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.
LOL at the fairness comments, No sign of asking the employer for their side of the story, just a whole lot of conjecture from someone who was fired.
She even brings in the comments about the religious radio station to try and make it look like that was a possible reason.
Lie all things – there are two sides to every story – and it shows a shallow biased agenda when only show one.
Good luck to the girl getting a job now. I’d never hire her after seeing that.
Question – do you have videos of ‘neutral’ people – or are they all going to be grassroots labour activist?
Boycott!
@ Policy Parrot.
Dont you think it fair to know both sides of the story before you call for a boycott of a small business?
Good points Chris. There is a risk of slanderous allegations against employers here, they should be careful.
Still, the 90 day rule is a shocker, puts employer/employee relations back years.
Without both sides of the story it’s hard to comment on the specific case.
Regardless – the unions are using her to gain traction and in doing so making her less employable.
Boycott! me too. Both sides of the story are damn hard to discern with 90 day fire at will. Employers do not have to disclose anything to anyone, which is why street justice will end up occuring in some cases as families and communities get the ‘word’ about some of these tin pot employers. Not fair? neither is being denied a day in court or being able to answer any employer concerns.
This was always going to happen when a fair transparent process and natural justice principles were discarded in favour of an uneven power balance in the employment equation. Wether the religious angle was a factor here we will likely never know. All sorts of discriminatory nastiness is likely to happen with the new law.
Keep it up CTU.
@Chris : Of course there are two sides to a story. Problem is that the only way Florence can tell her side and get any kind of hearing at all is to go public. That’s because the 90 day trial period enables workers to be fired with no reason having to be given and no right to appeal that reason. Your comment “good luck to the girl getting a job now. I’d never hire her after seeing that” says it all really – no wonder workers don’t want to speak out.
In addition to extending the 90 day trial to all workers, the Government is also proposing to weaken the rights of all workers to challenge unfair dismissal . They want to reduce the requirement for a fair process, expand the reasons for dismissal, and remove reinstatement as a primary remedy.
Perhaps local businesses will boycott the young lady as well. Esp (using your words) word gets around she is a grassroots activist (which I bet she didnt disclose – she sure didnt in the video) and is happy to make very public conjecture about people.
http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen
I want to know what her story is! I can’t see the video, and so someone please, link me to a text version! Poor woman.. if I knew who her ex-employer was – boycott! (Along with the pharmacy that victimised the other woman.)
@Debby : try http://union.org.nz/news/2010/ctu-releases-another-90-day-story-16810
@Chris – grasping at straws to call her an activist – this young woman is still at school!
And here’s Heather Smith :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3yTjbkxEdw
@ Darien. Not grasping at straws at all – she is a member of grassroots labour http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen?xg_source=profiles_memberList
So perhaps not as neutral as you would have us believe.
I also worry about labour supporting NZ business by allowing people to call for a boycott of a kiwi business – without even knowing the full story.
But I forget – unsubstantiated claims from a young labour supporter – good. Employer = bad in all cases on this blog.
She can join me spamming the message boards while collecting my bene.
I note that your statistic says “1 out of 5 on a 90 day trial will be fired” as opposed to “have been”.
So you don’t have any valid statistics to provide about the current state of affairs?
You also don’t seem to consider the possibility that without this legislation the person employed would not have even had 90 days worth of employment, have YOU ever tried to employ people within the previous idiocy that was the mish-mash of both the DOL and Unionism?
I wish this young lady all the best with employment, but to expect any level of employment within Waikanae is hardly a new issue, plenty have to commute to either Wellington or Palmerston North, I trust the young lady in question will show the same fortitude shown by so many other people within her township.
Go Florence! These young women are so courageous speaking out like this.
Re: Chris – there is no need to sack someone without reason. Such an act is simple cowardice.
Consumers in most competitive industries have a massive latent power at their disposal. Most don’t even realise the power which they hold as a collective.
I should know, I work in customer service – by need/not choice. If you piss off a customer, regardless of fault they will likely not return, and tell others “f**k, don’t go there”.
From Rosa Parks, through the fair trade movement, Cadbury’s, to Florence Coen and co. The power of the consumer boycott is not one to be trifled with.
Perhaps the union movement should consider coming up with a similar labour certification for businesses – begin a “labour-friendly” status in much the same way as the fair trade movement. That way consumers conscious of labour rights can avoid shopping at those stores who do not have “labour-friendly” status.
Parrot, but then labour friendly businesses will go broke.we do not have the numbers anymore, we are hated.
mikey – can you not distinguish between labour rights and the labour party?
0800 labour does not reach Fraser House.
Also, coffee suppliers/wholesalers haven’t gone broke.
The same Florence Cohen?
http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen?xg_source=profiles_memberList
I’ve looked on CTU website too but can only find video – no written report. Shame because we could distribute these stories through our networks.
Hey it’s that lady from Q & A
Hi Policy Parrot! 
Out on her ear without an explanation, not fair
maybe this is a political stunt. she is grassroots labour after all. maybe she got herself fired to then become a “face” for the name and shame campaign. Shame on you for not having full disclosure of her political affiliations.
She needs to grow up and get a spine. Pah! She is already displaying features of a lifetime beneficiary. You get fired, go get another job with an employer that values you. The 90 day rule is the best thing for getting this economy going again. Bleating Labour sheep will get us all slaughtered.
Say no more another setup.
http://grassroots.labour.org.nz/profile/FlorenceCohen?xg_source=profiles_memberList
@rightlyleftout: Removing full disclosure and transparency in employment relationships is what ‘90 day fire at will’ is all about. How dare you demand same from someone pointing out the injustice involved, and making unsubstantiated statements to boot.
@rightyleftout : Sorry, this is a CTU video, not a Labour video and even if she is a member (which I don’t know) – so what? FFS she’s a school girl! Have you checked out the Heather video as closely for her membership? Are you saying that workers’ experiences should be discounted because somehow they’ve decided they want to be involved with a political Party, or for that matter a union, or the CTU, which are quite distinct organisations from the Labour Party? Does that work both ways, because if it does, I can find heaps of “political stunts” from the righty side of the fence. Truth is, the NACts actions are recruiting flat out for unions and Labour at the moment with their dumb law changes – and it won’t be school kids – it will be their mums and dads and their families, come the extension to all workplaces.
She got the boot because her attitude sucked.
The end.
Also I would never hire her, far to immature.
Lots of people join political parties after being treated unfairly. Good on you Florence.
Bad luck Trevor, had you researched this you’d find that she has been a member since at least 2009.
Well then, even members of political parties can be unfairly treated at work.
Unfortunately they’re all past the 90 day threshold…
@Trevor, yeah I’m sure she was happily working at this place a few days ago, got canned and then became a Labour member of such standing she had her own webpage on a Labour webiste – all within a few days… Exactly how stupid do you think we all are..?
Bloody hell Darion, you have a fithy mouth on you.
What’s wrong with you NAct people? You are all in denial about something that is ridiculously unfair. So what if Florence is on grassroots Labour? That doesn’t mean she’s a member, and I don’t blame her for looking for support from people who will show some compassion for her situation, because she’s sure not going to get any from National and ACT. If it were your daughter or son, what would be your reaction? What things are you going to dream up about the other worker the CTU have highligted (Heather) to try to deny the way she was treated as well? These cases will keep coming and you won’t be able to write them all off as “political stunts” – especially as it’s coming to a workplace near you very soon.
I don’t work, so won’t effect me.
Why can not lab disclose any potential conflict of interest or associations, just like the Worth story Lab may have achieve a trophy head in that case but still underplayed their knowledge of the situation emails/ txt whatever the msn brought it without too much collateral damage. Please in future disclose ties
“Sorry, this is a CTU video, not a Labour video”, but you are promoting it for your cause.
Also did Lab not get some women fired and bad mouthed in parliament because who she slept with, how fair was that and where was the union then?
90 day bill does not seem as dracion as you paint it to be, but could be rebalanced with the ability of greater union access to work sites and Andrew Littles understanding of what 1 weeks cashed in pay means to us lucky ones in employment trying to pay for the cost of living that Lab and Nat have made so difficult from your various policies.
@Mikey – it wasn’t me.
@Chris – the fact is that some, but not all employers are bad news. Labour laws are there to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation. And this kind of example, along with the many others we have heard do nothing to improve the reputation of NZ employers. They should be joining with us and condemning these kind of practices – as should you.
The Standard has posted this now Desperation or what.
We are desperate.
Joining and condemning practices that so far you’ve shown no interest in truly investigating? Frankly if you cannot muster up the interest to investigate the issue from both sides of the story then I must hold you in the same regard I hold Mallard’s most recent politicking regarding Bill English.
Also I note you mention nothing of the times where employees could not be dismissed without going through lengthy disputes processes, culminating in a society where it was deemed easier to keep someone employed to the detriment of the remaining workforce, or worse still finance lump pay-outs.
The 90 day policy was aimed at environments that lacked the necessary HR departments and budgets to protect themselves against the individuals determined to capitalise on employment laws, if the individual in this instance feels they have been persecuted for religious beliefs and/or age related concerns then I eagerly await the outcome of a DOL investigation, rather than a slanderous campaign from unionists and a vote-currying politicians.
@rjt – if the 90 day policy was aimed at “environments that lacked the necessary HR departments …….” why is the government extending it to all workplaces regardless of size?
Not again, seriously who is running the party. Vehemently opposing a policy that could be very useful for the more vulnerable and then using a Labour party activist to try and discredit it.
The sooner the party is run by “ordinary” NZers the better. Too much Union influence (bearing in mind they cover less than 10% of private sector workers). I quite like my boss, he is a good guy and treats us all fairly, its often us on the shopfloor who suffer when he employs someone who is useless.
Ah, finally a response. Well done.
Possibly because the reflection in expansion of smaller businesses able to capitalise on the ability to offer opportunity to prospective employees WITHOUT the risk of subsequent, costly, battles with either Unions or DOL?
Is it perhaps because *insert violent shudder here* that the scheme has actually proven to be a success through a tough economic time and may actually, by way of even trial periods, reduce unemployment?
Or did you think it was an act designed to offer personal insult to both your party and voting public?
@rjt – show me the evidence that it has proven to be a success through tough economic times, and “may reduce unemployment”. That’s certainly not what the DOL report recently released said and hello, hasn’t unemployment gone up during the period since the 90 day trial period has been in force?
I laugh you again you make comments guessing that the company is bad – despite having no information about them at all.
For all we know – she may have been fired for taking drugs at work, sleeping with the boss, being rude to customers, or theft. Ill just mention it in passing as she did about the radio station. Not making accusations but if I say it some wll simply think it as fact.
Im not saying that this is the case – but it might be – I have just as much evidence of this as she has provided in her video.
She has been given a letter with reasons why it didnt work out (see stuff) – I would love her to share them – although she seems to have gone quite – not big on openness and honesty.
also – Take Note proprietor Alan Tinney referred inquiries to his lawyer, Graeme Gowland. Mr Gowland, an employment law specialist, said he had written to the EPMU to find what the complaint was, but had not heard back.
Sometimes employers need protection from people like her. Im going to laugh if the reasons for her dismissal come out and she did something naughty.
@Chris – that’s so ridiculous. If she had done any of those things she could have been fired justifiably. I’m disgusted by your denigration of this young worker.
I appreciate that thusfar it is your forte to ignore the provisions placed in such statements as “tough economic times” when blithely wading through with the DOL reports (we are talking the same DOL that had such adverse effects on employers) with a view to ignoring the voice of people attempting to offer jobs.
You do understand global trends towards unemployment, especially when idiotic governments encourage FTAs with China and have no interest in retaining manufacturing jobs with the likes of Fisher Paykel don’t you?