Clayton’s concern

Labour were concerned by jobless figures in one breath yet in the next they don’t want the 90-day trial period extended to all work places.

Any concern about jobless figures is Clayton’s concern if they’re not prepared to support measures which encourage employers to take on new staff and make the workplace better for those already employed.

The 90 day trial period makes it easier for people with questions over their work history to get jobs because it reduces the risk that employers will have to keep someone who doesn’t have the skills or personality for the position.

It also makes work places better for other employees because they don’t have to carry non-performing co-workers or put up with ones who are difficult to work with.

The 90-day trial period has been operating for small businesses long enough to show up any flaws. Opposition parties and unions which made a fuss about its introduction and said they’d publicise any problems with it, have been strangely silent.

That must mean there has been little trouble with it.

The risk that employers will exploit the 90-day clause is small. The recrutiment, initiation and training process is sufficiently time and energy consuming that employers won’t let go of reasonable workers lightly.

The gains for employers, employees and the wider economy from having a happy workforce are more taking that risk. It’s worked well for smaller businesses, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to all businesses.

5 Responses to Clayton’s concern

  1. Inventory2 says:

    Labour can’t support the 90-day plan, because that would bring them directly into conflict with their biggest backers.

    As an employer, I am delighted that the Govt is looking to extend the plan. We don’t hire people on the basis that we expect to cut them inside three months; we want stability. But on the occasions when we have made a bad hire, it is quickly apparent, and difficult and expensive to remedy. It also gives the employee an “out” if the job isn’t what they expected. Let’s see the evidence that employers are engaging in wholesale abuse of the current legislation.

  2. homepaddock says:

    I2 – That’s our experience too.

    Interesting that Labour and the unions take the side of someone who isn’t up to the job without taking any account on the impact on on other staff supporting, of having to work with people who can’t, or won’t, work well.

  3. Fredinthegrass says:

    As I commented yesterday LCD is alive and well in the Labour thinking.
    It would be interesting to know if there are any employers taking advantage of the 90 day trial. Your summation I2 seems to suggest they would be few and far between.

  4. homepaddock says:

    Fred, you wouldn’t do it unless you really had to because of the cost and inconvenience of recruitment and training.

  5. Inventory2 says:

    @ Fredinthegrass – our business hasn’t nbeen able to participate to date, because we employ more than 20 staff. But t=you’d think that if unscrupulous employers were exploiting employees under the existing policy, the unions would be screaming from the roof-tops, given their vehement opposition to the “Fire At Will Bill” as they called it. I haven’t heard anything from the unions since the policy came in; indeed, their silence has been deafening. That would support the government’s contention that the policy has worked well with small businesses, and is worthy of being extended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: