The left are calling proposed changes to employment law a declaration of law against workers.
They might enjoy the rhetoric but they’re wrong.
Measures which make it easier for businesses to employ people are measures which are better for employees.
A Department of Labour survey on the 90-day trial period for new workers found:
-
- Three quarters (74%) of those employed on a trial period had retained their employment once the trial period was over (a further 5% were still working within the trial period at the time of the survey).
- In relation to the last employee they had hired on a trial period, 40% of employers stated they would not have or were not likely to have hired that person without the trial period.
People who wouldn’t have been offered jobs were and most kept them, what’s wrong with that?
Employees . . . experiencing trial periods had a range of views, recognising some benefits of trial periods for themselves as well as for employers, but also feeling vulnerable to unfair treatment and job loss. However for those retaining employment after a trial period (three quarters of those employed on a trial period), the experience was not negative.
The experience for employees on trial wasn’t quite as positive as it was for employers. But having a job, even if they knew they might not keep it, ought to be better than not having a job at all and most of those who were taken on for a trial were retained.
Extending the 90-day trial period to all employers was one of the measures aimed at icnreasing economic growth and productivity which John Key announced yesterday.
“Employment growth happens because a business is prepared to give someone a chance – often someone they have never met before and know very little about.
“The extension of the 90-day trial period to all workplaces is all about giving prospective employees a shot at work, and giving employers the confidence to hire.
Other changes to employment law announced included allowing employees the option of cashing in their fourth week of holiday and requiring unions to get employer consent for action to workplaces, with the proviso that access can’t be unreasonably withheld.
These measures aren’t a declaration of war against workers, they’re a recipe for industrial harmony.
Homepaddock 
“a recipe for industrial harmony.”
Oh Ele, that’s hilarious! Good satire!
I saw signs of that ‘industrial harmony’ last night on the telly.
Is this the same kind of ‘harmony’ that Anne Tolley has brought to education?
You’re such a wag!
Chris Trotter has a different view.
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2010/07/defeat-is-not-option.html
(My pOSt is just another way of saying, YOU MUST BE JOKING!)
LikeLike
Robert Guyton, the signs you saw last night on telly were of the ususal rent-a-crowd leftists screaming blue murder because they have just been outflanked and outgunned by a master tactician.
The Labour Party’s child groomers have been thrown out of the workplace and rightly so. No wonder they are upset. No longer can the unions freely enter the shop floor to recruit gullible new members for Labour.
They are just like Hitler’s U Boats – after the Allies nailed them with asdic and radar.
Outdated, useless and stuffed.
In my experience with unions, the ones which did the most for their members were the ones which did not indulge in party politics. Here we have unions joined at the hip with Labour. Says it all really.
LikeLike
Adolf you forgot to include how keenly the TV people turn up to these fiascos.
RG – there is always an alternative point of view but you are flogging a dead horse with this one.
LikeLike
“Chris Trotter has a different view”, well blow me away, Mr Guyton sure has an unusual take on reality of managing a modern workplace.
Just how many new employees has he taken on since the 90 day “freedom from ending a job opportunity without having to involve lawyers and the employment court ” law, do we suppose he has taken on.
Not all job opportunities will be filled with the protection of the 90 day window, as a lot will still be filled with someone with an inside run at it. This law, that only brings NZ into line with other OECD countries, is designed to create an opportunity for those on the margins whose cv reveals zero or very little successful work history but with an opportunity taken, can prove their worth.
As for the reduced open access for a union rep that is in response to a historical anomaly that has been overtaken by the massive expansion of communication options and statuary requirements of modern OSH rules.
LikeLike
Robert – the “signs of harmony” you refer to did not come from the National Party. They came from the extreme left; from a small cabal which believes that the end justifies the means. It came from a group which was determined to have its say, without any concern for the rule of law, and for the rights of those whose legal enrty into a public facility was trampled upon by their protest.
LikeLike
Chris Trotter has a different view 90% of the time. Except for his perceptive piece on the Labour party and what it (doesn’t) represent.
LikeLike
Let’s see now…an employer can dismiss workers without having to justify his/her actions, can ‘encourage’ workers to accept money in lieu of holidays, bar union representatives from visiting the workplace, demand a doctor’s certificate from a person who might be in no condition to visit a doctor … and there’s more!
Why on earth would those uppity workers be upset by the increase in power the employer now enjoys?
Matches the rapid increase in the powers the police and other favoured-by-Authoritarians-like-yourselves agencies are enjoying.
What Mr Key is doing is fomenting division and resentment. This may favour him somehow, but that’s what’s happenig across the board.
Industrial relations?
We’ll see.
What of Whaleoil btw?
Not on board any longer?
LikeLike
http://www.imperatorfish.com/2010/07/on-that-kneejerk-accusation.html
LikeLike
The conditioned reflexes of the left on display yet again.
The problem is Robert, the Government should never get involved in legislating human relationships of any sort, be they that of husband and wife, employer and employee etc.
Whenever they do the law of unintended consequences always follow and potentially good relationships are soured.
In truth a good employer will attract and maintain good employees and both will prosper from the relationship.
In a fallen world, which we inhabit, there will be bad employers and bad employees and no amount of government legislation can change this sad fact.
To minimize the harm caused by poor industrial relations the government and unions both should keep out.
But they wont these are people whose livelihoods depend on poor relationships between people to the do things (probably unconsciously) to create division.
LikeLike
Quite right Andrei, and you’d think that a thoughtful government, one that recognises that there will be such a reaction, would avoid the problem but no, creating discontent is grist to the mill for Key and his ministers. They need to show their own team that they are The Boss and that the won’t Tolerate and Upptiness and will Rule with an Iron Fist.
Ra ra!
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the employee answers in that survey, the sample size is 13.
LikeLike
RG., as one who criticised an old pensioner for mis-spelling there/their revealing incorrect usage recently, could you please proof read your 11 16 rant and try to make it english as she is writ.
As to the carping anti govt rant you delivered, some indication of your current and historical record as an employer would tell the commenters here a little of the background to your position as it comes across as rather more theory than practical. At least HP and her farmer do have the street cred for HP to talk possibly from bitter experience. A close friend of mine has just had an expensive and challenging exercise to shed an employee who interviewed very well but after a short time it was revealed that he was ADHD (medicated) with an extremely liberal view of basic honesty in personal and material matters, a work ethic that didn’t go close to the talk and after the employment began introduced a very litigious and difficult partner to the scene. 90 days would have been very useful as the worker was entirely unsatisfactory for the tasks required in so many ways.
LikeLike
Missing ‘y’ on ‘they’, uppitiness. That ought to do it.
‘Rant’ is the incorrect spelling of ‘comment’.
As to the veracity of my claim that I am and have been an employer, it’s very tempting to say mind your own business! But I’m a generous soul and can tell you that presently I employ 5 staff. That number has varied over 10 years but 5 will suffice for your needs. I have also employed gangs and teams of contractors on many, many occasions, for short and longer term projects. I am also self employed. I am employed by two seperate ‘agencies’ as well. I hope you can make sense of this, though I suspect you’re stuck in your ‘doubting thomas’ mode. No matter to me.
I empathise with your adhd-hiring friend. I’ve had similar experiences and have learned a lot about managing people as a result.
Btw GD, if you do detect spelling or grammatical errors, let ’em go man!
LikeLike
RG – I think I have the solution to your problem and this is the path I am taking as I finalise employment in the UK.
1. 3 month contract – renewable for a further 3 months if all goes well for the employer and myself.
2. No work – no pay. This gets round the Doctors certificate which you seem hung up on.
3. I invoice the employer at the end of each month for my time at the mutually agreed contracted rate.
4. Good performance will be rewarded by bonus payments as the employer sees fit.
5. Contract can be terminated by either party giving one weeks notice in writing.
I am happy, he seems happy and I start in a couple of weeks.
LikeLike
[…] are very few bad employers, and most are good chaps who wouldn’t treat employees badly (one, two). Try telling that to Florence Cohen (scroll down). The cheerleaders forget that just as there are […]
LikeLike