My post on the CTU’s Job Survivor website provoked some interesting responses. It was gratifying to see that some (including those in business) don’t automatically go to the default position that for business to do well, workers’ rights must be curtailed.
So thank you – your responses inspired me to write more and I want to see more of this debate in New Zealand.
But where are the imaginative and creative business leaders in NZ when we need them?
I know they’re there, but I wish they would speak out. Some businesses tell me they are keeping their heads down on the government’s anti-worker policies, even although they don’t agree with them.
Others have already negotiated sensible arrangements with unions around access and the 90 day no rights period, saying they don’t want or need these kind of policies to be good at what they do.
New Zealand’s law extending the no rights period of 90 days to all workplaces has yet to take effect, but those without imagination are eyeing David Cameron’s proposal to extend UK’s no grievance period to two years. The justification from David Cameron sounds very familiar, with him claiming that increasing the no rights period means that “employers will take the risk of taking someone on” .
But in the UK, they have a 12 month no rights period already. Has it created more employment? Apparently not. PM David Cameron “hopes” that relaxed employment laws will help to boost the private sector and encourage firms to take on thousands of new workers. He’s also proposing that small firms will be exempt altogether from some employment laws, such as sick pay and workers who pursue a claim of unjustified dismissal in the UK Tribunal will have to stump up with 500 pounds.
And guess what? David Cameron’s having a Job Summit! Don’t he and John Key talk anymore?
I’m sympathetic to small business – I’ve been there, done that, and yes, it’s tough. I’ve also been an employer and I know it’s not always easy. From time to time, there is conflict. But I believe that workers’ rights, inconvenient as they can be, are a check on management, and a challenge to an employer to do their job better too. No employer should be afraid of them and in many ways, they protect them ads well.
Because the truth is that workers will always find a way to resist unfair work practices, because they are human beings, not commodities. Why would they sit quietly when they don’t earn enough to feed their families, are exposed to injury or unfairness from their employer?
In the end, most of us want the same thing. A fair society, decent work and a chance to get ahead. Most NZers don’t think this should happen at the expense of other people. We still believe in a fair go for all – we still reach out to our neighbours to give them a helping hand when they need it.
And surely few of us believe that greed is good.
So, wouldn’t it be great to see an outburst of ideas from those in NZ who believe we can build a better economy through ideas and innovation, rather than squashing what after all are pretty modest rights for workers in New Zealand.
Many have joined Labour’s conversation. They don’t want last century thinking. It failed to grow our economy then and it will fail now.
Can’t say I support extending trial periods to two years.
Going from zero to 3 moths is one thing, but going from 1 year to two is quite another. If one year doesn’t stimulate employment, 2 years is never going to.
From what I’m seeing that is no longer true.
Brother-in-law was asked to put in a price to do a job. His quote was $10k and he couldn’t cut it any closer than that. He was asked if he could cut it down to $3k because, apparently, another building firm had got contractors in to do the job for that.
Apparently this other firm is getting 6 guys in for a week. That’s $500 per worker for that week but that $3k price also includes the materials. These 6 guys are going to be travelling from Papatoetoe to Warkworth everyday and probably doing 10+ hours. They won’t be getting minimum wage that’s for sure.
“And surely few of us believe that greed is good.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Great job Darien, keep the pressure up.
The NZ Government has got to work hand in hand with NZ business and NZ unions to develop the industries, technologies and business models this country needs to create interesting, high paying jobs for our people.
We need to trash those business ‘leaders’who only know how to create an extra dollar of value but taking that dollar away from workers.
10-15% of our population has already left our shores on a long term basis.
Does National not care if our young graduates and young skilled tradespeople cannot find $20-25/hr jobs in this country and resort to leaving. Poor working conditions combined with poor money means we are upskilling our young adults to work for Australia.
Given John Key is a fast follower of Cameron this is not good news. The real concept is not of course to encourage the hiring of workers “on a trial” (3 to 6 months does that) – but to make it easier for businesses to lay off workers in any downturn.
It does not so much result in greater employment, but the hiring of full-time staff rather than casual workers when demand rises, and then selective layoffs in any recession. The selection not based on performance but on being one of the workers yet to gain “2 year tenure”. In that sense it creates labour rigidities, rather than increases labour mobility.
There is a need for an evolution in capitalism. Michael Potter has co-written an article on this and called the concept “shared value”.
On employee productivity –
“The focus on holding down wage levels, reducing benefits, and offshoring is beginning to give way to an awareness of the positive effects that a living wage, safety, wellness, training, and opportunities for advancement for employees have on productivity. Many companies, for example, traditionally sought to minimize the cost of “expensive” employee health care coverage or even eliminate health coverage altogether. Today leading companies have learned that because of lost workdays and diminished employee productivity, poor health costs them more than health benefits do.”
http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/10#
In the Dom-Post Colin James writes about why this evolution in capitalism is required.
“This is the year to start focusing on the next globalisation – the merging of inequalities within economies with the inequalities between economies.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4524592/NZ-must-keep-up-with-global-economy
I think that during the 90 day probation period an employer can put off an employee under normal justifications rules, but at the completion of the trial this is when the fire at will can be used not during.
@Nick C – OMG – nothing like a bit of Milton Friedman to get the blood boiling.
@CV – thanks, but I just read Capital’s post on Job Survivor Island – sigh!
@SPC – yep, that’s the kind of discussion we need to have more of.
@Grant Shirley – under the 90 day law, an employee can be fired for no reason and without recourse to justice at any time during that 90 day period.
It seems to me that Shonky Donkey wont be happy until he has a couple of debtors prisons running for his mates..
The other thing I notice when ever someone mentions employment and the lack of, is to cut the minimum wage (these must be NACT lovers) because all this does is create more discontent along the lines of I do the same work , why shouldn’t i get paid the same money?. And with the advent of this insidious 90 day law it as if the NACTS are turning NZ into a part time only work place. Full time jobs will be a rarity and the only ones that will have full time work will be the rich and those that they deign to trained, and maybe allowed to apply to be admitted to their exclusive club.
This is a scarey scenario But the way things are going (full time work is not now counted as 40 hours it is considered to be full time by WINZ at 30 hours) and if you get a job that offers 30 hours you are told it’s a PART TIME job by the employer. so that line is getting eroded more and more.
David Cameron’s Minister of Transport was talking about “step change” when the snow disrupted airports pre Christmas…
@Tracey – hahahahaha – it if weren’t so pathetic.
Good post Darien.
It’s funny, these discussions, no matter how articulately you choose to communicate them always revolve around the same principles on the left and the right. The right says that employment entitlements such as protections in employment or minimum rest breaks are unnecessary for those motivated to work because if you want a job, you can have one and that employers will be more free to hire someone in where they may not have done so under a more heavily regulated environment. The left says that this is about reducing rights and destabilising the power balance of the employment relationship.
The left says that driving up wage rates and not just increasing take home pay at the expense of increased costs for social services, through minimum wage hikes improves employee conditions and contributes to consumer spending and increased incentive to save. the right says that this inflationary practice artificially exaggerates the market price of labour and cuts jobs to the market.
Neither on both are 100% correct. But, the sad thing is, that this is the same discussion all the time. National comes to office, same ole same ole. Labour comes to office and, sadly, same ole same ole.
To be fair, Trevor Mallard as Labour Minister in the last government was pretty courageous from a social progressive point of view with a fourth week’s leave, increases to paid parental leave and driving a range of other ERA and KiwiSaver amendments through the House. Much to Alasdair Thomson’s utter dismay.
However, more out of the box thinking is needed about what can really both stir this economy up and create an enduring change to the conditions endured by most working New Zealanders. This country has a wage problem, not a tax problem… New Zealand also has a productivity problem because most employers don’t understand what true productivity improvements come from and New Zealand business is trapped in a domestic market that has a price ceiling on most consumables.
Large and successful companies in the heart of the free market in America are extremely successful in cooperative environments, by cooperative I mean where employees actually own the company and where voting is used to make strategic decisions. Other companies have changed capital payment structures to divide profit payments based on input, not accountable output. There are other interesting ideas out there too. It would be nice to see us begining to discuss new and modern ideas rather than us constantly cycling through the same old tired policies that only tinker.
Come on Darien, you’ve got some great ideas… how about changing up the agenda for both sides and proposing some more fundamentally different approaches to business and employment?
sorry everyone for my really long post… oops.
Tabloid stuff. Any employment lawyer in the UK will tell you that there is no such thing as a fire at will policy. You can’t just wake up one morning and think, ‘um, i’ll fire you today.’ UK employees enjoy employment rights that you lot can only dream about. Strong unions, laws around discrimination and constructive dismissal, introduction of EU employment laws and also a fear from many employers that sacking someone will lead to expensive court cases. Take at look at places like France and Germany that have massive employee protection laws that make it impossible to sack anyone. Youth unemployment is horrifically high in these countries as it’s prohibitively expensive to let older or underperforming employees go.
Cameron’s extension of these rules (that brown/blair/milliband did nothing to change) will not make any difference, it’s wishful thinking. Equally introducing a French style 35hr working week or other EU inspired labour protection laws have done nothing to benefit employment for all either.
Any UK employment lawyer who has worked on contracts in this part of the world will also tell you that employment laws in Aus/NZ are at best, a decade behind the UK and Europe. Where are the unions? Where’s parental rights? Why is the government allowed to get away with this 90 rule?
In all the rhetoric about closing the gap with Aussie, the Nats conveniently said nothing about how strong the unions are there and how, generally, well they live with each other. Perhaps the aussies are more mature than us and understand that strong unions and strong employers are almost forced to find the middle ground. When one has greater power than the other it is misused.
I had to laugh when Thomson told a session at the Labour Party Conference in Oct that we should be following the Irish economic model, including lowering our taxes all round.
When it was pointed out to him that Ireland was circling the fiscal and debt gurgler he said to forget about that and just focus on how good they have had it in the past.
Bizaarro.
CV
April 2010
“In February, Prime Minister John Key said the government was exploring setting up an international financial hub in New Zealand.
The group is chaired by entrepreneur Craig Stobo.
Other members include Caniwi Capital Partners chairman and chief executive Troy Bowker, Citigroup New Zealand chief executive Mark Fitzgerald, BNP Paribas New Zealand chief executive Hugh Stevens and Tower Investments chief executive Sam Stubbs.
The group will report back by the end of May.”
“Prime Minister John Key has slammed bureaucratic pin-pricking over the proposed New Zealand financial services hub as “absolute rubbish” and stepped in to put the project on the fast-track.
Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee has been ordered to produce an urgent paper covering a zero tax rating for the relevant foreign funds which Key wants incorporated in the November taxation bill and passed by April 1 next year.” Dec 2 2010
How do we find out what a group was paid to undertake something like this?
“New Zealanders lost $6 billion because our finance companies and the “regulatory desert” they operated in. Thousands have seen their savings wiped out. That desert dates back to the laissez-faire ’80s, when supporting regulation was akin to wearing to “I love nukes” t-shirt to a meeting with President Obama.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/nz-not-good-enough-super-hub-3482302