Thank goodness I don’t have a fragile ego (if I have one at all). In the past two weeks, the Nats have block-voted against hearing submissions on a petition I championed signed by nearly 16,000 other New Zealanders and they have also introduced a Bill reducing the right for all NZ workers to have a meal break – undoing legislation passed under Labour, based on a members’ bill I drafted.
But this posting is not about my ego, because that’s not the reason I’m am MP (can’t speak for others). I’m not taking it personally. After all “its not about me.”
It is about the thousands of school support staff, social workers and other ordinary fair-minded New Zealanders who the National Government took deliberate action against by block-voting to ensure they didn’t have to justify the axing of pay equity investigations for these hard-working New Zealanders.
And it is about workers who’s health and safety will be put at risk if National goes ahead with its plans to give employers the specific right to require workers to attend to their duties during their meal breaks and rest periods.
It is highly unusual for a select committee to refuse to hear submissions on a petition – particularly one of that size. However, the Nats were prepared to sacrifice the democratic principles of select committee procedures so that they weren’t put in the embarrassing position of having to defend the indefensible.
The Minister of Labour has already admitted that the Pay and Employment Equity Unit was closed down by her against the advice of her Department of Labour officials. Maybe the Nats blocked the hearing of submissions on the petition because they were worried about what the DOL would say in its submission?
Whatever the reason, David Bennett, Jackie Blue, Tau Henare, Allan Peachey and Michael Woodhouse should hang their heads in shame as the MPs who voted to block submissions being heard.
I bet none of them admit to having prevented the petition from being heard the next time the turn up at their local schools for a visit.
As for the right to a meal break at work, I don’t know about you but when I’m flying, I wanna know that the person in the sole-charge regional control tower is well-rested, alert, hydrated and has reasonable blood-sugar levels when they are giving important information to the pilot of my plane.
The Nats though, are passing legislation to ensure that they have to work through meal and rest breaks and in the process are subjecting all other NZ workers to the same possibility.
Not the brighter future they promised really, is it?
“its plans to give employers the specific right to require workers to attend to their duties during their meal breaks and rest periods.”
I think it’s gutless of them not to hear submissions
Reminds me of a certain smacking law referendum that nobody listened to most of New Zealand about.
Well, it’s $200m/year brighter for the Australian insurance companies and a couple of billion$/year and growing less brighter for the rest of us.
@kiwireader: In actual balanced questioning less than 50% of the people were concerned about the s59 law change. The referendum wasn’t worth listening to.
see, here I was thinking that the new bill would give workers a choice of working through their lunch breaks if they wanted, and then knocking off early, instead of being forced to stop work in the middle of the day.
I can see why you hate it, choice is a terrible thing for workers, we can’t let them start thinking for themselves!
I think your very naiev Fizzleplug. If your boss comes up to you and says that he will pay you for not taking a break what are you going to say? If you say yes he’ll like you and you’ll go hungry if you say no he’ll hate you (might even fire you) and you’ll get to eat… It’s a lose lose situataion for workers. Employers will start to only hire people that don’t want a break. How long do you think it will take until it becomes a standard interview question? And you can’t just “knock off early” at a retail store and places like that. It doesn’t increase productivity if you don’t take a break then leave early all you’ve done is shift the break!
It’s people like you that think you’re getting a fair deal under national. OPEN YOUR EYES!
[/quote]if you say no he’ll hate you (might even fire you)[/quote] you sure s/he can do that? Last time I looked, employees were harder to get rid of than red wine in white carpet. Firing someone for having a lunch break would lead to the Employment Tribunal, which believe it or not, employers don’t enjoy.
[/quote] Employers will start to only hire people that don’t want a break. How long do you think it will take until it becomes a standard interview question?[/quote] You mean like how I was asked if I intended to have children? Oh wait… they can’t ask that can they?
[/quote]And you can’t just “knock off early” at a retail store and places like that.[/quote] No-one can force you not to have a break. You simply have the option of not taking one. Can’t knock off early or get days off in exchange? Take a lunch break.
[/quote]if you don’t take a break then leave early all you’ve done is shift the break![/quote] Except shifting a break to the end of the day makes my working day an hour shorter.
[/quote]It’s people like you that think you’re getting a fair deal under national.[/quote] It’s people like you who probably think Cullen’s train set was a great deal. And here I was thinking only Australians thought that.
True naivety is shown by those who blindly follow without questioning. Believe it our not, employers aren’t out to harm workers. They do the work! Why would you harm them and possibly drive them away? Exceptions don’t make the rule.
p.s. I hope I’m quoting correctly, this post will look terribly messy if I’ve got it wrong.
Ofcourse no one is going to fire you for saying that you want to take a break but it just creates fricition. You might be lucky ‘cos you have a nice boss. Where I work you only get asked token questions and saying no is never the right move.
National said that this would increase productivity but how does making you’re working day shorter increase productivity. It probably reduces productivity because you’re working on an empty stomach.
Not everyone has the resources to take their employers to the tribunal… they need the job/reference and how do you prove they fired you because you want a break.
I know that where I work (retail store) if my manager asks I only have 1 real choice. Sure I can say no but then I become less productive because I want to grab something to eat in the middle of the day (try standing and talking about jeans for 6 hours straight to strangers).
You’re employer may have asked you about having kids because it is relevant to your job. Just like not taking a break is relevant to where I work. Employers can ask whatever they like because when you’re unemplyed and looking for work you’re not likly to complain.
You say “Can’t knock off early or get days off in exchange? Take a lunch break.” but how can you compete against people who risk their welfare (Probably not in retail but elsewhere) and say they won’t take a break.
We agree on one thing “employers aren’t out to harm workers. They do the work!” but employers are looking to get the best deal possible even if it means working conditions are worse off. I bet if child labour was legal there would be employers hiring them.
The exception isn’t the rule, you’re right. But for a lot of people this is going to be a reality. Labour introduced this law so that there was some fairness and so that workers won’t be pressured into doing something that generally isn’t good for them.
Oh and when you say no-one can force you to not have a break you might be surprised when you get into the lower paid jobs people can force you to do whatever.
All i’m saying is that if you can gurantee that no-one will take my break away from me against my will dircetly or indirectly then i’m all for this bill. The only problem is that you can’t because deep down you know how it works…
P.S I think you quote by going [quote][/quote]
Also I should add i’m not some labour loony I just want whats best for me and most people and this definatly isn’t whats best for me
“Draco (ian Law)@kiwireader: In actual balanced questioning less than 50% of the people were concerned about the s59 law change. The referendum wasn’t worth listening to.”
With such whittism is why politicains (more so on the left) will always struggle when to me I here comments such as “listening to what the people say ..” as this displays that they WILL NOT listen. remember 300+k signed & supported the petition/ref. You may not like the fact, yet more NZers are for repealling Bradfords S59 than are for it. So where does that make the majorities voice heard. Not in Wellington
Appolieis for not strictly following the topic. I ask the court for forgiveness.
the question about tea and lunch breaks has been mentioned before. I remember mentioning that Andrew Little was on with Paul Henry about it and he seemed pretty much OK with it. I’m sure that the interview can still be accessed on the TV1 website and as he is 1/ leader of the EMPU and 2/ Labour Party President, I’m sure Labour MP’s should try no to be too out of sync with Andrew??