Without a good reason
The Minister for Labour on the bill she tried to ram through parliament tonight (and nearly succeeded):
Q: What about beneficiaries, will their stand-down period be affected?
A: Employees on a trial period, if they were previously on a benefit or if they receive assistance post-redundancy in a new package to be announced before Christmas by the Minister of Social Development, will not face a stand-down if they go back on a benefit or onto the post-redundancy assistance, unless they have been dismissed for misconduct, or have chosen to end the trial themselves without a good reason
Employers can unfairly dismiss new employees - that's the essence of Nactional's 90 day bill. They do not need a reason to fire them. And yet to get assistance after you are unfairly fired by the cunts National are trying to empower you have to give the government a reason. Employers don't need a reason, employees do. One rule for them, one for the others.. the üntermenschlikheit.
If it's good enough for the employers not to give a reason or give a trumped up reason that is not effectively challengeable - then it must also be good enough that the employee doesn't have to give any reason to get assistance. The Tories have their own version of morality - and it's all in a pyramid - a feudal pyramid. Accountability and presumptions of competence flow in the direction they want it to flow: in the Tory mind a person can be both incompetent and unaccountable enough to be paid nothing more than the minimum wage, and yet that person is also competent and accountable enough to have to do tasks up to and including staff and general management duties.
So, the fired worker is placed in a double-burden. Displaced and with pay terminated immediately they are the most vulnerable people. The exact sort of people that the social welfare net ought to be designed to catch. And yet here are Nactional saying they will be punished again by the government. Why? Because they say they will take the word of the employer above the word of an employee - institutionally that is the default position. That is what the Minister of Labour is telling us. It's a no-fault position for employers - and an all-fault position put upon the new staff.
I'm glad they couldn't pass the bill tonight. Maybe we can read what they are trying to make law in under 24 hours. 9am they are due back.
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 12:26 am
3 comments
3 Comments:
I have some concerns about the operation of this legislation, no doubt. I do however take umbrage with the way you've presented your argument.
When someone seeks assistance from the state they ought to justify their entitlement to such aid. If you had a job available to you and you choose to leave entirely voluntarily then why should the state provide for you as an able bodied citizen who otherwise had gainful employment to engage in.
Having to show that as a business you were objectively fair and reasonable in dismissing someone can be a difficult, expensive and time consuming legal process, and up until the ninety days (which I think is too long a time period) it seems reasonable to do away with this heavy onus for new employees. Given that it should only apply to businesses of 20 persons or less it seems to be targeted at the right groups of employers for the right reasons.
Employers won't be seeking assitance from the taxpayers someone wanting a benefit will be which is why it's reasonable for him/her to proove s/her left the last job for a good reason.
Do farmers have to prove that they didn't have insurance for a good reason to claim when the government offers assistance? Do they have to explain themselves in that way?
It all becomes very subjective. And the power then is in the hands of the bureaucrat offering assistance. ACC is no-fault for good reasons, is welfare/govt. assistance totally different?
Employers are seeking assistance from job seekers, so would it therefore be reasonable that the employer prove they fired the last person for a good reason?
I just think that works both ways in this situation. Not just in one direction only. Why should the party to the contract who holds the cheque book get all the government backing?
Tories keep imputing guilt and assessing character and basing worth and value and status on the relationship a person has to the mechanisms that distribute money. That's a narrow view.
The misconduct may be on the employers part in unfairly dismissing the new staff - but the unfairly dismissed employee cannot prove that, can they. That's the point The employers aren't required to do anything - whereas the sacked employee does. They are at a distinct disadvantage, a double-bind.
I can't imagine anyone other than a naive and honest person would be stupid enough to offer proof that they were dismissed for misconduct. Your chronic "bad egg" employee will almost certainly find a way around that if they are really that atrocious.
And this rule (the extended stand-down for the dole for being at fault) is there at the moment, I'm sure, so it's not as if just National think it's OK - Labour doesn't care either. But under this new law (passed this morning) means it will be far worse.
I think in the real world that such laws are there to help employers and threaten staff. They are there to discourage employees from complaining. To keep them in their jobs and off the dole queue. SO it serves both the government and the employers, and once again the unions don't care about this either. It's also a discipline issue - the thought it might encourage misconduct and incentivise slacking. But I doubt that moving to a no-fault system in welfare would result in too many perverse incentives - at least not more or worse than the current system has. Then again it depends on the benefit level relative to the minimum wage and what the labour market is like etc. - so, who knows.
Post a Comment
<< Home