We like the 90 day trial

Ever since John Key announced that the 90-day trial period for new employers would be extended to cover all businesses unions have been telling us that’s unfair.

They aren’t reflecting the views of most people:

ONE News asked voters whether they thought the 90-day trial law should be extended to cover all companies every time someone starts a new job. Sixty percent said yes, while just 36% said no. The remainder said they didn’t know, or were unsure.

What the unions fail to understand is that a trial period isn’t just for employers’ sakes.

It helps people get a job and it also helps existing workers.

Having new workers who don’t pull their weight or simply don’t fit in can be really hard on existing staff.

8 Responses to We like the 90 day trial

  1. pdm says:

    If the truth is really known the resistance from the unions is just a front. They cannot afford to be seen to be agreeing with a National led government even if they do recognise the value to all parties.

  2. HG says:

    “Having new workers who don’t pull their weight or simply don’t fit in can be really hard on existing staff.”

    And in that sentence you completely disregard the recruitment industry, supervisory managers and insult employers who know what they’re doing when hiring.

  3. bobux says:

    Given how few people know what the law actually says, results like this are meaningless. Other than as a scorecard of two competing spin operations.

    Many employees have been saddled with workmates who can’t, or won’t, pull their weight – and have seen how hard it is for a boss to get rid of them. I suspect unions may underestimate how pervasive this is, and how it could increase support for the 90-day trial law outside the ranks of employers.

  4. bobux says:

    HG

    Someone with a fake qualification recently held a senior position in the Depatment of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and was then selected to head NZ’s Immigration Service.

    If this can happen, is it not possible Joe’s Drainage Services could end up with a dud hire?

  5. Adolf Fiinkensein says:

    In 1979 I managed a business employing 32 people. We introduced a productivity bonus system for each of our five teams. The most remarkable change was that we no longer had to micro-manage the staff. Instead, they told us who the slackers were and demanded they be sacked.

    Says it all really and shows up the comment from HG for the spurious nonsense it is.

  6. homepaddock says:

    HG – it’s always a gamble when you employ people.

    No matter how well they present in an interview and no matter what referees say, you can never tell how they’ll perform and fit in with others until they’re actually working.

  7. alex Masterley says:

    Even HR people and recruitment firms get it wrong! A fellow I know employed a staff member on the recomendation of a recruitment agency.

    That person put their hand in the till for some ‘ooos of dollars.

    It turned out the agency had not done proper background checking and had not discovered the person had a criminal record where there were a number of convictions for theft as a servant.

    My associate is not happy with the recruiters who have repaid their fee as a consequence

  8. Inventory2 says:

    You’re dead right about the gamble Ele. Employment law is a minefield, and when it turns to custard, it can be at a huge cost to small business. What the government is proposing redresses some of the current imbalance which disproportionately favours employees over employers.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: