National loves the workers?
Hmmm, 90 day right to sack, a 9 day fortnight that actually costs workers and now cutting back holidays? I'm not sure National loves the workers as much as they are pretending to. I can't see any reason why any worker would willingly lose a week of their holiday, why would they? There is no extra incentive to do so as I doubt the 'extra cash' will actually eventuate and John Key's claims that any employer who tries to force a worker into 3 weeks holiday rather than 4 weeks would face prosecution is admirable but how plausible is it...
On day 89...
"Oi you, wanna take 3 weeks holiday instead of 4 weeks"
"Nah"
"Okay, there's the door, under Nationals 90 day right to sack I can boot you for whatever reason I like BHAHAHAHAHAHAHA".
...see while the claim is that an employer would be prosecuted, under the new 90day right to sack, a boss doesn't have to give a reason. 'Choice' isn't really 'choice' when the boss has all the power. I note that Colin Espiner has the same misgivings.
posted by Bomber @ 3:25 pm
6 comments
6 Comments:
And Colin's criticisms?
If National insist this law should be passed, and there are occasional cases which warrant it (although I do not think those cases should be enough to create such a potentially abusive situation) it needs to be written into the statute that it is the employers right to choose, and it can only be choosen after the leave has been accrued, so they cannot abuse the 90day legislation in this regards. The bill needs to have a review in 2 years time to see whether abuses have occured.
I thought Colin had worked more than 90 days.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You have to work a year before you are eligible for the four week's holiday so the issue of vacation or paycation wouldn't come up in the 90 day period.
Colin Espiner's critism's are nonsensical. Basically he states that potentially some unsrupulous employers might break the law as a result of the change around holiday's. That is like saying someone might decide to stop paying tax due to the tax cut.
Post a Comment
<< Home