Where’s their evidence?

13 comments on “Where’s their evidence? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mike 1

   26 July 2010 at 2:14 pm

   Where is the evidence that implementing this 90 day trial period will lead to a massive increase of unjustified dismissals?
   • lprent 1.1

     26 July 2010 at 2:41 pm

     There is no evidence that the current fire at will act does what it is meant to – increase labour market flexibility or the number of people being employed.

     Surely even a bozo (like yourself?) would want to see some evidence that a ‘trial’ change is working before proceeding on to apply it to the whole labour market. That seems prudent for anyone who isn’t just being ideologically stupid…

     Of course our current Minister of Labour didn’t think to put in place any way of measuring those things. Probably because she was scared that the results would show the depth of her ideological stupidity exceeded Gerry Brownlees?
   • mickysavage 1.2

     27 July 2010 at 9:14 am

     Where is the evidence that implementing this 90 day trial period will lead to a massive increase of unjustified dismissals?

     I thought that you should use a lack of evidence to support retention of the status quo. You seem to be suggesting that a lack of evidence supports radical change.

     You have just officially missed the point of the post …
2. Tigger 2

   26 July 2010 at 2:30 pm

   What about that DOL study, Z? Isn’t that evidence enough? Sure, they only spoke to like half a worker and a billion employers but what more do you want – an actual, unbiased study? A reasoned and relevant thinktank? Some fresh ideas? Why waste all that money when that nice Mr Key knows what he’s doing…
   • toad 2.1

     26 July 2010 at 2:37 pm

     What’s more, Tigger, the DoL study concluded:

     The ability to use trial periods appeared to have encouraged 40% of employers who had hired someone to do so, however without any counterfactual evidence it cannot be stated categorically that trial periods had created extra job opportunities. The international literature suggests that exemptions to employment protection legislation, such as the trial period legislation, increase both hiring and firing but have an unclear overall impact on unemployment.

     So even one the one issue, trial periods, where they have done some research, methodologically unsound as it is, it doesn’t support their policy.

     As for the holidays changes, workplace access, and communicating directly with employees in collective agreement negotiations, they haven’t released anything of substance to attempt to justify those policies – just empty rhetoric.
     • Tigger 2.1.1

       26 July 2010 at 3:29 pm

       That’s what they want, of course. They don’t want facts, because facts can be tested and argued upon. Rhetoric, on the other hand, can be spun – straw into gold – or in this case bullcrap into law…
3. Bill 3

   26 July 2010 at 2:51 pm

   If a worker has genuine difficulty in performing a job, then shouldn’t the boss be looking at his/her training regime? And if there is no training regime and the boss applies a little time and energy bringing said worker up to scratch, doesn’t that boss get a loyal employee as a bonus in addition to having a competent worker at the end of the day? One whose sense of gratitude might outweigh their sense of umbrage at (say) the low pay they receive?

   I just can’t plumb the depths of some employer’s stupidity in this country.
4. Green Tea 4

   26 July 2010 at 3:07 pm

   Where’s the evidence that supporting the Labour Party makes workers better off?
   • mickysavage 4.1

     27 July 2010 at 9:12 am

     How much do you want?

     Apart from working for families, full employment, increased spend on education and health, and an increased level of wealth across the board …
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   26 July 2010 at 3:17 pm

   This is faith-based government. Based on faith in the neo-liberal god.

   NACT are delusional. So are Labour to a lesser degree as their not looking at getting rid of the failed market experiment either.
6. Jim Nald 6

   27 July 2010 at 12:13 am

   Whoopdeedoo
7. mickysavage 7

   27 July 2010 at 8:36 am

   Good post.

   This is faith-based government. Based on faith in the neo-liberal god.

   The “faith” is a front for raw naked greed, and the belief that if they and their mates have more then everything will be better.
8. Mike 8

   27 July 2010 at 10:40 am

   I have officially missed what point? That we shouldn’t have probation periods because…….? Nothing that has been said so far has convinced me that this is such a bad idea. I am someone who BARELY scraped through high school – no higher education. I rely on my experience and work ethic to secure employment – not wishy-washy pieces of paper saying that I have a BA in bullshit. Employers are, however reluctant to take me on board when they see such an empty education section on my CV, sure my experience is well noted in my CV but how can they be sure that I am who I say I am?

   When working in the UK, I was subjected to a 12 month probation period. My union needed permission from the floor to come and see me. Was I mistreated? No. After 12 months, was I offerred a full time contract? Yes – with a glowing review. Was I promoted just 6 months after being confirmed full time, because my employer was able to see me in action? Yes. Were there grievances witnessed? Yes. Were there protections in place? Not being privy to the detail of the episodes witnessed, I can only assume that there were, as the aggrieved party had their union representative with them and they were still in the job when I left to come home. I have since heard that the person in question got promoted to my old role. Evil employer.

   Unions are a good thing, I am currently a member of a union but I have been part of some very intimidating ones too. I have been threatened to say certain things to the employers, things that did not happen in order to save another union member from sanction. This delegate had no permission from my then employer to come onto the property and threaten me. There was nothing I could do to prevent this from happening. Where was my protection then? I couldn’t even ask my boss to stop this person coming in to see me. I could refuse the meeting, but the person would still be in the same room as I was. I was not going to lie about what had happened, so once I had informed the employer of the truth, I was shut out and shortly after I resigned from that job.

   So where is your evidence? Exactly why is this such a huge issue? Show me and I’ll take it on board, rather than jumping up and down about it. I am a person who is willing to prove to someone that I am a good, honest, reliable worker – one who is willing to work an entire year on probation to prove that. Why others can’t mystifies me, but I accept that others act differently than I do and just get on with my job – and my life.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS