A couple of weeks ago, Sitel workers picketed their workplace protesting about getting sacked without any redundancy pay. They’re just the latest in a long line of workers who’ve been laid off without any compensation for losing their jobs. They will be forced to join the dole queue if they can’t find another job – good people who Paula Bennett says are making a “lifestyle choice” by going on the benefit.
My Redundancy Protection Bill is due to have its first reading in the House in early May. I’ve deliberately postponed the first reading knowing that the NACTs won’t vote for it, but we’re trying to change their mind. Keep up with the website and watch the Facebook page as well. There’s action coming in the next week or two.
Goodluck for your Bill, Darien.
Some lifestyle choice,
My partner has just started a new job, a relatively high Management position. Employer would not permit a redundancy clause.
Good stuff Darien but like always there will be those who will fall between the gaps – e.g. Tracey’s partner above and all the thousands of self-employed people out there who won’t get redundancy and won’t get the UB for donkeys years!
A very respectable cause. I hear we are the only developed country to not offer minimum redundancy packages Except for America. Makes me sick to ever be compared in sense of welfare to that damn country.
Can you explain a rationale for redundancy payments. I am self employed and if i go out of business I do not get any redundancy payment. Is this just another socialist assumption of right.
Paula Bennett made her lifestyle choice by getting pregnant if you follow her twisted thinking. Getting pregnant and raising a child yourself is not a great choice. Having two people raising a child is hard enough, especially on NZ wages.
The strangest thing about Paula Bennett’s thinking is that along with her pregnancy and going on DPB she seems to have gained long term memory loss.
Fisiani – socialised people help one another. Non-socialised people i.e. NAct find out their own information. If they want to be selfish with their time, their money and their support they should be doing their own work instead of asking other people to give them help and information. That’s called have and take. Socialised thinking is give and take.
Fisi – being self employed you set the terms of your engagement, not to mention you have more control over whether you go out of business than a worker.
Dominic not true for all self-employed people. Many are mere contractors so are faced with the same terms as an employee but none of the security in terms of written contracts and employment law to back them up.
E.g. we are self-employed and the industry we are in means there is rarely a written contract so on Monday we could be told “sorry, there’s no more work this is your last day” and the company would be well within their rights to do so. Yes we could also say “today is our last day” and walk away, but in this climate there is not a soul that would do that as it is not like there is a guarantee of finding another job the day after!
I would like to see the following change to employment law (I know it is but a dream);
a personal grievance based on a “redundancy” can be brought within one year of the job ending. I have observed so many situations where companies have made people redundant to save on salaries, and it is clear in their “restructuring” (In practice) that the jobs still exist, and remaining people have had those duties added to their workload. IF in these situations you could wait a year to see the reality of the restructure you could genuinely judge if it was constructive dismissal or not.
@Fisiani : I think you have the answer – employees have little or no control over when they are made redundant.
@Rebecca : You are right about contractors and that’s a whole other area of work. I’ve been working on it. Unfortunately, your situation sounds depressingly familiar.
@Tracey : interesting suggestion. The details of redundancy protection can be discussed, but not if it doesn’t get to select committee because the NActs vote it down. So then it will have to wait until Labour is back in government.
Fisani, there is another sound ethical and business basis for redundancy compensation. An employment agreement between an employer and an employee is a binding contract, and generally offers employment on an ongoing, permanent basis. If an employer unilaterally ends that contract, there is a strong argument on both ethical and contractual grounds for there to be compensation. Certainly if one party breaks a commercial contract unilaterally, they are usually required to pay compensation to the other party.
Why should it be any different in an employment relationship, particualrly as one party literally loses their livelihood when the other breaks the contract?
An employment agreement between an employer and an employee is a binding contract, and generally offers employment on an ongoing, permanent basis. If an employer unilaterally ends that contract, there is a strong argument on both ethical and contractual grounds for there to be compensation.
Under the same logic, shouldn’t the employer be compensated if a worker hands in their notice and goes elsewhere? The employer, especially in a small company, may be very dependent on an individual’s skills.
George, agreed. In practice it affects the employer less when that happens than the reverse, but I agree the principle is the same.
I’m wondering if the new “stress” clause under OSH will start to take a hammering in restructured organisations where they have actually doubled up jobs onpeople rather than genuinely not needing the job anymore. I am aware of two large organisations where the stress levels are now alarmingly high becauseof this. IF employeesbegin to complain to osh, under stress provisons, it could really be a fase economy for employers?
Darien – I so look forward to this private members bill being spat out at the first hurdle. As someone who was made redundant last September and is still looking for a permanent position, I do not want my hunt made any more difficult by silly and popularist legislation such as you propose. You fail to demonstrate any understanding of macro-economic fundamentals and impact on employment. Good thing Labour are (and will remain) in opposition