymous and hand wringing.
23. Strathen 23

    2 March 2009 at 4:59 pm

    I have a question. Why is not better to allow employers who are bigoted et al, the right to fire people they don’t like within 30 days?

    Let me elaborate. Employee’s caught in a workplace that is bullying them or offering a hostile environment, generally (please prove me wrong) don’t leave until the damage is done. Depression is apparently on the rise and how much does a bad workplace contribute to this? Perhaps an employer doesn’t like a new employee because they turn out to be thick, a non-preferred race, over religious etc, and they get rid of them. Is this not better than a non-harmonious workplace where there are only up to 20 employees and the ability to avoid that person is remote which leads to an erosion of the mind and that (good) employees ability to work in the future?

    [Tane: Because people should not have to put up with bullying or harassment of any kind in the workplace. That you think the answer is to reward racist, bigoted employers by allowing them to sack minorities more easily speaks volumes.]
    • Strathen 23.1

      2 March 2009 at 8:22 pm

      Get out of the wrong side of the bed Tane?

      Doesn’t that go against what you said earlier ‘People are influenced by fear, prejudice, jealousy, malice and any other emotion you can name.’ Tane March 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm – and – ‘Because they’re irrational Brett. Because people are not always rational at all times.’ Tane March 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm

      Just like employers are irrational and influenced by blah blah, so too are employees. Some stay in workplaces where they are not a cultural fit and therefore leads to depression. (Perhaps bullying was the wrong word on my part)

      As for the second part of your reply. I’m unsure where I made it clear this was my answer. More offering a different angle on the discussion to be debated. Everyone talks about a bigoted/racist/etc boss who will abuse this law. I want to take that discussion to another level and see if it is such a bad thing against them hiring someone they find out has opposite values to them and therefore there is a massive clash. This could be very negative for the company as a whole and could have an effect on the other employees to the point that the business goes under. Then we have up to 20 people out of work.

      I think this is even more poignant given the current economic conditions where some people may stay in jobs that are not right for them due to the fear of not finding another job.

      If you still think I’m speaking volumes of being a racist or bigot please do not reply as this hypothetical discussion is probably over your head.
24. Billy 24

    2 March 2009 at 5:35 pm

    RL, You think that joke is funny?
    • RedLogix 24.1

      2 March 2009 at 6:48 pm

      Yeah I didn’t make it clear… of course not.

      But I’ll come clean on this; 45 years ago when I was young and very stupid, I DID think it was funny. And so did most of my mates at the time, uproarious. That’s just how we were back then.

      Weird… of all the sad pathetic ‘jokes’ to have remembered all these years.
25. The Voice of Reason 25

    2 March 2009 at 6:27 pm

    HS: If only Rickards could have been sacked at the time he was doing these things. The problem was that it only came out years afterwards and that kind of crap was, in the context of Police behaviour at the time, acceptable within the force and hushed up in the wider community. As indeed was kiddy fiddling in churches, molestation within the home and sexual harrassment in the workplace.

    Very little sexual abuse is reported, even now. Most if it, like bullying, is done without witnesses. No witness, no crime.

    This legislation, whether it intends to or not, makes it easier to get away with abuse. Fact.

    RedLogix: Ta for the compliment, luv your stuff, too!
26. higherstandard 26

    2 March 2009 at 6:42 pm

    “This legislation, whether it intends to or not, makes it easier to get away with abuse. Fact.”

    Bullshit !

    This legislation allows for workers to be fired after 90 days it does not repeat does not include a clause which makes it OK, legal, acceptable or whatever to sexually abuse anyone.
    • Felix 26.1

      2 March 2009 at 6:51 pm

      Note the use of the phrase “whether it intends to or not”.

      TVoR is not arguing that the legislation includes such a clause, so with whom are you arguing that it doesn’t? Someone from the land of Oz, perhaps?
      • RedLogix 26.1.1

        2 March 2009 at 7:09 pm

        This legislation allows for workers to be fired after 90 days it does not repeat does not include a clause which makes it OK, legal, acceptable or whatever to sexually abuse anyone.

        Even back in the bad old days sexual abuse was never legally acceptable, but the power imbalance that existed back then, abetted by paloelithic social attitudes, meant that most of the time the bastards got away with it.

        This law change is a significant step back to restoring that kind of unfair power imbalance. And as the employment situation worsens, it will surely open up a dark old door that would have been better left firmly bolted.
        • higherstandard 26.1.1.1

          2 March 2009 at 7:14 pm

          Garbage

          It is illegal to sexually abuse anyone, this law does not change that fact one iota, any staff member whether newly employed or not can and should go straight to the police/union/lawyer if they are being abused.

          To suggest that this law is going to increase or decrease sexual abuse of workers in NZ is just plain wrong.
          • RedLogix 26.1.1.1.1

            2 March 2009 at 7:23 pm

            Why so garbage? Talk with any working class women from that era. They know all about it. It was illegal then too, and of course they could have gone straight to the police/union/lawyer.That is what you and I would do, we are both educated, confident and articulate people, we know how to look after ourselves. But in those times they almost never did, they put up with it, or left the job to get away from it.

            Abusers are cowardly wretches who seek out vulnerable people they can manipulate. They primarily do it by exploiting a power imbalance, as pedophiles do when they are grooming children.
      • higherstandard 26.1.2

        2 March 2009 at 7:15 pm

        You’d know more about OZ than me with your Chinese street drugs…. feck this reply function seems not to be putting responses in the right place
        • Felix 26.1.2.1

          2 March 2009 at 7:35 pm

          I was referring to your ridiculous strawman.

          As I think you know.
          • higherstandard 26.1.2.1.1

            2 March 2009 at 7:47 pm

            I think people may have been smoking too many strawmen if they believe that this legislation is going to increase sexual abuse of employees in NZ.
          • Felix 26.1.2.1.2

            2 March 2009 at 8:09 pm

            Whatever.

            Your mask is slipping. Bring on burt.
    • Akldnut 26.2

      3 March 2009 at 8:14 am

      Thats news to me, I thought this legislation allowed for workers to be fired before 90 days?
27. higherstandard 27

    2 March 2009 at 7:10 pm

    ..
    • Pascal's bookie 27.1

      3 March 2009 at 9:48 am

      Your best comment in weeks.
      • higherstandard 27.1.1

        3 March 2009 at 10:36 am

        Awww Pascal’s boobie is in love with me ….shucks
28. Linda Axford 28

    2 March 2009 at 10:54 pm

    Where I work it’s the employer who’s the incompetent one…, who do we go to?
29. jimbo 29

    3 March 2009 at 3:14 pm

    It’s boring arguing this now. You guys won’t even acknowledge that ANY arguments in favour of this law exist. You also won’t acknowledge the re-balancing that it is trying to achieve (i.e. make TRIAL periods possible to lower the cost of employing someone for SMALL BUSINESSES ONLY).

    You dress up your rhetoric is lofty terms like “workers rights”, you insult anyone who argues in favour of the law, but at the end of the day your oppositions can be boiled down to the following: (1) employers are ALWAYS mean and nasty and will exploit their ability to “fire at will” even though they have a financial dis-incentive to do so; and (2) job applicants are NEVER gaming the system just to get a job, always work hard, never turn out to deliver way less than they promise at the interview.

    Despite all the rubbish about supporters “not understanding”, your opposition to the law is one-dimensional and weak.

    Labour will not repeal it when they next get into power.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS