- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, July 22, 2010

90 day right to sack law will cost 80 000 jobs per year


Giving the boss the right to sack will kill off anyone leaving their job for a new job because in an unemployment environment as hostile as the current one and with such an uncertain global economic outlook, no one is going to risk what they currently have for a position they may get fired from for no reason whatsoever. Rat bosses will abuse the vulnerability caused by high unemployment and this right to sack can easily cross the floor and dance with it’s ugly cousin, exploitation. That the trial was able to sack one in 5 NZers and the number of new workers is 400 000 per year, then this scheme will actually sack 80 000 NZers per year.

But the really offensive part of the 90 day right to sack, is the fact that we have a merchant banker Prime Minister who is selling these erosions of workers rights as for the benefit of those very same workers.

Oh the audacity.

10 Comments:

At 22/7/10 8:53 am, Anonymous sdm said...

How do you propose a business deal with a staff member that is under-preforming, costing the entity money, disrupting other staff, perhaps turning up under the influence, abusing staff/customers.?

Please point to some offshore evidence of this abuse you claim will occur, given that this is a moderate policy by OECD standards

 
At 22/7/10 8:58 am, Blogger Bomber said...

2 things scot - firstly this is the recycled argument you used when the law was just aimed at small companies with less than 20 workers, you are now attempting to use it again to justify the most sweeping rejig of labour laws this country has seen in a decade.

Secondly, I don't need to go offshore at all Scott to prove my abuse, your partys blessed Department of Labour report that they have been holding up all week as proof their 90 day right to sack works shows the power was used 22% of the time. There are 400 000 new workers every year, 20% of 400 000 is 80 000. I love how you want overseas reports when the one your party has been using all week doesn't add up now there has been some scrutiny.

How come the Department of Labour report is good enough for your 'dear leader', but not good enough for you Scot?

 
At 22/7/10 9:16 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I must admit my support of the law was based upon small businesses - and I think the law has worked pretty well. Larger businesses probably have a dedicated HR person/department, and the means of surviving a bad apple, so to speak.

 
At 22/7/10 12:18 pm, Blogger dave said...

Actually there is no evidence for projecting a net loss of 80,000 jobs. Rather there is evidence for the loss of basic rights for EVERY new job (not new worker)and that will lead to a net gain in nasty, cheap, more exploitative and oppressive jobs to make more money for the bosses.

 
At 22/7/10 12:43 pm, Anonymous Gosman said...

Your abuse od statistics is fascinatingly wrong headed.

You can't extrapolate anything from the survey you use to base your fantasy 80,000 figure from because it was far too small.

It would be like if someone popped down to the local train station and asked 20 people whether they were unemployed or not and on finding 3 that were stating that 30 % of the working age population in New Zealand don't have a job

 
At 22/7/10 1:01 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

GRIN - thank you for biting Gosman, do you mean that it would be as fascinatingly wrong headed as claiming from this report that it creates jobs in the manner National have?

 
At 22/7/10 1:13 pm, Anonymous Gosman said...

Yes, completely agree with you.

National cannot use that report to state with any degree of confidence that more people are employed as a result. What they especially can't do is extrapolate a small sample and try and claim that it would mean an extra X number of jobs in the economy.

This would be an abuse of statistics just as bad as what you have done.

 
At 22/7/10 4:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's a good idea. I'm loving that change NZ!

 
At 22/7/10 6:44 pm, Blogger Ella De'Ville said...

The '90 day right to sack law' seems to only be a problem if you are a terrible worker. Those that are good at their jobs are probably not going to be sacked. It is expensive for employers to hire and train new staff. This creates an incentive for employers to keep staff on. Sacking people and having to re-hire people costs money.

If an employer sacks a good, productive employee then it is at the employer's loss. It means loss of profits.

 
At 22/7/10 9:06 pm, Anonymous fatty said...

"The '90 day right to sack law' seems to only be a problem if you are a terrible worker....If an employer sacks a good, productive employee then it is at the employer's loss. It means loss of profits."

This is the National's sound-bite...along with creating more jobs. The idea that it will only impact poor workers is wrong, misleading and a lie from those that know better. It would only impact bad workers if the relationship between employer and employee was an equal one, which it is not. These new laws make it even more unequal than it already is.
Thanks to capitalism the employer's number one concern is the bottom line, meaning they will always pay the least amount possible for labor (same way we pay the least amount possible for fruit at the shop). Obviously the skills/attitude of the worker affects the worth of the worker, but due to the fact that the NZ employment landscape is littered with low paid, unskilled jobs, the sale of labor ends up being a race to the bottom, creating a trickle up effect. The average employer will pay (around) minimum wage and hire for less than 3 months, therefor ensuring no worker rights, such as sick leave and overtime pay.
Thanks to the high unemployment and rising costs of living, the employer cannot lose if they fire within 3 months - they'd be stupid not to. There is an endless supply of cheap, disposable labor. Re-skilling workers is not a problem in low-skilled jobs - those jobs are carried out by the poor.
So the loser here is not the poor worker, but the poor person. More poor people will lose there jobs regularly, creating poverty and insecurity. Insecurity leads to anger, social problems, crime, more criminals, bigger prisons....oh, can you see where this is heading? Remember the privatization of prisons?
Add to that the one day doctor certificate, and todays refusal to drop GST on fruit and vege? Thats an attack on poor people's health right there...do you want me to go on?
The 90 day bill (along with other recent bills) is clearly, without doubt an attack on the poor. It has nothing to do with protecting good workers and definitely is not "an incentive for employers to keep staff on"

The problem is the country has been blinded by the mining issue, they believe Key backed down, but they are still going to butcher the North and the West Coast, which is what they probably hoped for to begin with. As Russel Norman and Phil Goff were stroking each others native bush and celebrating victory, Key has just landed a nasty KO to the face of the poor. Do Labor & The Greens care? No... they haven't cared about class issues for years now, they are content with there 2 minute identity-based headlines

 

Post a Comment

<< Home