Anger over National's 90-day trial for workers
National will allow small businesses to get rid of new workers during a 90-day trial period - a move Labour calls a "charter for abuse" of workers' rights. The policy, which will apply to businesses with fewer than 20 workers, allows employers to dismiss staff in the first three months without risking a personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal. While probationary periods are already allowed under existing law, proper process must be followed before the worker is dismissed. Workers can still take a personal grievance if they feel the decision not to keep them on is unfair. Yesterday, National deputy leader Bill English said the policy would give small businesses some insurance so they could take a risk on workers they might otherwise be reluctant to employ, such as former prisoners or people with little work experience. While large businesses could better deal with underperforming staff, it could have a serious impact on small businesses. Labour Minister Trevor Mallard said it would lock people into their current jobs, making them less likely to move around the workforce. "If you're in a well-paid job with security, you're much less likely to leave it to go to another one if you could be fired from it the next day. At the other end of the labour market, it's almost a charter for people to abuse newly appointed, low-wage workers." However, Doug Alderslade, an employment lawyer at Chapman Tripp, said he expected arbitrary dismissals under such a policy would be rare. He said most employers put great effort into recruiting staff and were likely to use the provision only where there was a genuine problem. "Just because employers have the opportunity to terminate doesn't mean it will be used in a ruthless fashion to get rid of people. "A lot of people will oppose this, saying it will be abused. But that defies economic reality. Employers need someone to work in that job and will be hoping the person they appoint succeeds."
National is the political party of business and farmers so policy is always going to bend in their favour, this 90 day probation for business who employ less than 20 people makes some sense though, a lot of NZ employment is small business and employing the wrong person in a small company can have very negative ramifications throughout the entire company, and the ambulance chasing employment court lawyers are the only ones who will get burnt here. However Chapman Tripps advice that there is no way this probation could be used negatively by employers only rings true if we have full employment, with unemployment predicted to jump to 6% in NZ, that puts an incentive in place to chew through low paid workers and spit them out once every 3 months, especially if there is a long line of unemployed people willing to do the job, so under the new economic tide this 90 day right to fire may easily become abused, and that’s the issue.
Employers can ditch workers easily enough today. Especially low-paid workers on hourly rates. You just cut their hours until they bugger off elsewhere. You can always sack them for cause, too. Few would fight to keep a $12 / hour job with an asshole for an employer.
ReplyDeleteThe examples given - prisoners and young people - make it clear that low-waged people are the targets for this law change.
If this is how National plans to stop young and low-skilled workers fleeing to Australia as they have been, then up is down, black is white and freedom is slavery......
Do you really think that this proposed policy will result in the poor old workers getting fired left right and center?
ReplyDeleteOne thing you don't seem to be asking Bomber, is why on earth an employer would even want to get rid of a worker who had proven themselves to be reliable and hard working within that 90 day period? Why would you let a good worker go and risk taking on someone who is crap? What is the logic behind that, It makes no sense.
Unless of course you think employers should be forced to employ workers who don't work, don't show up, steal and generally make other employees pissed off?
I have hired a 3 ex cons in my business, one was awesome and he is now my foreman, the other two were useless and theives to boot and I had a prick of a time trying to get rid of them because these guys are usually the ones most clued up about their "rights".
When I need to employ someone these days, I use my current staff to recruit and at the moment I would never take on another ex con or someone with a record, but with this 90 day rule I would definitely consider it.
This is ridiculous - do you really think that employers would take on staff for a 90 day period just to kick them down the road for no reason at all?
ReplyDeleteAnon above is right, why on earth would you fire someone who had proven themselves to be a good worker?
If you had any experience in this field you would know that hiring new staff is costly, as it takes time for any one new to a job to get up to speed, other staff have to spend time training and helping them. Why the hell would you deliberately repeat this process over and over when it would cost you in time and lost productivity?
I can't help but feel you are being deliberately disingenuous about this, did you not read the part that says "Workers can still take a personal grievance if they feel the decision not to keep them on is unfair"?
If this is how National plans to stop young and low-skilled workers fleeing to Australia as they have been, then up is down, black is white and freedom is slavery......
What an idiot, they already have this law in Australia, NZ is one of the few countries that doesn't have this law. Perhaps you don't read the papers but it isn't just low skilled and young people going to Australia, there are plenty of skilled people, older people, and families going too.
Perhaps you should ask why so many people in general are going to Australia and why this glorious Labour government can't seem to do a damn thing to stop the number fleeing from increasing after 9 years in office. Or is that John Key's fault as well?
I am an employer, in a business with less than 20 staff. I would welcome such a policy.
ReplyDeleteI have had some bad experiances with staff - and some have proven very hard to get rid of. I don't want to fire staff, but I need to balance that with the financial cost of keeping a bad staff member - if that cost is too high, it jeapodises other staff members jobs.
This policy allows me to take staff on a trial basis. If they are good, they stay. If they aren't, they go. And my preference of course would be that they stay - why would I want to fire somebody for no reason, and lose the cost I have spent on their training and development. Getting rid of them would be a last resort - but an option if necessary.
Otherwise, they don't get employed in the first instance. Margins are so thin, so why take the risk unless you are certain it will pay off?
"Just because employers have the opportunity to terminate doesn't mean it will be used in a ruthless fashion to get rid of people. "
ReplyDeleteIt will be just like cases in Australia where this law is in place, it will be abused.
Yet again Bo ber shows his complete lack of life experience.
ReplyDeleteI have owned a number of companies over the years and I'm just in the process of setting up a new one at the moment.
When I hire new employees I want people that can do the job well and make me money and I'm prepared to pay them well to do that.
I've had several bad experiences over the years with people who just didn't shape up to the potential that their CV said they had.
At the moment it is very difficult to get rid of them without taking a huge financial hit and I have to say this has helped shape the structure of my new company. There will only be 3 employees in NZ, the rest will be overseas.
If Bo ber had any experience with his own company he would know that its just not feasible to be turning over employees every 3 months and to have the next set ready to go for the next 3 months.
Maybe Bo ber should stick to stuff he knows about - like the racist thug police force or the coming annihilation of the human race thru Global Warming/Climate change.
good of you to see the correct side of the idea for once bomber. good on you for not attacking it
ReplyDeleteBo ber, what does an employee have to fear? Unless he or she is useless and deserves to be kicked out without delay.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see that this is the same issue that a million French students took to the streets on in Mar06. Their law stipulatead a 24month period, perhaps a necessary policy considering 10% unemployment and 22% unemployment.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that this policy will inspire the same response. At the moment only the slackers have anything to fear. However if economic conditions worsen, the time period on this policy may gradually extend itself until it becomes an actual impediment to worker rights.
*22% youth unemployment
ReplyDeleteI am torn on this topic. having directly employed many people over the years I know first hand how hard it is rid yourself of idiots. The byzantine employment laws in this country are difficult for small businesses to manage. On the other hand I have an 18 year old son who wants to work but has found it hard to get businesses to give him a go. My advice (which surprisingly enough he has taken) to him has been to approach prospective employers giving them the option of employing him on a one month trial where he will sign away his rights to sue if they decide not to take him on after the trial.
ReplyDeleteThis has worked for him, his new employer has just made him permanent, due in part to his confidence in himself that they would value his efforts.
As usual the Virgin Queen has immediately started screeching about workers rights. An ideal that she has no practical or first hand experience in.
you can have a "taster" of this system by going down to Allied work force or a place like that (where I used to work).
ReplyDeletein a lot of the jobs you get sent to, they treat you pretty much as a permenant employee (ie go every day and do the same work), but since you are on a casual contract, they can fire you whenever they like. Not nice!
If this becomes law, then of course everywhere will become like that - I hear a lot of people complaining about no-good, useless workers - which is true. But you can't deny that there are also dickhead bosses who abuse workers.
I honestly think that taking away people's power to sue (for three months, anyway) won't do anything to help remedy that problem.
Thanks Rangi, it looked like the truck drivers had taken over the show for a little while there.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who will really use a 90 day exemption from normal labour law to fire people will be disreputable employers. It is an invitation for some bad people to make some money at a worker's expense. It's a licence to dick people around. No doubt it will come as a welcome tool for good employers to weed out bad staff, but I fear the consequences of letting that sort of labour practice slide in through the door. It isn't necessary.
"it looked like the truck drivers had taken over the show for a little while there."
ReplyDeleteHow petty, it's beneath you Tim
"It isn't necessary."
Says the guy who has never employed anyone.
I agree with Rangi, there are bosses who are dick heads, they the reason they end up firing everyone is because they get reputations as shitheads and nobody worth their salts would bother working for them so they end up with the barely employable dregs.
However Rangi when you say "
I honestly think that taking away people's power to sue (for three months, anyway) won't do anything to help remedy that problem." you clearly haven't read the part in the article that says ""Workers can still take a personal grievance if they feel the decision not to keep them on is unfair". That spells it out for you right there - you can still sue.
This law is necessary. I could tell you dozens of stories about employers I personally know who have spent mega bucks trying to get rid of staff that they have caught red hand with with fingers in the till, turning up stoned or drunk - thus putting themselves and workmates in danger (guess who gets slammed by OSH when that happens?).
You can say that it's just tough luck for the employers if you want but it ultimately effects the good staff too.
SO Tim and Bomber can you answer this:why on earth an employer would even want to get rid of a worker who had proven themselves to be reliable and hard working within that 90 day period? Why would you let a good worker go and risk taking on someone who is crap? What is the logic behind that, It makes no sense.