The most significant changes to workers’ rights in two decades are coming our way via the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Holidays Amendment Bill, which had their first readings in parliament in the last few days.
So, you would think that the government would want New Zealanders (both for and against) to have their say.
Not so, it seems.
The two bills have been referred to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee, who had, according to the Chair David Bennett, decided “informally” to call for submissions, even prior to the conclusion of the first readings in parliament.
(Disclosure : I am a member of this Select Committee, where Labour and the Greens are in the minority, so I know what really happened, but I can’t say so publicly).
The timeframe for the submissions for these two bills is at best three weeks, with closing dates on the 13 September and 17 September respectively.
I would have thought the government would be keen to ensure all of support they claim to have had around the 90 day fire at will extension, the sickies get-to-the-doctor-or-else provision and the selling of holidays were able0 to be presented at Select Committee.
Or should I be more cynical? Is the short timeframe really designed to make sure that unions and workers have as little time as possible to have their say?
If the government really believes there is support for these changes, they would have given more time for submissions.
But then there’s ACT calling the shots and National meekly following on behind. I forgot that Minister Kate Wilkinson got rolled at Cabinet (again) over her recommendations.
Good luck for us in a pandemic!
I think you need a reality check. If I start a new job I may be on a 90 day trial. So what – I will be pleased for the opportunity. If I decided to take a whole bunch of mondays off the employer may ask for a medical certificate.fair enough if I am rorting the system. And if the employer and I both agree then at the end of a year I may be able to cash up a week of my annual leave.
Wow really dramatic!
I think you need to get more. Most people will agree that this really is all quite moderate.
Monty is playing it down as it gives him more power as an employer.
Monty
Your interpretation is blue wash.
Within 90 days – no fault needed nor reason.
Mecical cert for one day? Not a series of Mondays.
Perhaps if you had a taste of what devastation this could do to young strugglers by uncaring employers and faceless corps then it may cause some thinking.
I’m all right jack is not a good measuring stick.
@Monty – you’re might have some points – in a very simplistic way & perhaps without the level of knowledge needed to understand the history & reasons for the legislation we have now & the repercussions of these proposed changes. Re: The existing legislation – it’s already a system & process(for the most part) which should apply to all workers across the board, carried out fairly & consistently, communicated openly, transparently & all done in a timely manner for all parties concerned. RE: Work trials – can be a positive opportunity for a worker & employer, WHEN & where BOTH parties genuinely know & understand from the outset the framework that will apply to them,communication is timely, transparent & in good faith AND the terms agreed to – work trials ALREADY exist & are provided for. It’s the removal of “choice”, “transparency”, “consistency” & “fairness” “right of reply or redress” that I personally object to. How does a worker learn from their mistakes, increase their skills & knowledge without making mistakes & learning through experience?! The other critical issue is that more often than not an employer has the balance of power in their favour through economy ($), they hold the decision who to appoint, resources like lawyers & HR, business advisers, mentors, Chamber of Commerce, EMA etc etc……the worker NEEDS the job, relies on the employer to be fair, considered & genuine in their engagement with them, often does not know their value as a worker, understand their own rights & responsibilities in the workplace & what they should reasonably expect from the employment relationship. An employer can already terminate an employment relationship through the existing provisions. RE: Sick Leave – ALREADY PROVISION IN LAW to cover all aspect of genuine sick leave, misuse of sick leave, etc etc – employers just need to follow that & they will be OK, but more often than not, they treat one person differently than the other with little or no justification, expect workers to put up or shut up, or they are simply too lazy or scared to deal with the issues up front & head on.
RE: Annual Leave – the intention behind the provision of leave for workers is for REST AND RECREATION. Time with family, regenerating & refreshing. New Zealand workers already work incredibly long hours, workloads only increase during periods of recession as companies put in place attrition policies, cap the number of staff or lay off workers, but they expect that productivity will stay the same or still improve – with less people to do the work…..and the hard fought for & won annual leave provisions are there because it was recognised that this was an appropriate recognition of workers time & value (let still lags behind many other countries annual leave provisions). Like the reality of lazy workers, ‘rorting’ sick leave etc – so too is the reality of poor employers who don’t know or don’t care how to manage worker relationships, who treat workers differently based on their own bias & who might be willing to kiss their ass, who do not pay their workers fairly, who act like they are better than everyone else, just because they are the “manager or boss”, who don’t care about workplace health & safety & YOU are telling me that it is OK to take away what little protection & rights they have now……..110 New Zealand workers die a year in workplace accidents & it is only increasing & we don’t place the priority & attention to this as other fatality statistics nor do we place the right value on workers contribution to industry & the economy! It is the workers who build the economy, the LEAST they deserve is fair pay, good terms & conditions AND protection from unfair treatment. This must be provided for in law, as it is only legislation & the ability/determination of workers to organise collectively that is available to workers in their relationship with an employer which goes some way to redress the power imbalance and has been proven throughout history to effect positive change across society.
Although I dont agree with the changes to me the urgency and haste is disturbing. We are watching the taking away of a fundamental right, a pillar of natural justice and the people have 3 weeks to comment? It’s like NACT and MP have forgotten the furore over the EFA and their fears for the eroding of democratic principles. Nat Justice is a pillar of democratic principles.
I work in an area (teaching) where most employees think “it won’t affect me.” I live in an area where it is almost impossible to get a Drs appointment on any given day – usually 3-5 days notice is needed for most GPs. Also what if the sick day is for a sick child and not myself? Do I want to drag a vomiting child to the after hours clinic? Do the other patients want that? Do the GPs have the time to see any more patients than they alreay see?
Mostly I worry for our young people. When my son starts his first job, how devastating will it be to be ‘let go’ on day 89 without a reason? How will he learn what he needs to improve? I grew up under Thatcher in the UK, seems to me she was a role model for the current government.
Emma, not to worry, apparently the changes arent really changes, well tiny changes, almost makes you wonder, if that’s true, why we needed them?
Monty’s picture disappeared!
Ew more germs in the workplace and people being used and dumped!