Woodhouse: tough on bad employers?

22 comments on “Woodhouse: tough on bad employers? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   26 March 2015 at 3:42 pm

   Thing is, it’s very easy to promise you’re going to crack down on employers who breach minimum standards … when you’re reducing said standards to make it easier for bad employers to get away with bad behaviour.

   Yep, that was the contradiction that was bugging me when I read about this law.

   I’m all for coming down hard on bad employers but National have been putting in place policies that encourage being a bad employer and, in fact, making being a bad employer legal anyway.
2. Murray Rawshark 2

   26 March 2015 at 6:44 pm

   I see this as just another part of their anti-union drive. “Look guys, you don’t need a union because Woody Woodchuck would chuck wood. Oops, I mean look after your interests and come down hard on employers who breach our non-existent legal standards.”
3. BassGuy 3

   26 March 2015 at 8:21 pm

   A couple of days ago, someone quoted Woodhouse as saying that people don’t have to accept losing their mealbreaks as part of their contract, I think he said ‘Just say no,’ and then went on to say that it wasn’t that hard and he didn’t understand why people have made such a big thing about it.

   Years ago, and I imagine it’s still the same now, WINZ required you to accept a job if you were offered one, and if you didn’t take it you were immediately dumped onto a stand-down. You were free to negotiate, but you couldn’t turn down a job because the conditions didn’t suit you. If this is still the case, you can’t just say no.

   But, to get this back directly on topic, there needs to be some way to “encourage” businesses to be honest. Why I say this is because if someone dobs their employer in to the MBIE and then starts looking for another job this can happen:

   “I can confirm that BassGuy worked here for that period.”

   “I see, what good things can you say about him?”

   “I can only confirm that BassGuy worked here for that period.”

   This works because (I’m told) an employer is not allowed to say something negative about an employee in a reference, and since you’re not saying anything positive about them the unspoken suggestion is meant to be that an employee is a poor one.

   Revenge.
   • The lost sheep 3.1

     26 March 2015 at 11:58 pm

     “This works because (I’m told) an employer is not allowed to say something negative about an employee in a reference,”

     Don’t know who told you that Bassguy, but don’t take any more advice from them. They are talking complete and utter nonsense.
     • BassGuy 3.1.1

       27 March 2015 at 10:11 am

       Actually, it was my employer who told me that. They’re wrong on so many things, why not another?
       • The lost sheep 3.1.1.1

         27 March 2015 at 11:30 am

         Yup. God knows that most businesses only keep running because of the noble efforts of the workers to compensate for the stupidity of the owner. sarc.

         But the employer that told you that was full of shit Bassguy. Fact is, as long as you observe someones privacy, and don’t tell untruths about them, you are perfectly free to give another employer an honest opinion about a prospective employees worth.

         And of course you do, and why would it be otherwise. Fact also is that there are some bad employees out there (just like there are bad employers. FFS, you’d think we are all human!), and if you have experienced them as such, you don’t want another employer to go through the same problems they caused you.

         An employer will normally only be willing to provide a detailed personal reference if they have no hesitation at all about recommending someone to other employers.
         If they have reservations, from very minor strengths and weakness type things through to major issues, they will provide the ‘worked here for x’ statement, and give contact details so that they can discuss these matters in person.
         • BassGuy 3.1.1.1.1

           27 March 2015 at 1:57 pm

           I did a bit of research after your initial post, and came back to say what you’ve said. I’ve not much else to add, you’ve pretty much said it all, particularly the “we’re only human” part.
           • The lost sheep 3.1.1.1.1.1

             27 March 2015 at 2:26 pm

             Probably should have pointed out that in my lifetime experience of being both and employee and an employer, I would say that 17 out of 20 people in both categories are ‘good’, and work honestly in good faith to try and get the best outcome for everyone involved in the enterprise.
             2 out of 20 are o.k.
             1 out of 20 have a negative impact on anyone working with or for them.

             The other thing that might surprise some of you is that for most employers in my experience, by far and away the worst employee is the one that creates problems for other employees.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               27 March 2015 at 3:43 pm

               The question is, why do you vote for the party that represents three out of twenty?
               • The lost sheep …

                 28 March 2015 at 12:58 am

                 because there is such a piss poor range of options available to me as a voter.

                 Why don’t you start a political party OAB? Formed in your image It would be perfect and everyone would vote for it?

                 Post your manifesto, and i will confirm whether or not you have convinced me.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   28 March 2015 at 7:52 am

                   Such a terrible range of options that forces you to vote for the worst possible option. Cry me a river, crocodile boy.
4. Sacha 4

   26 March 2015 at 9:18 pm

   “there needs to be some way to ‘encourage’ businesses to be honest.”

   Good luck with that. Where are the incentives? Where is the leadership?
5. gsays 5

   26 March 2015 at 10:54 pm

   i posted the majority of this comment on open mike in response to a comment by mcflock concerning another forrestry death.
   it seems to fit here too.

   hi mcflock, i read in the paper that a 31 yr old tau henare (no relation to the mp) was massively injured in 2012 when a log rolled on him.
   the company (harvest pro, a subsidiary of kiwi forrestry international) was prosecuted by mbie and ordered to pay $40,000 reparation to mr henare in may 2014.
   the company appealed the decision and lost in oct 2014.
   now the wriggly bastards are claiming the company is in financial trouble.

   two things: when the state awards reparation, howabout the state pays the reparation then claims the money from the company.
   second, put one of these executives in jail.
   corporate manslaughter.
   5 years.
   then we may see more than just lip service being paid to worker safety.

   what are the chances of mr woodhouse influencing the jailling of an executive following a workers death?
6. adam 6

   26 March 2015 at 11:59 pm

   “Oh judge! Your damn laws! The good people don’t need them, and the bad people don’t obey them.”

   Ammon Hennacy 1933
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     27 March 2015 at 10:37 am

     Laws aren’t for the good people but for penalising those who would do harm. they define conditions to be met and the consequences of breaking them. Unfortunately, those who would do harm always look to the minutiae and loopholes within the law. Bill English double dipping with his parliamentary housing allowance was within the rules but it certainly wasn’t ethical.
7. Whateva next? 7

   27 March 2015 at 7:09 am

   It’s inevitable, government set the values, the veneer of statesmen has worn off, and it’s a free for all, getting as much as they can, while they can.
   No amount of legislation and lies can stop the greedy who have power.
8. ghostwhowalksnz 8

   27 March 2015 at 9:55 am

   Its a bit like the ‘crushing’ of boy racers cars.

   Remember that ?( remember her ??)

   Its only had one or two actual crushings.

   But the milking of the publicity-

   AS well the police are an existing enforcement agency, whats the bet the number of people able to enforce these provisions will be miniscule. You can see they are seeing a cheap way out here. naming and shaming ?
   • Stephanie Rodgers 8.1

     27 March 2015 at 1:02 pm

     I have this nagging suspicion that *no* cars were actually crushed on Collins’ watch, and it was someone like Tolley who had the photo op with the first crushed car.
     • Murray Rawshark 8.1.1

       27 March 2015 at 2:16 pm

       I think you’re correct.
9. Sable 9

   27 March 2015 at 10:21 am

   Its called the Employment Relations Act but what we really have here is the Employment Contracts Act all over again. National are really a bunch of brainless Luddites who live in the past.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     27 March 2015 at 10:39 am

     Five centuries past in fact.
10. The Real Matthew 10

    27 March 2015 at 1:29 pm

    It means the government will get tough on bad employers

    Can we save the Conspiracy Theories for The Daily Bog?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS