Where’s their evidence?

Written By: - Date published: 2:00 pm, July 26th, 2010 - 13 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, workers' rights - Tags:

The attack on our work rights looks a lot like the mining policy. Big promises: it’ll boost growth, it’ll cut costs, it’ll create jobs.

But where’s the evidence?

The other writers here and people all over have put up plenty of evidence that striping our work rights will have the opposite effect. It’ll hamper growth. Hamper labour market flexiblity. Hurt wages. Even enocurage workers to get unionised.

But it’s not our job to show National’s latest dumb idea is dumb. National wants to make a change, they’ve got to make a powerful case that the change will have the results they claim.

So where’s their evidence? Where are the models, the studies, the scenarios?

They haven’t got any. The minister can’t even front to offer any defence.

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

This is guess based government. The guess being that they can take away our rights and hand our wealth to the wealthy and we’ll keep voting for that Nice Man Mr Key.

13 comments on “Where’s their evidence?”

  1. Mike 1

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

    • lprent 1.1

      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?

    • 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

    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

      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

        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

    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

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

    • 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

    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


  7. 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

    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.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    1 week ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Tax refund season ends near $600 million
    Almost $600 million has been paid into taxpayers’ bank accounts in the past two months, after the first season of automatic tax assessments. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says the completion of this year’s tax refund season is a significant milestone. “The ability of Inland Revenue to run auto calculations for ...
    3 weeks ago