This is the latest CTU video about the 90 day trial period.
This is the latest CTU video about the 90 day trial period.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 16th, 2010 at 1:59 pm and is filed under Employers, union, value of work, workforce. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
@chris LOL
Yeah, that clean cut girl looked like such a junkie, I got scared just looking at her 
@rjt – we are talking the same DOL that produced a report that John Key paraded at the National Party conference to justify the extension of the 90 day trial period to all workplaces.
Darien, its not a silly statement. You seem 100% happy to take her side of the story with no evidence, or no questioning of the other party.
Im just putting another suggestion out there – although I at least had the decency to say that I didnt know for fact if that was the reason. Something you and the CTU have not had the decency to do – you are just stating that this poor employer has been bad – again with no evidence.
Just shows how the left believe that every employer must be in the wrong. And for what its worth – she has been dismissed properly. in fact they have gone further than needed by sending a clarification letter listing reasons she was let go.
@ spud – you might be surprised what a junkie looks like. Plenty of people you would never expect – never assume.
Last time I looked we had freedom of association in this country (not for much longer of course if you happen to be a unionist). Current NZ law does not preclude a person such as Florence participating in a CTU video.
Tories were whining just recently-“where’s the evidence that 90 day Fire at will is disadvantaging workers”, and now some of you are bleating about the conditions and framing and credentials of the people that are coming forward. What a bunch of bullies is all I can say, particularly given some of the nasty comments about the young woman above.
@ True wheel – what about the nasty comments about the employer? The calls for a boycott that could ruin them if people take up on it.
Guilty as charged without any evidence or even asked for their side of the story.
Is it fair that a business name is taken thru the mud with no evidence or even been asked?
Ah, damned browser refresh did not show this page until closing, so to re-cap:
“Mr Key said extending the 90-day trial period to all employers would give bosses the confidence to hire people. He said Department of Labour review of the impact of the trial period in small companies showed 40 per cent of bosses who used it said they would not have taken on the worker they did if not for the trial period.”
So now we’re hearing that the DOL are offering proof at this stage that this 90 day policy has encouraged employers to employ additional staff. You’re offer “guesstimates”, if you’ll excuse the appalling word, in response based around a 20% dismissal rate that you think will occur if this 90 day process extends further into the market.
Is it at all plausible that you are objecting on principle, largely because it’s a “National said…”, is it at all possible that union revenues are perhaps likely to come under threat when people realise just how impotent the unions have proven to be?
“For all we know – she may have been fired for taking drugs at work, sleeping with the boss, being rude to customers, or theft.”
Wow – taking a punt here, I doubt that she was fired for theft drugs or being rude – why would CTU put her in the public eye if that was case – be logical. Yes, I left out sleeping with the boss because – duh – who in their right mind would see that as a fireable offense. Are we living in the dark ages here? Surely no one is stupid enough to use that excuse.
I am gobsmacked by how many are defending their shaky position on this issue by going in for the jugular by attacking this young woman because she belongs to grassroots. Big woops. Its about as relevant as her se*ual orientation and what religion or race she is. It has no bearing on this debate. Shame on those of you attacking the girl – its like what happens to woman in violent cases – blame the woman/victim. How this justifies your position is beyond me. I hope it does not happen to your child/mum/aunt/cousin/neighbor or friend. Just once I wish some on this blog would learn empathy and walk a mile in anothers shoes. what it does do though, is highlight why this bill is so wrong.
Of course we are forgetting a few major flaws in this arguement.
1) The 90 Day law is widespread in most countries in the world. In many it’s longer. In almost all cases it’s agreed upon by the union.
2) Florence is a young Labour activist, so it’s easy to deduce where she was plucked from to face this video. So what, all kids would love a little bit of fame to impress older people that they admire. I just wish the CTU were a little more up front about it instead of it backfiring against them as it has now.
3) This business has good reason to sue. Where is the back story to this? How do we know that Florence is a good employee? There are too many holes in this. I suspect they won’t sue because they are a small business and can’t afford to fight the well financed CTU.
4) Does this mean this business can put out a You Tube clip listing all of Florences faults?
Yes, the “attack the victim” theme is entirely consistent with the NACT motivation for this law in the first place so it’s hardly surprising to see it used so deliberately against those who are suffering from it’s implementation.
chris’s comments about the possibility of this woman being fired for “sleeping with the boss” are quite revealing too, aren’t they?
Make no mistake, he/she (but almost certainly he) is saying that “sleeping with the boss” would be a valid reason for firing her.
Actually all of the comments here from “chris” display a remarkable similarity to those left all over the blogosphere around the time of the Richard Worth saga by a commenter calling him/herself (but almost certainly himself) tsmithfield.
The attempt to paint the victim as somehow to blame, the constant reference to the political views of the victim (as if that in any way validates mistreatment of her), the nasty underlying misogyny. It’s all so very, very familiar. All so very, very NACT.
I see the Standard is fighting fires on this post, much like here.
Darien, will you be addressing any of the rallies on Saturday, to tell the gathered workers that the Labour Party fully supports the CTU’s Fairness at Work campaign?
chris said:
Interesting that your argument is now all about ‘fairness’ and giving employers a chance to have their say.
Even funnier is the idea that the employer might go under when they don’t get the chance to put forward their own point of view and defend themselves.
Well frak that is my reply, NACT supporters did not give a damn that a worker could lose their family home thanks to the 90 day right to fire law and they didn’t give a damn that workers had no right to have their say about it or even understand why they were being fired.
Surely NACT types can’t only be learning now that a knife cuts both ways?
“Well frak that is my reply, NACT supporters did not give a damn that a worker could lose their family home thanks to the 90 day ” is this the same amount of empathy that was displayed by Labour supporters regarding the effect of $7b for 2nd tier finance coy and the loss of homes that resulted from these collapses?
Loota nice to see you see the would black and white. perhads varying degrees of grey is better for all
The CTU popgun even calls her Florence Coen rather than Cohen to try to hide this trickery
Labour is getting sicker and sicker.
Herod. really just saying that people who care about fairness care about fairness. They don’t argue fairness just for employers and forget about employees. Or vice versa.
Re: finance company collapses – a lot of people across the spectrum got hurt. Same with leaky buildings. No winners out of any of those scenarios…hmmmm except those relative few who profiteered from the escapades.
well you are right of course, but its nice not to take the complicated view of everything all the time
Oh well, its saved for others to see else where. And I get notes in my letter box imploring me to support Labour. I don’t think so.
This is another warning. Clare
Of course Loota, you’d be ok if this company went bankrupt due to the smear campaign against it by the CTU without a chance to defend themselves. Putting the owners and their other staff members and potentially suppliers etc out of work too – JUST because the CTU put together a one sided clip saying this girl, that we know nothing about, was let go.
Yeah, seems fair… not!
Banned Trevor
It is hilarious to see Nact supporters calling for ‘fairness’, perhaps in a strange way you are sensing a form of the unfairness workers feel under 90 day fire at will.
“this girl that we know nothing about’ says Clint Heine. Well thats the point for workers, the reason for dismissal we know nothing about. Sacked because we can be, no redress, able to be treated like serfs because of high unemployment and tory ideology.
@3 jakes vile comment: there has obviously been a plumbing leak, hopefully the moderators can fix it soon.
Of course Loota, you’d be ok if this company went bankrupt due to the smear campaign against it by the CTU without a chance to defend themselves.
They can defend themselves Clint.
They can explain why they fired Florence.
Its a pity nobody has produced a copy of the letter from the employer to see whether she was fired as a direct consequence of the 90 day law or for some other matter that would have resulted in her being fired even without the 90 day law.
They can explain why they fired Florence.
Actually, within the current restrictions of the Privacy Act, they probably can’t.
I do hope the CTU have fully vetted the cases they present. Any own goal would be unfortunate.
Here is a serious question – I see she went to the EMPU about this – was she actually a member of a union when she was an employee? Or has this relationship started post her dismissal?
EPMU seems a strange union to be joining as a shop assistant?
If she wasnt a union member before being dismissed – why would they use her as a poster child for this campaign?
God, how much effort is it to google someone’s name to avoid this kind of thing.
@ JD – it could be why there was a ‘mistake’ in the spelling of her name for the video.
Cohen -> Coen would be a pretty lame way of trying to disguise someone’s identity for more than 1 min on the interwebs. Not saying it couldn’t happen but that would be amatuer hour.
Although when you do google her name the correct spelling is offered as a search option – ‘Did you mean: “florence cohen”‘- so this spelling ‘mistake’ doesn’t exactly work with such as distinctive name.
Hopefully whoever was responsible at the CTU for this video was reprimanded for such gross incompetence at running a smear campaign.
It’s just a spelling mistake, I’m sure they can fix it up!
It being a true story and all – I think what they are doing is great 
Hopefully the CTU, and workers, can connect with communities and families and develop this into an “it’s not ok to fire at will” type of campaign.
Wow, interesting responses, and a great deal more scrutiny of her and her potential motives than of any of the employers int he “survey”. I do wish people would stop misquoting that survey. 40% didnt say they wouldn’t have hired at all without the 90 day clause they said they wouldn’t have hired “this” employee, which could just as easily imply they would have hired a different person without the 90 day clause.
I dont get why some here accept without question the “survey” despite it raising a few questions but raise many about this girl and others like her.
It isn’t about whether all employers are evil or all workers are lazy good for nothings, that kind of black and white gets us nowhere..
“Interesting that your argument is now all about ‘fairness’ and giving employers a chance to have their say.”
I must say Loota the irony didnt escape me.
chris
“was she actually a member of a union when she was an employee? Or has this relationship started post her dismissal?” This particular practice is quite common. I have been involved with an employer who had an employee who didnt join the union, caused troubles, and made up a few stories along the way, after being made redundant (genuinely so) the employee joined the union and their clout got a settlement which, imo, wasn’t justifiable.
Same workplace I experienced the employer using similar bullying/clout to avoid a decent settlement because they knew the employee was without work and unlikely to be able to afford to fight.
Two different sides in one workplace.
I wonder what the CTU would say is employers started naming and shaming bad employees.. which i am sure would equal if not surpass the number of bad employers, without substantiating the facts first. They would be up in arms about it.. citing privacy laws and human rights etc etc etc. If an employer named and shamed an employee they would be in court faster than you can say CTU. i believe if a union wants to carry on naming and shaming employers than employers have the right to do the same.
“Actually, within the current restrictions of the Privacy Act, they probably can’t.” With her permission they can.
@ Tracy – in the stuff article they clearly say they gave a letter explaining all the reasons to the girl and her union – The union and Florence simply havnt been fothcoming and listed the reasons given – even when they had them before going to the papers.
(same article) Their lawyers have also asked the union for the reason of the complaint and didnt receive a response to that either.
Does that really sound like someone that is being 100% open and honest?
In some countries, its 180 days. So sad that cute girl got dismissed.
I work for Dominos Pizza and it seems they have a trend of employing new staff then letting them go on the 89th day. NO REASON. NO COST TO THEM. Further to this, they refuse to pay us employees during the 90 day trial period and if we bring these concerns up in the form of a complaint they have confirmed they will let us go. So not only am I starving and in debt, I am afraid to raise concerns to the employer through the department of labours services as I am in fear of losing my job. Department of Labour refuse to take the details of my complaint anonymously. I am also on a work visa. Thanks John for allowing larger employers the opportunity to abuse the 90 Day trial period. It’s an opeing for employers to commit fraud. JUST LIKE DOMINOS PIZZA