It’s the 1st of April – April Fool’s Day, but no joke for New Zealand’s wage and salary earners.
From today, it is easier to fire workers.
Changes to employment laws will allow any new worker to be unfairly dismissed in the first 90 days of employment with no reason having to be given and no ability for the worker to challenge the dismissal.
The changes in the Act are significant. It’s the first time in decades that workers will not have access to justice if they are fired unfairly. Even under Bill Birch’s hated Employment Contracts Act 1991, this was not a option.
The introduction of fire at will, restrictions on the right of workers to meet with their union representatives, along with other changes to personal grievances and the Holidays will not improve the productive employment relationships of well-organised employers.
Many employers are saying they don’t want or need these changes because good employers don’t need bad laws. Some have already negotiated collective agreements with unions that exclude the use of 90 day no rights provisions, and continues the reasonable arrangement they have had for access to the workplace.
Telecom says they have chosen not to implement the 90 day trial period, saying “if people have performance issues during the first 90 days we will work with them in trying to fix those issues….”
So the governmment is really just giving a hand-up for disorganised, incompetent employers.
This is a step back to last century! Now any ruthless employer who is not sure of his own needs or knows that his offered job would not be appealing short term, can dupe the trusting job seeker without recourse. It also leaves the possibility for any other bullying staff member to give a newcomer hell, create a drama and get rid of other staff….with nought to be done about it if the boss does not wake up. In many existing management systems, pressure is still downward thrust, sadly. This law leaves it wide open to abuse any new worker, even if he just upsets someone with more clout. It will be counterproductive all around.
There are many more bad employees than there are bad employers.
Glad that this has come into effect. And – I know for a fact that it is welcome by many many good employers.
“disorganised, incompetent employers.” using terms like this you are just showing your own small minded “employers = bad” view of the world and fail to see the real world.
Remember all the stink you guys and the NZCTU made when this came out. Then did a couple of videos “Florence Cohen” and “Aaron Greave” – One labour activist and the other who didnt even have a contract. Even the NZCTU gave up after that.
Truth is – it has been sucessful for employees and employers both.
“There are many more bad employees than there are bad employers.”
What an outstanding piece of analysis. Might have something to do with the fact there are a helluva lot more employees than employers.
Stats NZ says in Feb 2010 there were an incredible 470,350 enterprises in NZ, 69% of which were non employing, and only 1% of which had 100 plus employees. So there are many lawn mowing rounds, contractees, significant numbers of 1-20 employee outfits and only a few Telecoms.
It is the tin pot small aspirational operators that effectivley buy into all this anti worker stuff. The corporates support it ideologically but are often more restrained where there is reasonable union density and for public relations.
“Fire at will’ is ugly stuff that needs to be resisted in every suburb and town. Name and shame ’em I say about any employer that misuses it. It could be you, your partner or kids that suffer from this withdrawal of natural justice.
This legislation isn’t anti worker, it is anti lazy gits.
““Fire at will’ is ugly stuff that needs to be resisted in every suburb and town. Name and shame ’em I say about any employer that misuses it. It could be you, your partner or kids that suffer from this withdrawal of natural justice.”
You ‘lefties’ tried the name and shame last time and it didnt work. And as for natural justice – you never asked for the other side of the story. Natural Justice: Yeah right!
“It is the tin pot small aspirational operators that effectivley buy into all this anti worker stuff.”
And its the ‘tin pot’ operators that can be ruined because of one bad employee. But it seems that this blog would rather see that business fail than have them be able to get rid of the poor performing employee.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling
End of the world is neigh
everyone will lose their jobs
oh hang on ……..
offensive. Warning. Trevor.
@Monty – it’s “nigh” not “neigh”. At least you never let us down here in Labour – you’re always predictable – hope it never happens to someone in your family.
Can someone please tell me why removing access to justice is okay for workers in their first 90 days, while removing access to justice is not on for almost everyone else?
Darien thanks for the spelling lesson. Never ever my strong point. Maybe you guys should get a spelling function and edit function onto this blog as long requested.
this legislation is about giving workers opportunity. My point is that this is a beat up by a desperate Labour Party serching for relevance. No one cares that much about this legislation.
if I was struggling to find a job I would be happy if this was a condition if it meant I got the job. In fact I was made redundant 18 months ago, so may at some point look for a job, and I would happily sign a contract with the90 day trial included.
@Monty : let me know how it goes with the job hunting.
Thanks Darien. At present I am working on contract as well as doing some consulting. Working for a salary is simply not for me at this time. I can have either of my contracts terminated at any time for no reason. it means everyday my continued work depends on performance. Not a bad way to live and I do enjoy that I work I get paid, and payment depends on delivering.
from 1st April, things just got easier for unemployed people with dodgy backgrounds/work history to get a foot into the workforce. I wish them well during the first 90 days when they can show they will add value to the company .. fantastic
I am the owner of a small company. I have now employed 2 different people who were unemployed. Both of them were highly risky given their background & their lack of experience etc etc.
The ONLY reason we gave them a shot was because of the 90 day law. We would not have risked the potential fallout if they had not worked out, and they would not have had the opportunity to have a crack & prove themselves.
One lasted 3 weeks and left due to being overwhelmed by the technical nature of the job, the other is fantastic. She was a shy, slightly depressed individual who only came out of her shell after a few weeks of working with us.
Can’t see how this is not a great law and a great opportunity for employees to prove they have what it takes, and for employers to feel the risk is worth it now. What is the problem?
The above two posts by Monty and Just Right shoot you down in flames Darien.
Add to that the 80% retention rate of those taken on already under this legislation and it is a clear winner.
National is great at finding more ways to sack people or render their jobs precarious, but not good at all in job creation, which current unemployment statistics prove.
Would not have hired but for ‘fire at will’, anecdotes cut no ice with me. If you can’t be bothered acquiring a basic knowledge of employment law and employee relations you do not deserve to be in business. With SMEs it often amounts to sheer laziness and wanting the unfettered ‘right’ to dismiss.
Sorry Peg you are utterly blinded by ideology on this one. Giving workers the ability to prove themselves by the Government reducing the risk to employers is actually pro-worker. Or is it better that workers who don’t have the right experience or a checkered past remain on a benefit wasting away, in the name of workers rights?
Question to those who support this law: What if someone applies to a job that you have advertised, but have already been sacked under this law a couple of times? Are you still likely to ‘take the risk’, or are you more likely to think “thanks, but no thanks”?
And wasn’t there provisions in the law for taking people on on trials anyway?
Is not “peg gressland” a bit close to Labour supporter Greg Pressland’s name? Trolling methinks.
The fire at will law could hardly be called arcane (known or understood by only a few).
Ella depends on why the person was dismissed… Dishonesty offence probably not, other reasons like personality clash etc highly likely would.
Yiu have to remember that there is a considerable investment in time & training a new employee so as an employer you want it to work out
Yup, removing the basic legal principle of natural justice without debate, with unhealthy haste is very pro worker and pro society.
@ Just Right – but if the employer doesn’t have to give said dismissed employee a reason for the dismissal then doesn’t that make things a little tricky…? And sacking someone for a personality clash sounds pretty stupid – was that allowed under the previous laws? (Genuine question
)
Tracey would you rather someone unemployed doesn’t get a shot just in case they don’t get natural justice if it doesn’t work out?
Same as not going walking just in case a car runs you down…
You forget that employers lose bigtime when an employee doesn’t work out.
Jon Key says he worries about bullying in schools. Well it does not just happen in schools it is insidiously alive in the workplace. The 90 day fire at will law has just let the bullies off the leash.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10715595
No-one has yet explained why it is okay for workers to be denied access to justice, while the same people who defend this law would be up in arms if it applied to them in their commercial business or in property rights.
Employers are being promoted as heroes for “giving people a chance”, while workers are expected to cop what comes their way.
The minute someone is employed, employers have the advantage under common law. There are duties and obligations on the worker: the duty to obey; the duty to devote their skills and talents to the business, to be faithful to the business.
That’s why statute law has ensured that common law obligations are not the basis of exploitation.
Tracey’s right – this law removes the right to natural justice – which is a pretty basic Kiwi value I would have thought. Instead it places in the employer’s hands the right to arbitrarily remove a worker’s economic livelihood and they are expected to be grateful for having been “given a chance.”
Totally agree Darien is’t about justice.I have yet to meet an employer who is a workingclass hero,the obective is to gain as much as possible off the backs of employees for the lowest cost and the least disruption possible,that what Capitalists do.John key and his Cronies have just added to the misery of inparticular young people wanting a fair go,why shouldn’t they be able to question when they get dumped before the 90 day probationary period is up.It is quite obvious employers now have a great tool to use with no ramification when they experience short term spikes in business.NO INTENTION OF COMMITTING TO LONG TERM EMPLOYMENT.Ports of Auckland have informed us of their intention to NO 90 day, Union access without permission, NO sale of annual leave and not much recognition of much of the changes,If a Company the size of this sees little value in the reforms what does that say for you rightwingers and your beloved John Key.It’s simple Failed legislation.
Oh I forgot a bit wrapped up in my first comment.Isn’t it amazing how many totally anti Labour posters get on this blog and do exactly what they accuse Labour of doing ,WHINGE! Hasn’t Jonny who I might add is a lying little Bastard got his own blog so you can go and cry on his shoulder about reds under the bed
Gosh Dave. Such incisive comment! With allies like you it’s easy to see why levels of support for Labour are as they are!
Clearly you’re an expert at putting the anal into analysis!
@Chris typical weak kneed response go and join the line to lick the feet of the great pretender Donkey.Anal? obviously with quotes like that your experience far exceeds mine.Labour is not much different from national in terms of centrist policy the sooner they get back to true blue socialist principles the better Have a nice day.
I had this employer: alliancehhs.com
They are not giving me my last pay.
These people are involved, Mark Cataldo, Anna Cataldo and Michael Yancon.
Beware: They are not good people.You should not be part of this company.