Saturday’s Herald had a feature on the biggest shake-up of employment laws in 20 years and gave an example of a Fijian carpenter, Basa Jal, who apparently owes his job and his New Zealand residence to the current 90-day trial period law.
To the rescue came Sean Robertson-Welsh, who owns New Zealand’s biggest fencing supplies company, Effective Fencing in Penrose, who agreed to give Mr Jal a job under the 90-day trial law, and support his application for a work permit. Mr Robertson-Welsh said he wouldn’t have taken on Mr Jal without the 90 day trial period.
So far, good story for those who claim the 90 day trial period is providing jobs for those on the “margins”.
But then, this.
Mr Robertson-Welsh, an English immigrant who bought the company in 2008 after running a similar business in Britain for 15 years, is a bitter opponent of the current employment laws allowing sacked workers to seek compensation for unjustified dismissal.
“It’s so bloody archaic here. I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “I’ve been in the Employment Court seven times in three years. In Britain I was in business 25 years and never went to the Employment Court once, which shows you the culture.”
What? Is he serious? In the Employment Court seven times in three years! That’s got to be a record for any employer, let alone one that employs less than 20 people. It’s hard work for a worker to get a case to the Employment Court and this suggests to me that this employer has some real problems in his employment practices.
I also wonder whether he thought some of the other laws in the UK were “archaic”, such as working time regulation, meals and rest breaks, and minimum redundancy entitlements – which New Zealand either doesn’t have or is in the process of wrecking.
But hardly a poster boy for good employers.
“It’s hard work for a worker to get a case to the Employment Court”
What a load of nonsense.
They get a no-win no-fee lawyer and simply reject any offers made in mediation (if any). It cost them about $50 to lodge the complaint.
There are a lot of cases on the DOL website that have full information of the cases – so you can get a full story – have a read of them and see how many employers have had to spend ‘000’s defending ridiculous claims.
Bad employers need to be held to account (and punished) – but a employer ending up in employment court is not necessarily a bad employer.
Another thing to point out is that Effective Fencing have not been to employment court since 2007 (Before he purchased it) as far as I can find on the DOL website.
Perhaps he was referring to Mediation?
Scary
I’m looking forward to hearing from all of those who attacked the CTU stories of workers fired within 90 days and justifying this sloppy employer.
He sounds just as much an idiot to me as he does to you. Hardly counts as a typical NZ employer. There is always an exception to prove the rule Westie.
Yeah bad employers and bad performance managers are who the 90 day right to fire is going to help out the most, to the detriment of reasonable employees.
@ Westie – we need to know the details of the 7 cases to be able to make a call either way.
It shocks me that people continue to make employer = bad comments when they are totally in the dark about the details.
Shame on this blog making potential damaging post about this business with NO information to back up their comments at all.
Still – that seems to be the way with your latest batch of employment post.
I’m sure you will find managers who will abuse this are few and far between Loota. Some of you seem to have difficulty understanding that most employers actually LIKE the people they work with. I know I did.
With regards to the 90 day trial period he appears to be responding to a simple incentive.
With regards to the less-simple labour laws – looks like he does have some problems there.
Two separate things – what’s the point of this post?
Worth mentioning, I guess, that there probably will be a few problems with the 90 day law – i remember in recent Dept of Labour survey that a significant chunk (~40%?) of employers didn’t understand several facets of the law. Not good, education needed.
@StephenR – the point is this employer is being used as an example of one who has given someone a chance under the 90 day trial law, but who clearly has issues about the way he views the people he employs.
He probably means mediation services/ the ERA because in the UK they have the employment tribunals including preliminary settlement conferences etc… all under an umbrella, as opposed the the hand holding sessions magaret introduced, storm in a tea cup much!
Most employees like having their jobs and working to keep them…so we didnt need to change the law, right?
Management Theories and the 90 day law. Pick the type of emplyers that will love teh 90 day law.
Sorry its so long, its cut from Wikipedia.
Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created and developed by Douglas McGregor. The theory describes two very different attitudes toward workforce motivation. McGregor felt that companies followed either one or the other approach.He also thought that the key to connecting self-actualization with work is determined by the managerial trust of subordinates.
Theory X
In this theory, which has been proven counter-effective in most modern practice, management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike work. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can, under Theory X the firm relies on money and benefits to satisfy employees’ lower needs, and once those needs are satisfied the source of motivation is lost. Theory X management styles in fact hinder the satisfaction of higher-level needs. Consequently, the only way that employees can attempt to satisfy their higher level needs in their work is by seeking more compensation, so it is quite predictable that they will focus on monetary rewards. Theory X thus have a hard approach towards the employee’s however, McGregor assert that neither approach is appropriate because the assumptions of Theory X are not correct.
In conclusion Theory X assumes that the average person:
• Dislikes work and attempts to avoid it.
• Has no ambition, wants no responsibility, and would rather follow than lead.
• Is self-centred and therefore does not care about organizational goals.
• Resists change.
workers are lazy and they do not want to work
Theory Y
In this theory, management assumes employees may be ambitious and self-motivated and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. They possess the ability for creative problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed. They also believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and thus the possibilities that can be created. He thinks that Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X managers to develop the climate of trust with employees that are required for human resource development. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making, so that subordinates comes out with decisions that influence them. This theory is a positive view to the employees, meaning that the employer is under a lot less pressure than someone who is influenced by a theory X management style.
[edit] Theory Y makes the following general assumptions:
• Work can be as natural as play and rest.
• People will be self-directed to meet their work objectives if they are committed to them.
• People will be committed to their objectives if rewards are in place that addresses higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.
• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.
Theory X and Theory Y combined
For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not different ends of the same continuum. Rather they are two different continua in themselves. Thus, if a manager needs to apply Theory Y principles, that does not preclude them from being a part of Theory X & Y
@ Darien – in order to have a fair debate – its only reasonable you allow post thru despite you agreeing with them or not. I have comments here that have been in moderation since 2pm – and while I appreciate that you dont sit there just moderating red alert – you are on this thread posting whilst my post remain ‘blocked’
So – Please at least allow both ’sides’ to comment.
Yes most people did that in Mant101
Lol, it is so easy for employees to take a case to the ERA…
I know employers who have come across staff that were employed (after poor referencing) who make sexual harassment claims and improper dismissal claims at job after job a very lucrative form of employment…
@ jeremy M Harris – name and shame them then.
I’ll have to ask my mate the name of the employee and check if it’s legal first…
Well it makes sense that some employers might not have hired people without the 90 day trial period. But there will be some employers who wouldn’t have fired people without it either
I think the company that (burger related) was on the news saying they would do it (fire at will) as long as they are legally able to their right to do so, highlights the issue quite well – that there will be employers who will exploit workers for their gain.
Oh come on guys – moderation? Any reason for that? Have I missed something in the last few days?
90 days probation – Lazy, shonkey employer law. These new laws being imposed on NZ workers will result in exactly the opposite of “Closing the pay gap with Australia” by making already weak work-rights laws weaker. To the Labour party: please give those that oppose these laws a reason to vote for you.
“I also wonder whether he thought some of the other laws in the UK were “archaic”, such as working time regulation, meals and rest breaks, and minimum redundancy entitlements – which New Zealand either doesn’t have or is in the process of wrecking.”
Good points, the UK and the EU have very strong employment protection laws, some too much and has resulted in higher unemployment, especially with youth. Thing is Darien, and I know you hate this, but you fellas had a long time to do something about employment laws in NZ to come close to the UK/EU and you really didn’t do it.
Who are you people? Is this the only thing you can contribute to the industrial wellbeing of your country. I find the whole thing more than a little sad.
How dare you refer to me as an idiot, I have invested a great deal in New Zealand. I employ over 50 NZ citizens on a full time basis and contribute substantial profit taxes to help towards the countries prosperity.
I had a ten minute telephone conversation with a journalist from the New Zealand Herald who has managed to jumble everything I said into a few paragraph of nonsense.
I appeared on One News, three weeks ago, twice the following week and appeared in the Dominion Post the same week. I undertook a full interview and the points made in those interviews were more accurate.
I have in fact attended the Disputes Tribunal seven times in the last two and a half years. This is seen by the solicitors representing employees as an easy touch for lets say 10k plus costs. I have no need to try to set world records; I have merely refused to succumb to the nonsense I have had the misfortune to be embroiled in. Most of this was inherited from the former business. I object to your use of the word typical when making reverence to me as a NZ employer. I took over the business from a typical Kiwi business man, he had worked his guts out for over twenty three years in this industry, he was suffering serious health issues due to the stress of his failing business and was bordering on bankruptcy.
His, work force were as responsible as him for the £1.5 Million minus on his balance sheet at that time. The rules and regulations you are trying to protect were also a contributing factor in the problems. I wandered in to his premises only having been in NZ for two weeks because this was a similar business to one I had owned in the UK for around 25 years. I sold the business in 2004 and retired.
The minute I walked through the door of Effective Fencing, I was shocked at how over maned the business was. The, then owner of the business explained that there was very little he could do about that!
I stepped in and transformed the business into the largest fence and gate, company in the country with a full order book taking us through to 2013 working on the largest Construction Contracts in NZ including SH20 Manukau, SH16-18 Hobsonville, Victoria Tunnel Alliance and many more.
I am in the process of forming a Kiwi branch of my company in Australia and this should be worth around $10 Million per year in very valuable exports for the country.
For the record I have no unusual employee problems, I have no reservations that I am in a tough and competitive industry. I am just doing what I have done my whole working life; building a profitable business against trying odds and supporting my fifty plus workers and their families and doing my bit for the country. If that makes me an idiot then it’s maybe time I went somewhere else and left all you clever people to it.
Trouble with employment law is people and some people are A**H****. A small amount of workers are lazy and spiteful. A small amount of employers are demanding and greedy.
I found most of the issues with company is not the Owners or the Workers it the management.
They annoy and harass the workers and hold the Owners/Investors to ransom and demand huge wages for very little work.
Of course not all mangers are bad but leave the poor old workers and employers alone. Chase down the real devils… that the A**H**** of all 3.
There are fair points about ‘no win, no fee’ employment lawyers who are in it for their own pockets, rather than the interests of wronged workers. If I recall correctly, the unions didn’t shine much of a candle to these flash Harrys.
Other than that, a lot (but not all) of managers out there are in desperate need of Human Resources 101. Unless of course, they suffer from such severe cases of the Bobby Kotick disease that bankruptcy is the only cure for them.
@Sean, I’m glad you’re here, anyone who can competently run a business is someone we need in NZ more than dime a dozen unionist politicians… Predictable, boring and define themselves by what the stop, rather than what they create…
I encourage you to keep going and expanding and filter out the nay sayers…
Although its easy to be defensive about a few bullets being fired your way on a blog SRW, I don’t see that there is a pressing need to be. Nor do I see a pressing business need for you to back 90 day right to fire legislation.
What you have pointed out is the poor level of management acumen you found in the company you took over. What you have pointed out is that the company was severely overstaffed and that the owner didn’t have the nous to do anything about it. You did. Yes you were in the employment court multiple times which was no doubt a waste of time and money that could have been put to better use. But you also pointed out that those issues were largely legacy issues which you inherited from the previous owner and the current processes eventually delivered usable results.
In any case, the 90 day right to fire legislation would make no difference to such legacy issues surrounding long employed staff.
Although the current employment legislation burdened you with some additional costs and effort to work through specific issues with specific employees it has not stopped you from creating significant success from the near wreck of a company you took over. I believe its what they call the cost of doing business.
Stop and think why you and so many of your compatriots, employees, contractors and business owners alike, have bailed out of the UK.
And then think for a moment why NZ’ers would want you to recreate the UK employment situation (not necessarilya paragon of performance in itself) here. Many wouldn’t, would they. That cannot be surprising.
JMH said
Or dime a dozen no hope business manager-owners just as likely to run their operations into the ground, you forgot to add.
What you have highlighted for me SRW is that the level of management and entrepreneurial skills in this country need to be greatly improved. We too frequently do not meet a basic international standard of managerial performance in this commercial backwater.
So workers are meant to feel sorry for these employers? I guess the expectation is we should be happy to accept our lower wages and conditions from a ‘take it or leave it’ individual contract that potentially imposes 90 days probation, complain about nothing, and be on call 7 days per week at ordinary time? If a worker says no in a farcical ‘negotiation’ while applying for a job, then they face a reduction of their benefit as a result? Workers are being painted into a corner by a Government that is doing nothing to create jobs. Pfft to employers playing the victim…. it’s gone on for too long (the last 20 years or more). Meanwhile there’s still the issue of your party getting elected on the promise of “Closing the wage gap with Australia”.
Who knows, its quite possible that the NATs meant that you can close the wage gap with Australia by moving over there personally…
From what I can see Mr Robertson-Welsh, you came here for the same reason established employers here move their business to China: cheap, disposable, easily exploited labour.
Some folks seem to conveniently forget that this last labour Government was one of the most business friendly Labour led Governments we’ve had. It’s for certain the current government will not be remembered as being very worker friendly, for a National government.
While we heard alot of rhetoric about how hard it was to run a business in NZ under Labour, in fact international measures contradicted that. I am not suggesting Labour is the employer/business owners best of best friends, my point is they moved significantly across the prior divide… this government hasn’t made a move across the same divide.
I to was taken aback that an employer of around 50 people had 7 trips tot he Employment Tribunal Court in 2 years.
I was recently involved in a personal grievance dispute and I can say categorically that the employer was not some pushover prepared to “settle” to make it go away or because it was cheaper than Court. In fact this employer, in my opinion, and as time has proven, got away lightly.
While I can see the potential problems with win-only fee charging, it has the corollary of allowing those who could otherwise not afford a legitimate claim, because their resources are starined compared tot heir employer, to get a fair hearing.
Those who think this debate is about proving that employers are right, or employees are right, are going to be perpetually disappointed. It’s not so black and white. However the bloody minded pursuit of “right” in this context simply further polarises.
I’ve heard proponents of the 90 day (no right to challenge) trial suggest it wont make a huge difference because most employers are basically good and recognise the value of their workers. I agree, so why the need to change it? Because it is used by both parties as a political football.
As I tell my students each year when we discuss employment law;
This is one of the areas of law most affected by political ideology. It’s this area that sees the most change, most often from a change of government.
For my part, I think both major parties have got it wrong. Someone needs to stand up for the value of both sides of the employment equation. Neither exists or thrives or survives without the other. It’s not a contest.
Oh no Bruce, you’re supposed to aspire to higher training and learning to advance into management etc… of course capping numbers at Techs and Universities currently stymies that.
It makes me wonder with all the comments being thrown around on this blog about the poor employment practices of Mr Roberton-Welsh if this is getting close to:
libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.
with comments like ” this suggests to me that this employer has some real problems in his employment practices.
I also wonder whether he thought some of the other laws in the UK were “archaic”, such as working time regulation, meals and rest breaks, and minimum redundancy entitlements – which New Zealand either doesn’t have or is in the process of wrecking.
But hardly a poster boy for good employers.”
If he chose to have a crack at you it would serve you guys right. So often naming / shaming with only the one side of the story that you want to hear.
@Sean Robertson-Welsh
While you are here Sean, can you explain why you thought it was okay to withold over $5,000 in holiday pay from Chris Sucich when he resigned from Effective Fencing and then defy a determination from a Labour Inspector that it should be paid, resulting in the Labour Inspector having to initiate proceedings against Effective Fencing in the Employment Relations Authority?
My apologies for calling Sean R-W an idiot. I broke my own rule of needing both sides of a story before rushing to judgement. Sorry Sean.
Bruce, what exactly do you mean? Are you simply writing any old nonsense to provoke a reaction.
Cheap labour, have I missed something? I will not participate further on this forum, it is more than obvious that certain contributors to your site are all so negative and readily cast aspersions on topics that they obviously have no knowledge.
I wasn’t aware that I came to New Zealand to do anything other than retire! but what do I know.
It is my experience in business for what it is worth, that if you observe a company treating their workers with contempt, it is not usually long before they are showing the same contempt for their clients. This usually contributes to their demise.
Strong prosperous companies employ good work ethics and moral principles. My business moves forward utilizing the skills of a well crafted team. Our largest cost is labour and it’s the item we invest in the most. Good business relies on drawing from skills but also needs to invest in training. Never lose sight of the fact that every business is entitled to good value from its workforce. Times are tough out there in the market place and no business can afford to carry workers. I employ skilled workers, semi-skilled workers and un-skilled workers, the wage range is between $55k and $150k placing more than half my workforce in the top 5% of earners in New Zealand.
I have not meat this easily exploited labour force you speak of Bruce, far from it, I have found the workers of New Zealand very well informed on that front.
You keep referencing to the UK, and yes the UK has its faults but don’t be quick to jump to the conclusion that its all doom and gloom and don’t assume I have had a lucky escape from Britain.
For your information my wife Debra was actually persuaded to come to New Zealand to help develop improvements in some of the university degree courses here in NZ, as one of the top academic quality managers. I came as a bi-product of this arrangement and unfortunately had the notion to walk into Effective Fencing, to satisfy my curiosity.
I’m confused about how the 90 day law could be currently used by Mr SRW when he claims upthread he has 50 employees? Or did I read that wrong?
I’ve done a bit over 100 employment cases for union members, over the period 2005-2008, and not a single one went to the Employment Court or the Authority. One did go to mediation, which everyone was keen on as it was a unique situation which required some assistance with sorting out. The brief at the union I work for is to resolve at the lowest level possible. Sadly I did have a case, one of my last before my role changed away from case work, where the member decided to ditch us and go with a lawyer instead. This didn’t happen v often – off the top of my head I can’t recall any of my other cases going this way. Anyway this particular member did end up at Court, with her lawyer, and not only did she lose but she got $20k costs awarded against her. So these processes are not without risk to workers too. (Particularly if they get poor legal assistance)
Apologies for any typos – fat fingers plus iPod keyboard equals difficult times!
@Chris – don’t think you should be talking about “libel” when you were quick to put the boot into Florence and make baseless suggestions about her dismissal. Mr SRW has been only too keen to have himself in the newspaper and TV so should expect some examination of the facts.
@Julie – I think Mr SRW had or has 35 contractors, although in the Dominion story he was saying he couldn’t wait for the 90 day trial to be extended to all workers, because he was about to hire more.
Sean if you will only hire people if you are allowed to fire them for no good reason I would say your a lousy employer, maybe a good buisnessman, entrepreneur and a good contributer to our small economy, but a lousy employer.
Damn I was hoping to see the answer to Toad’s questions, you know in the name of open and honest debate which Sean claimed he was after, two sides of the story and all that.
Has their been a clammer of employers with similar experiences to Sean?
I was really looking forward to Sean’s answer to toad’s questions, shame, both sides being important and all.
Dylan, What on earth are you talking about? Have you any Idea of the costs for recruiting these days. Why would any employer want to dismiss an employee for “no good reason” talking from my own experience, if I have ever dismissed a worker it’s been for very good reason and incidentally within the disciplinary rules and procedures. The 90 day Employment Contract presently used by my company, has the same disciplinary rules and procedures as before. The exception being that the worker can’t litigate and collect the easy 10k on the way out. Sounds perfectly fair to me, when making difficult decisions about dismissing workers, all business face the same dilemmas; it doesn’t matter if it is the 90 day rule or a restructure to try to get your company through a rough spot. The decision is always made with the clear knowledge of the people involved. The productive conscientious workers are always the last on the list because these are the workers who are going to battle your business through the tough times. The less productive workers, lets say, bring their own fate on themselves. Business in my experience is like the rolling tide whether you like it or not, it’s rolls in and it rolls out and is continually changing like the sea. The same can be said of the business workforce who drive that business. My golden rule is “ I pay top wages and I demand top workers” and that to me, means a worker, working contentiously within their abilities, you need to make your mind up! Do you want profitable business or a lame social experiment, you can’t have both.
Relax mate no one is having a go at you per se, you have built a business back up from the brink and it sounds like you believe in rewarding productivity and valuing employees who do their damn best on behalf of your company.
Bad managers, lacksadaisical management, laissez faire business owners, poor performance managers, those are the ones who will misuse the new legislation.
No, I’ve been involved in helping to manage a small number of employment disputes over time and I have *never* seen employees simply pick up a $10K envelope just by bringing an unjustifiable PG.
So I think you are overstating this situation.
Whether you admit or not, your company is a social experiment. You pay top wages, you respect good workers, you expect (and demand) them to do their best for you and you will do so in return for them. If only more NZ businesses were run on that basis.
Sean saying workers need a reason to be sacked isn’t exactly a social experiment it’s common sense that goes back decades. The 90 day trial allows people to be sacked for no reason and that is all that is changing here, if someone is being unproductive or if the buisness can’t take them on any longer then your right they need to be fired, but those are good reasons to fire people and your already allowed to do that.
Dylan, I don’t have the same understanding as you, of the 90 day rule. My understanding is that an employer still needs to observe the rights of an employee and still needs to exercise fair and reasonable treatment of that employee. The employment regulations still stand, an Employment Contract, outlining fair and legal rights are still a legal requirement. As I said earlier, why would any employer sack a worker for absolutely no reason? I fail to see the point, any business can only survive and prosper with the help of good workers, when you find them you usually stick with them. One of the underlying factors within my business when employing poor workers comes directly from my managers and mostly from fabricators on the shop floor, they can see what’s going on and they know that the person next to them is doing half the production but getting the same pay. The hard working guys let you know about that pretty smartly. So although I, appear to be making the decision, the need to maintain my star workers is the deciding factor and the decision is what I call a natural team decision.
Loota, When I say 10k flippantly, in three or four of the cases I have been involved with, I have been dragged into the Disputes Tribunal, what a surprise all the employees have used the same solicitor, who uses the same tactic and accusations; Harassment and Bullying. This being one of the hardest things to disprove and despite the fact that I have barely ever spoken to the employee, as they have had a line manager from the start of their employment. The usual request at the first hearing is 5k compensation without admitting liability, 5k costs for legal fees, Glen Ha ha, and in the first few disputes 5k for my own legal fees, Ross Ha ha. I soon learned to go straight in myself and do the negotiations. You know the thing; one room to another until you have an agreement. You all know that it makes sense to stop wasting any more time on this old nonsense and you wouldn’t like it to go to the Employment Court proper, as the cost would probably sink you. It is commonly referred to as a nuisance payment. It all adds up at the end of the year but think about the lost time and this payment and lack of productivity, goes down as a cost to the business meaning less profit tax at the end of the year. So these little scams are costing the country one way or another, I wouldn’t mind betting that the 5 or 10k payment award, doesn’t appear on any Tax Return just put in the back pocket. I am referring to the employee!! not the solicitor, heaven forbid!
Must cost the Country Millions each year in lost Income Tax , just a thought!!
This is definitely a problem talking to employers I know, not sure if 90 days is the answer but it is a grievance industry run by shaddy lawyers and abused by a small minority of employees and needs something dome about it…