News out that Alasdair Thompson is clinging to his job.
EMA board chairman Graham Mountfort says “we are following a sound and thorough process as a responsible employer must.”
But it seems there’s one rule for the bosses’ organisation and one for the rest of the workforce. The EMA, and Alasdair have consistently moaned about the cost and process of personal grievances, yet this is exactly what the EMA is going through now.
Here’s the man himself on Q and A last year, at the time the government was planning to take away both the process and substance in the sacking of thousands of workers:
ALASDAIR Process is important. But substance is most important.
PAUL What is difficult about the process?
ALASDAIR It is a difficult process, it is a difficult process – well it is, but I’m not saying process isn’t important, it is important. But if you’ve gone around – if you’re building a home for a Jewish person and you go writing swastikas all over the walls and so on or something like that, and it’s pretty obvious that that’s a pretty bad thing to do.
PAUL Yes, on your bike.
ALASDAIR Yeah, on your bike. But you still should get the process pretty much right. But the point is if you don’t get it 100% right you’re still pinged.
PAUL You could be forced to rehire the incompetent bloke……
ALASDAIR Not only rehire, but you get pinged for $30,000. (not true by the way : average settlement is around $3,000 for most workers)
I would have thought in this instance that the substance was pretty clear. But lawyers are involved. The exit package is being argued over and I bet you it will cost the EMA a lot more than $3,000, let along $30,000.
Alasdair had this to say a year ago last year in the NZ Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom:
Employers & Manufacturers (Northern) chief executive Alasdair Thompson said many members wanted the grievance-free employment period extended to all businesses, though it was less applicable to those employing highly educated, skilled workers.
“This is not new. In the private sector the personal-grievance gravy train is something that needs continual reforming.”
I watch with interest how the EMA handles this situation. They have to follow fair process (even although they disagree with it) and I venture to suggest that one of the problems of the so-called “personal grievance gravy train” might rest with organisations like their own, where well paid executives use the system to extract as much money as they can.
Wasn’t it the National Government who extended personal grievances to all employees – including Alasdair Thompson?
That guy is a total dork for what he said and he should face consequences….but what pisses me off more…
is it is amazing how you guys b@#ch about everyone else needing to have workers rights….but when it is someone you clearly dont like you go all out to ensure that they get the sack straight away.
Talk about double standards.
He should cut his losses instead of dragging this out!
#fureongo – not true. Just pointing out double standards that you clearly can’t see. I support fair process, but find it ironical that those who are now hoist by their own petard are relying on the very standards that they have argued against for everyone us.
It is a bit like the advantages such as that enjoyed by Paula Bennett but those advantages being blocked for those who follow. Or for John Key as a child being blocked now to those on the DPB.
In this case it is the other way round. Process for AT but he would prefer it not for others.
I think the posting is premature. EMA is following a process. Let them do so before judging.
So are Labour now saying that the law only applies where you agree with it?
So if Thompson has issues with the current dismissal process then he’s not entitled to any of those protections? Is that what we are now saying?
Surely, Labour should be fighting to ensure that Thompson gets the same protections and rights of all workers, and that the nasty EMA don’t illegally sack poor Mr Thompson?
Of course if we are being realistic, standard employment law simply doesn’t work here. He’s the CEO, the face of the organisation, not a generic employee. It’s one thing to give the factory worker the 3 written warnings and put up with a bit of disruption and low productivity for a couple of months while the sacking process pans out. But in this case, the damage is done, and there’s no point giving Thompson a written warning, a stern talking to, and an opportunity to rectify his behaviour which is what you would normally do.
That wouldn’t fix the problem. So the only course of action is to discuss the matter with lawyers and agree on a number which will allow Thompson to leave quietly.
I find it a bit rich that the same unions and leftys that have made it nigh on impossible to sack deadwood employees are now calling for Thompson to be gone within a week, without any due process. That’s the double standards in all this.
Darien,
What is wrong with “following a sound and thorough process” ?
Darien, they are all the same. Has anyone asked Roger Kerr if he is paying for his treatment, or relying on the STATE and the TAXPAYER do it for him? Yet another example of ideological hypocrisy?
Just so we are clear Darien, it is now labour policy that meeting the requirements of substantive AND procedural fairness, (a requirement ramped up by LABOURS ERA that has resulted in cases such as Crooks v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services, where a subsequently convicted sex offender was allowed to work in the same workplace as the victims father for 17 months, so as not to be seen as predetermining the matter in the interests of procedural fairness)should apply if you don’t have a personal dislike of one of the parties involved and / or you believe the substantive reason is sufficient for the process not to matter?
@Sadu, David and Saul …. See my comment at 5.18pm yesterday.
@ Darien
Fortunately, hypocrisy is not a crime. If it was you can bet that politicians would be the first bunch to be incarcerated
Let’s just take what joy we can from this guy’s discomfort and incompetence rather than making a weak policy arguement around it.
Like you say, he’s done himself in and the EMA (Northern) will look like chumps if they keep him on.
Jennifer you are an idiot. Roger Kerr pays tax the same as anybody else. Where he receives treatment is of no concern unless he wishes to pay extra to “go private”. Are you trying to say that free hospital care is only for socialists such as yourself.
After rereading your comment I’m still struggling to see the double standards.
It appears this is being treated like any other high-level employment grievance? In what sense is this double standards?
Personally I think Thompson will resign, and EMA will CHOOSE to pay a confidential settlement (probably more than $30k) for him to do so quietly. Again, nothing unusual or double-standards about this.
@Sadu – apologies, because you probably haven’t had to listen to AT and his mates in the EMA give submissions on workers’ rights in select committee, or been on the receiving end of their strident media releases. Here’s the thing : AT is using rights to procedural fairness that he and his chums have campaigned against for years. The current government have weakened these rights for all workers in personal grievance situations; and have removed them for all workers in their first 90 days of employment. In fact, for those workers, neither process nor substance apply. I strongly support fairness, even for Mr AT. It’s a pity he didn’t do the same.
To all those who jumped into the comments in order to try to lay it into the so-called “socialists” – suggest you read the post more carefully to let what is written actually sink in, rather than spending the time in thinking about what over-excited misdirection you can throw in to the mix under the guise of “debate”.
The post is not seeking a sacking, or wanting a different standard. So please stop all the “Aha! – what you mean is (insert misdirection here) and that is proof of socialist evil!” comments, which often seem to flood this site. Getting really boring.
The post is pointing out an irony (remember that concept? Usually taught in Form 5 English, to those who may not have made it that far). Irony is a subtle thing – it requires you to hold two possibly contrasting ideas in your head at once, while a third part of your brain considers their connection, and a fourth part enjoys the wry humour.
The irony is that a man who has been the mouthpiece of an employers’ union, who has helped attack employees’ ability to defend themselves from unjustified dismissal, is now relying upon the very processes and principles that he has criticised for so long and helped deny others, for his own defence.
Another quality which is also rather subtle, yet is a cornerstone of what makes us human, is empathy. I suspect that Mr Thompson will be rediscovering that quality around about now.
@Gregor W – not that funny. This is not about a weak policy argument. It’s a fundamental argument about justice.
@Jeff : Great comment. Thanks.
@ Darien.
Sorry you lost me.
It’s a fundamental argument about justice.
Justice is being served, right?
Thomson is getting his due process.
His orgainisation is required to manage this process in line with the law of the land? Irony, sure.
He’s a hycocrite and a preening buffoon. So what?
Your premise: “But it seems there’s one rule for the bosses’ organisation and one for the rest of the workforce.”
You are making an ideological proposition which you then negate with “I watch with interest how the EMA handles this situation. They have to follow fair process (even although they disagree with it)…”.
Clearly there is one rule by your own admission, ergo my statement re weak policy arguement.
Nothing fundamental about justice here let alone an arguement, merely excruciating public comedy at its finest.
@Gregor W – to be clear, yes Alas Dear is getting justice and due process. I support that. And yes, they are a bunch of hypocrites, because they don’t believe others should have those rights.