PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Employers’ Category

From social partners to bit players

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 3rd, 2012

The emphasis of the Department of Labour Briefing to Incoming Ministers has significantly changed in 2011.

In the 2008 Briefing,  the Social Partners (Business NZ and Council of Trade Unions) were referred to frequently. Not now.

The notion of social partnership and tripartism is one that our government initially signed up to.  The Jobs Summit, early in John Key’s new government was an example.  Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Labour described this in her speech to the International Labour Organisation in 2009, saying  :

….”We are setting out a credible road to economic recovery, so we can emerge stronger from the recession than we went into it. ….. In this, we’ve taken an inclusive, tripartite approach, recognising that the problems arising from the current situation affect all New Zealanders. In late February, our Prime Minister, the Honourable John Key, hosted a national Jobs Summit which saw unions, business and Government united by a common desire to do as much as possible to keep New Zealanders in work during this recession….”

The 2008 BIM described the purpose of the portfolio as  :

  • productive, rewarding, and safe employment relationships, including bargaining, mediation and dispute resolution
  • setting, communicating, promoting, inspecting, and (where necessary) enforcing minimum standards of health and safety, and employment conditions
  • raising the value and quality of work, by promoting good practice and positive change in workplace cultures and practices
  • cooperation and interaction with other interested parties – including industries, sectors, and regions – in collaboration with social partners (Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions)
  • ensuring New Zealand both benefits from, and contributes to, international labour standards and fora.

But the slimmed down description of the role of the Labour portfolio in the 2011 BIM says the focus of the Minister and the Department is ensuring :

  • the labour market regulatory system is effective
  • employers and employees understand their rights and comply with their obligations
  • workplaces follow effective and sustainable employment relations and health and safety practices
  • New Zealand benefits from, and contributes to, international labour standards and forums.

Businesses are mentioned 43 times. Unions are mentioned once. Social partnership is over, it seems.

And significantly, there’s no mention of low pay, of addressing the ever-growing wage gap with Australia and the issues for self-employed and vulnerable contractors. All are workers trying to make a living and have the right to expect more from their government.

I’m looking forward to hearing Kate Wilkinson’s explanation on her annual trip to Geneva this year.

Tags:
Filed under: CTU, Employers, Workers, business, labour
4 Comments

Bon voyage to more whanau in 2012

Posted by Darien Fenton on January 19th, 2012

There’s been a lot of baloney in the media recently about the role (or control) of unions in Labour and a view that by supporting fairness at work means Labour must be anti-employer or anti-business. Mind you, none of this is new, but it’s reached a new peak of hysterical comment from some on the right with the PoAL dispute.

There’s no mystery about Labour’s values when it comes to working people. Our  founding values are about decent Kiwi jobs, the right to a fair day‘s pay for a fair day’s work, the right to join unions and bargain collectively, the right to have a voice at work and the right to be protected from unfair or unsafe treatment at work. We believe that there must be a balance between work demands and family/community responsibilities.

This doesn’t mean business is harder to do – in fact decent wages and effective employment relations should enable New Zealand business to lift productivity, to perform well and to grow.

Labour supports decent work (which is also supported by the National government at the ILO) and fair incomes for all New Zealand working people  - whether in low or middle income jobs, dependent contractors or self employed.  I know that constructive workplace relationships are important and good management is crucial. I don’t believe all employers are “bad” and all employees “good”.  You may be surprised how much sympathy I have with sole operators and small business who can barely make ends meet.

Some of the workers who get the rawest deal are those who are not in formal employment relationships, or in unions, such as self-employed and dependent contractors. Labour has been active in trying to make improvements for these Kiwis, but there’s nothing on the government’s agenda that makes any difference to them and a whole  lot that will impact on all working Kiwis.

Consider these comments from backbench National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross :

Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.

My question to Jami-Lee is whether the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, who likes to present her government’s approach to employment relations as “pragmatic” and “what works” agrees with Jami-Lee’s views.  I want to know if she thinks unions are “privileged” and “relics”.  If she does, she better tell Kiwi workers soon, and fess up to the ILO at her annual sojourn in Geneva this year that she doesn’t believe that unions are social partners anymore, leaving only employers and government – and that our government is opposed to international labour conventions and human rights conventions. That will be interesting.

National’s manifesto already boasts “reforms”, such as :

1. Minimum wage : consultation on the annual review has been completed and we can expect an announcement in February.  $15 an hour?  Don’t think so.

2. The government’s plan for a “starting out” rate for 16 and 17 year old workers and also for 18 and 19 year olds who have been on a benefit may be one of the early pieces of legislation in front of parliament.

3. National’s policy commitments to weaken collective bargaining – no requirement to conclude, no requirement for workers to be on the terms and conditions of a collective agreement for 30 days where one exists, and the effective abolishing of multi employer agreements, along with allowing pay reductions for “partial” strikes – such as go-slows, work to rule etc and a review of constructive dismissal.

Then there’s all of the rest :

Bills carried forward from the last parliament : Meals and rest breaks legislation (Kate Wilkinson said this was urgent a couple of years ago, but it’s been bumped) and Tau Henare’s Secret Ballot for Strikes members’ bill, which is neither needed nor wanted. The hardy annual of Easter Sunday Shop Trading will also be up again, via a National members’ bill.

The inquiry into the treatment of workers in Foreign Crewed Vessels in NZ waters and the Pike River Mine Commission of Inquiry will report back this year  - both shameful NZ scandals that arose because of deregulation and declining standards for workers.

The ACC portfolio and the “opening up to competition” will be a big issue; Labour MP Andrew Little will take that on for Labour.

And I’m becoming more suspicious about another agenda – not spelled out in the National Party’s manifesto.  The recent productivity commission report, for example, made some recommendations that, if taken up by this government, would have a huge impact on New Zealand working people.

Bottom line : none of this will help the wages of Kiwi workers catch up with Australia. None of it will stop the weekly exodus across the ditch.

I’m sorry, but unless we see some something other than the old hoary chestnuts of cutting workers’ rights and pay from National soon, you should get ready to say goodbye to more of your whanau.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: ACC, Employers, Health and Safety, Work and Wages, Workers, jobs, union, value of work
16 Comments

Getting all under 20s earning or learning

Posted by Jacinda Ardern on September 1st, 2011

At midday today we released our youth employment policy. There was a reason we chose to do it at a plumbing and gas outfit in the Hutt- our policy focuses heavily on apprenticeships. But that is by no means all it does.

You would have heard us pretty consistently challenging the government over youth unemployment on several fronts. First, the need to create sustainable jobs rather than throwing money at make work schemes, second we need more vocational training places (the government has cut $140mill out of this area) and third, the scale of the problem means we need a pretty comprehensive set of ideas to deal with it. That’s exactly what we announced today. Here’s the summary version:

- 1000 placements for at risk youth in the Gateway scheme, which puts young people into work place learning while they’re still at school
-Improving career services and vocational pathways, especially for young people interested in options outside of tertiary study
- Extending youth transition services to make sure that every school leaver is supported into further training, education and employment. This follows the recommendations of the New Zealand Institute and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs
- Converting dole payments into a subsidy for employers to take on 9000 new apprentices
- 5000 new training places for 16 and 17 year olds, 1,000 of which are targeted at maori trades training, and 1,000 for pasifika young people, with a mentoring component attached (both groups are over represented in our youth unemployment statistics)
- 1,000 additional apprenticeships allocated to group apprenticeships, shared apprenticeships and public service cadets
- An additional 1,500 Conservation Corp places
- Staged apprenticeships in Christchurch, so that apprentices can get basic skills quickly and play a productive role in the rebuild without having to bring in workers from overseas

The whole package comes in at $251 million, but after factoring in the money that is saved through reprioritisation of current government spending, and the savings via the dole, the total cost comes in at $171million and will be funded by our already announced tax plan. Ultimately though, this is a package that has us investing a bit, to save a lot. The New Zealand institute has calculated that the cost of unemployed and disengaged youth to tax payers in $900million.

And finally, job creation. We already know that the demand for skilled trades people exists, but employers just can’t afford to train new people in the job- our dole subsidy scheme will help with that. More broadly though, we also know that our economic policy (supporting exporters, our R&D tax credit, and moving investment to the productive economy) will all play a role in creating sustainable jobs.

There is more to be said on employment beyond young people, but this is a critical area, and one we’re Labour is showing we’re willing to invest in order to save….in so many ways.

Filed under: Employers, youth
45 Comments

The Business Codgerati

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 26th, 2011

There’s been a lot of flak about Alasdair Thompson’s comments last week (and rightly so). He’s shown the worst side of the business codgerati. Business organisations and right-wing acolytes like Jenny Shipley have been distancing themselves big time. The organisation he heads, the Employers and Manufacturing Association (Northern) is having a Board meeting tomorrow to decide his future.

The Sunday Star Times editorial says today that “it’s reminded us silly we used to be” and how this kind of standard sexism was once standard in New Zealand politics and business…….“it’s so 1950’s.”

The SST goes on to say :

“But we should not be too complacent about this.  If bosses have become more enlightened and workplaces more friendly to women and minorities, in some ways they are more worker-unfriendly than they used to be……  in some ways workers have less power to push for change than they had in the 1950’s.  Some employers think this is fine; they regard unions as obstacles to commercial progress. That is about as crass a stereotype as the one about the skiving menstruators.”

That is so true and well done to the SST for nailing this. While every business organisation now spouts their policies on equal employment opportunity, flexible working hours, work life balance and their opposition to discrimination their prejudices are still there for all to see among many of them.

Every time there’s talk about giving workers more bargaining power or strengthening their rights, the codgerati are out there, saying “it’s a return to the past” or “it’s going to ruin us”.

Witness the reaction to the $15 minimum wage and ACT’s backward looking ideas that youth rates are going to solve youth unemployment.

Still a long way to go.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, act party, business, economy, labour, minimum wage, union, workers rights
9 Comments

Alas dear Thompson

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 24th, 2011

Used to work closely, too closely for me, with the unfortunate chap. Colleagues used to tell me he couldn’t be as useless as I complained.

Many of his members and all of the parallel employers organisation leaders treated him as a joke.

But his neanderthal views on labour relations have been one of the two voices of employers in recent years.

New Zealand has been poorly served and it is about time employers got a rational voice to represent them in our largest city.

Filed under: Employers
8 Comments

How safe are our Hospitality workers in the World Cup?

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 19th, 2011

The recent  arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the IMF for sexually assaulting a hotel housemaid got me thinking about the New Zealand hospitality industry and the potential exposure of NZ workers to inappropriate behaviour during the Rugby World Cup.

The housemaid involved in the Strauss-Kahn case is a union member, which makes all the difference. But by far the majority of hotel workers in New Zealand are not union members.

Sadly, the further you go down the hospitality chain, from large hotels to motels, restaurants and bars, the worse it is.

New Zealand’s laws protect workers against sexual harassment, but it’s a hard row to hoe.  There are two routes – through the Human Rights Commission or through personal grievance.  New Zealand’s hospitality industry is repsonsible for 10% of all workplace sexual harassment complaints to the Human Rights Commission, but I know from experience that’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s just not that easy to take this on.

If you are a young worker, not in a union, new to a job, on a 90 day trial period, are you really going to have the courage to challenge your employer if a sexual harassment incident occurs?

There’s an attitude issue here. The Hospitality Industry is not only responsible for the behaviour of their staff, but also their customers and clients. To their credit, some work has been done in the industry to educate employers about their responsibilities.

I came across this comment from the Restaurant Association in a newsletter about sexual harrasment.

I accept that some people will regretfully be sexually harassed, but at the risk of being challenged, I have formed the opinion that the majority of complaints are motivated by the monetary rewards that might result.

According to this, there’s a golden pot of money waiting for workers who complain about sexual harassment!

However, it’s not just about sexual harassment. It’s also about decent pay and fair conditions.

The government needs to work with unions and business to set standards for how we expect New Zealand workers to be treated during an event like this.

We want our visitors to have a great time, but not at the expense of New Zealand workers.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, rugby world cup, sexual harassment, women, workers rights
15 Comments

Positive workplace relations – going, going, gone.

Posted by Darien Fenton on May 30th, 2011

The more I hear from this government, the more I believe that they think unions and workers have little role in the success of a business, and what’s good for business is good for everyone, regardless of how people are treated.  Paula Bennett said a couple of weeks ago that “any job is a good job“. She means that workers should just be grateful for the generosity of employers who provide work for them, even where it’s a job on minimum wage (or less), has no job security and in some cases avoids workers’ rights by employing them under disguised arrangements such as contracting.

Some of the cuts in the Department of Labour budget are instructive. They may not have made headlines, but they show this government’s priorities.

One major change is the ditching of the Partnership Resource Centre, which has been run out of the Department of Labour in collaboration with independent associates, who have extensive knowledge in industrial relations and organisational development.

The Department of Labour’s Partnership Resource Centre website describes partnership as  :

…….a modern approach to managing employment and industrial relations. It’s about creating new employment relationships based on co-operation and mutual gain. Across the world, and in New Zealand, many organisations have seen the benefits of partnership. That’s why we’ve been working to become a centre for partnership excellence. We’ve developed a collection of useful resources for people exploring partnership practices, and we conduct research and organise events to educate New Zealand organisations and unions about partnership.

Some of the successful NZ projects include those in hotels, Aged Care and even in Kiwirail, and have reported improved productivity, a reduction in serious workplace disputes and improved trust, less contentious collective bargaining and even reduced legal bills. It goes further than that.  Healthy and safe workplaces also require partnership – where workers are trained and confident in identifying and reporting potential hazards to prevent workplace injuries.  Good for the workers, the workplace and the country’s medical costs.

There are two models of employment relationships. One is confrontational, where workers are expected to be subservient and do as they are told.  In my experience, this leads to resentment, protracted disputes and workers standing on the outside picketing the premises.  Some employers get away with it, because their workers aren’t unionised and they are afraid of losing their jobs. It means high turnover, resentful staff who don’t extend themselves beyond the daily grind and if the workers get a chance, individual litigation through personal grievances.

The other is accepting that workers have a role to play in the business, have skills and ideas that can be harnessed to build productivity, innovation and efficiency.  That means accepting that the workers must have a say and role in what happens at work, and be treated and remunerated fairly for their contribution.

I’ve seen both models at work.  Partnership doesn’t mean either side subsume their views or ideas, and there won’t be disagreements from time to time.  It does mean accepting that both sides have their own independent voice.

There are other cuts in the budget to employment relations education funding which enables unions and employers to provide education on productive employment relationships and rights at work.  That’s been significantly cut for the second year in a row – a small amount now reduced to almost nothing.

Productivity increases require the involvement of workers.  If the government doesn’t get that, then we are doomed to be a long hours, low wage, low skill economy for the foreseeable.

Mind you, Bill English thinks our low wages are a competitive advantage.  These cuts just confirm his views.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, Skills, productivity, value of work, workers rights
41 Comments

State subsidised wages or bargaining equality?

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 29th, 2011

I’m doing this post knowing that it will send the right wingers scurrying to their keyboards in a high dudgeon, but it’s a risk I’m prepared to take. Because, like it or not, we have to have the conversation about the how the inequality of bargaining power has contributed to NZ’s low wages.

I was surprised to find this article in the NZ Herald which very succinctly outlines the link between weakened collective bargaining rights and low wages. The authors, Andrew Gawith and Susan Guthrie, describe how the era of the 1930s and 1940s were labelled the “Great Compression” because the gap in incomes between the haves and the have-nots narrowed significantly.

“The policies that delivered this compression – including a strengthening of collective bargaining regulations, which provided a floor to wages and high tax rates on capital – were follow by unprecedented income and output growth that persisted until the 1970’s.”

By contrast, economist Professor Paul Krugman describes the post-1980s as resembling the “gilded age” of the 1920’s – one characterised by a high and rising concentration of income in the hands of a narrow elite.

Gawith and Guthrie ask :

“Do our current labour market laws and institutions deliver the wage “floor” that Krugman (and the IMF) see as valuable to lifting output and incomes?
The fact that we have had to introduce a significant income subsidy – Working for Families – suggests not.

The Employment Contracts Act 1991 undermined the bargaining power of workers, which probably goes some way to explaining why from 1992 to 2009 average real output per worker rose on average by 2% a year, but real wages rose at less than half that price…….”

They go on to describe how the Labour Government recognised that wages were too low, particularly for those trying to raise a family and how Working for Families was introduced to top up the incomes of low and middle income wage workers.

Gawith and Guthrie acknowledge that Working for Families has definitely alleviated financial stress among low and middle income families, but they say it has distorted “market signals”.

“Low paid jobs are a traditional route for younger workers to get more experience. However, under Working for Families, low-paid jobs are more likely to be accepted by older workers with dependents; their living costs are higher and not normally covered by a low wage, but unlike younger workers, their take-home pay (thanks to Working for Families) can far exceed what the employer pays.“

That’s an interesting proposition. Not sure if I totally agree, because my experience of low wage workers is that’s it’s far more complex than that. However, they make the point that experienced workers being employed in jobs that don’t use their full potential detracts from productivity growth and because of Working for Families, they are employed at “artificially” low wages to the detriment of workers without dependents.

And I like this :

“Rather than chasing the dream of matching Australian incomes, let’s first make sure workers with families can live with dignity from the wages their employers pay them instead of having to rely on selective income subsidies from the Government. That may involve giving workers more bargaining power to negotiate an increase in their share of national income. That should be a step towards narrowing the distribution of income and wealth in New Zealand which has broadened over the past three decades and may be cramping our ability to grow.”

And this :

“Joseph Stiglitz states that ….”growing inequality is the flip side of something else : shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means we are not using some of our most valued assets – our people – in the most productive way possible.”

Expect to hear more from Labour on these themes.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, Workers, business, economy, inequality
17 Comments

Good employers don’t need bad laws

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 1st, 2011

April-1-Web-Panel6_0

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.

Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, workers rights
31 Comments

Waitangi and ANZAC day confusion

Posted by Trevor Mallard on February 6th, 2011

Just to make it clear that having a public holiday on the Monday after Waitangi Day or ANZAC day when they fall on a weekend or another public holiday, doesn’t mean you celebrate them on the Monday.

They would just be treated like Christmas, Boxing Day, New Years Day and the day after.

No great secret that I looked at the issue when in government and decided that implementing four weeks annual holiday for all every year was a higher priority. What is now clear is that the public want both and as soon as possible.

And while we are sorting out these anomalies we should sort Easter Sunday as well. It is probably the most important day on the Christian calendar, but because when we sorted our public holidays no one contemplated shops opening or people working on a Sunday it was left off the list. That needs to be fixed.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Employers, economy, inequality, labour, minimum wage, retail, union, workers rights
17 Comments

It’s about Time

Posted by Carol Beaumont on January 19th, 2011

I have had a wonderful holiday this year as I hope you did if you had time off.  I really enjoyed  having more time to do things that get squeezed during the working year. Time to spend with family and friends, time to be alone, time to walk , to read and to reflect.  I am sure as we made our resolutions for 2011 or reflected on the year ahead many of us thought about spending more time on things other than work and trying to achieve better balance in our lives. 

In my previous role as CTU Secretary I led our work on the issue of work life balance.  In 2004 we produced a publication called ‘It’s about Time’ which looked at the issues around people achieving balance between paid and unpaid work, family and personal time. (You can find a copy on the CTU website www.union.org.nz).  New Zealand has very long working hours compared to many other OECD countries. For low and middle income earners these long hours are often driven by low wages.  Many workers on the minimum wage or just above it work more than one job to try and earn enough to make ends meet.  Long working hours are not solely caused by low wages as can be seen by long hours worked by those earning high salaries.  Work intensification is a well documented phenomena – less people doing the same or more work.  Not by working smarter but by having to work harder and longer. 

Currently there are many New Zealanders with too much non- working time, – the huge number of unemployed and the less well recognised numbers of underemployed.  This lack of paid work is a fundamental problem as it impacts on people’s ability to survive financially.

Time pressures and lack of balance can have major implications for people’s health, their relationships,their ability to participate in community activity or to contribute to their community in a voluntary capacity (a real problem identified by many organisations).

Dealing with this issue has many dimensions.  These include – lifting wages; adequate leave provisions (domestic leave, parental leave, holidays, study leave, unpaid leave); limitations on working hours  (NZ is very unregulated in this area); recognising and valuing unpaid work;  changing workplace cultures and real flexibility in working arrangements (flexibility in the context of secure quality work, not the one sided flexibility  in the many precarious working arrangements that becoming increasingly common).  In ‘It’s about Time’ a number of very practical and positive examples of such arrangements negotiated between unions and employers are provided.  These can vary from quite small changes at work eg ensuring employees can access a phone, to arrangements to reduce work hours (temporarily or permanently) or to have greater flexibility regarding  working hours or work location through to additional leave provisions (above statutory provisions). 

There was good progress made by the last Labour government, for example -  paid parental leave, legislating for a minimum of 4 weeks annual leave, legislating around the flexible working hours (something the unlamented Pansy Wong claimed credit for National even though they voted against this!), requiring rest and meal breaks and regular increases in the minimum wage.

In two years of this National government we have gone backwards fast.  Not only has there been no focus on improving the quality of working life but in fact there has been an ideologically driven attack on holidays and rest and meal breaks.  From 1 April this year it will be possible to sell the 4th week of annual leave.  Sadly leave will be sold not because most people want less annual leave but because of financial pressures.  It is tough financially for low and middle income New Zealanders. 

Labour is already showing that we will continue assisting people achieve balance in their lives by indicating that we will look at enhancing paid parental leave as part of a comprehensive focus on child development.  This would be a very positive move for families and for society by increasing the chances of parents having quality time to bond with their babies.

The benefits of creating opportunities for people to better balance paid work with family, unpaid work, studying, taking part in community activities and helping others are wide ranging.  This includes to individuals, to their  children and other dependents, to employers by ensuring better recruitment and retention of a broader pool of employees and to the community as people can participate in the sporting, cultural, service, religious and other organisations that make up our society.  For lifelong learning to be the norm we need this sort of flexibility too.

I believe this is an important debate to have.  It is about our quality of life.   An ageing population makes it imperative and adds new dimensions to the issue,  for example the increasing number of people trying to care for children or grandchildren and ageing parents, or the needs of older workers who will want or be expected to be in the workforce for longer and who will have particular limits on their time at (paid) work.  This is also an important issue whether or not a person has caring responsibilities.  The demands on peoples time vary throughout their life.  For example a young person without children may want flexibility to finish a qualification or travel or play competitive sport as well as being in paid work.

We are all probably aware of people who regret that they didn’t do certain things during their life, commonly many people regret  that they didn’t spend more time with their family.  I don’t think that when people look back on their lives there are many who regret that they didn’t spend more time in paid work.  A very interesting piece of research by an Australian academic, Barbara Pocock, shows quite clearly that what children want most is quality time with their parents. 

It’s about Time!

Filed under: Employers, Holidays, Meals and Rest Breals, low pay, union, unpaid work, work life balance, workers rights
1 Comment

Happy Xmas to the bosses

Posted by Darien Fenton on December 4th, 2010

I’m not anti-employer, or anti-CEO. I know the importance of good and competent management and the difference that makes – I don’t mind such people being paid well. I’ve just spent two days with some very capable leaders and management in Air NZ and I’m thankful they’re there looking out for my national airline, along with the 10,000 Air NZ employees who help make the difference.

But wage gaps between workers and chief executives have grown so large that some staff would have to work up to 124 years to earn the same as their boss’s annual salary, according to today’s Dominion Post.

This isn’t news. I blogged on the headlines on the same theme in Australia in September last year, about the time we’d all been talking about the huge salary of the Telecom CEO, Paul Reynolds while at the same time hundreds of Teleco engineers were made redundant with no redundancy compensation.

Some said on that blog that I am envious. I’m not. But I struggle with the fairness of the salary gap being so huge between the people who lead our companies and those who actually do the work. I don’t think it contributes anything to reducing the growing inequalities in New Zealand and I’m not sure it adds anything to improving our society.

I don’t know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer – you might have some ideas.

But it feels wrong that one person can be paid so much – or why they even need that much money – when so many other New Zealanders are struggling to make a basic living.

Here’s what the bosses get

Westpac George Frazis $5.59m

Telecom Paul Reynolds $5.15m

Fonterra Andrew Ferrier $5.11m

The Warehouse Ian Morrice $2.84m

Fletcher Building Jonathan Ling $2.71m

Air New Zealand Rob Fyfe $2.58m

SkyCity Nigel Morrison $2.55m

Contact Energy David Baldwin $1.34m

Restaurant Brands NZ Russel Creedy $580,000 to $590,000

Salaries include performance-based bonuses and share options. Source: Unions, Federated Farmers

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, inequality, low pay, value of work
72 Comments

Unfairness on its way

Posted by Darien Fenton on November 23rd, 2010

The government’s third and final reading of Employment Relations Bill (No 2) and Holidays Amendment Bill, which went through the House today means that unfair employment laws are on their way.

The government pushed through the final stages of two pieces of legislation that attack the rights of wage and salary earners. Both of these bills will impact on health and safety and the rights to challenge the decisions of employers in unjustified dismissals. They will inevitably reduce protections for all workers.

Labour strongly opposed both bills all through the process, along with thousands of submitters and 22,000 workers who marched, rallied and campaigned against them, but National ignored all opposition.

The only small ray of hope in the debate was that the Maori Party changed its mind and voted against the Holidays Amendment Bill.  Good on them. 

But the National Party couldn’t even do the third reading justice.  Their members gave pitiful 3 minutes speeches parroting the government lines – which I thought was a disgrace.

I question whether today was an appropriate day to consider these bills, given the awful situation at Pike River Coal Mine.  I don’t think the government gave any thought to the connection between the birth of the Labour Party and the role that miners have played in improving rights for all NZ workers.  It certainly wouldn’t have considered that many of the miners on the West Coast are members of the EPMU and one of the missing men is an EPMU delegate.

Unfortunately, all workers will soon be facing the consequences of reduced rights. A sad day all round.

Tags:
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, Holidays, Labour Party, justice, labour, workers rights
61 Comments

Dr Brash : The Washington Consensus is dead – the party’s over!

Posted by Darien Fenton on November 4th, 2010

Reading the 2025 Taskforce report #2 reinforces what a lucky escape we had in 2005 when Don Brash and National were beaten by Labour in the general election.

If that hadn’t happened, by now we would be in Brashimania – the country’s assets would be sold off or privatised, NZ Rail and Air NZ would be in the hands of overseas interests, steadily being stripped again of assets, the minimum wage would be gone, the labour market re-regulated in an even more draconian way than the ECA, public health and education would be kneecapped with “competition”, early childhood education would only for those who could afford it, and welfare reforms would ensure that only the “deserving poor” had any assistance – with Dr Brash deciding who they were.

Don’t get me wrong. John Key’s NACTs are just as dangerous. They’re just a bit more careful and devious, because they’re scared of public opinion and know the electorate won’t tolerate another Douglas, Ruth or Brash attack.

The 2025 Taskforce, led by Dr Brash and his cheerleading group for ACT is costing NZers half a million bucks. It’s got another year to run. Yet, its members continue to insist that the failed policies of the 1980s and 1990’s will work now – even when they didn’t work before. Cuts to workers rights, minimum wage, cuts in Working for Families, an increase in the cost of student loans, and severe cuts in other government programmes,along with privatisation of more assets and services, including health and education are all there in report # 2.

Its pleasing to see the NZ Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA) criticising the report.  The NZMEA says that the report is long on diagnosis – (yes, that’s right, we all know Australian wages are way ahead of ours)- but short on therapy.

They say, in their press release that

The Taskforce’s recommendations largely echo the Washington Consensus.  This approach has not seen substantial export growth from the countries that have applied it.  Earlier this year, the IMF recommended more pragmatism on exchange rates from small economies instead.

And Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the Managing Director of the IMF said more just last Monday with this   :

…Such ‘growth models’ were unbalanced and unsustainable and inequality may have actually stoked this unsustainable model. In countries like the United States, borrowing seemed to allow ordinary people to share in the rising prosperity…. Inequality can dampen economic opportunity, by preventing the poor from accessing the financing needed to pursue profitable investments. It can divert people toward unproductive activities.

The Washington Consensus is dead. What we need are new ideas and new thinking – the kind that is coming through in Labour policy development that had Labour Party conference delegates buzzing about a different future under a Labour government.

The Taskforce seems incapable of new thinking and should be disbanded. It discredits the government who will once again ignore its recommendations – and it makes ACT look even more stupid than they are.

Dr Brash should give NZ taxpayers our half a million bucks back and accept that the party’s over.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Australia, Employers, Manufacturing, act party, economy, labour
106 Comments

A government with its ears tight shut

Posted by Darien Fenton on November 3rd, 2010

Surprise, surprise, the Government has completely ignored the submissions and protests of those opposing changes to the Employment Relations and Holidays Acts.

The Select Committee has reported back on the two bills and have recommended almost no changes. In the Employment Relations Bill No 2, the extension of the 90 day no rights trial periods to all workplaces, the restricting of workers to their unions at work and the weakening of personal grievance provisions remain.

In the Holidays Amendment Bill, employers will still be able to demand a medical certificate for a single day’s absence (one of the more silly provisions that I really thought the government might ditch) and the sale of the fourth week’s annual leave and the weakening of rights around alternative statutory holidays will go ahead.

What’s annoying is while the government’s is prepared to rush through bad employment law under urgency to please an international corporation, they are not prepared to listen to the 8,000 people who took the trouble to make submissions opposing these two bills, or to the 22,000 workers who rallied across New Zealand a couple of weeks ago.

There’s nothing about these changes that will improve productivity or enhance workplace relationships. There’s nothing here that will help our wages keep pace with, let alone catch up with Australia.  This is a feeble attempt to please employers and business at the expense of some pretty fundamental rights. 

The only possible message for Kiwi workers from this is that the government has its ears tight shut when it comes to their issues – unless they want their ideas and help to get through a recession.

Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, Holidays, parliament, select committee, sick leave, workers rights
16 Comments

Key forgets about US FTA as he reduces worker protection for Warner Bros.

Posted by Trevor Mallard on October 31st, 2010

When I was Minister of Labour we signed up to two big trade deals China and P4 (NZ, Chile, Singapore and Brunei.

Both pretty big deals – the associated memoranda were designed to protect us from undercutting – the competitive race to the bottom of the wage/skills spectrum. CTU and Business NZ both played a positive role because they saw our future heading up that spectrum.

Since then both organisations have been supportive of the work both governments have been doing on a NZ/US FTA. The CTU have worked with the AFLCIO whose support will be vital especially but not only for Democrat members of the house who must approve any agreement or at least give the President permission to negotiate with particular conditions. And Democrats and US unions don’t naturally support free trade. Nor for that matter do a significant proportion of Republicans.

The Memorandum of Understanding between China and New Zealand is very clear :-

4. The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic labour laws, regulations, policies and practices.

As is the P4 Memorandum of Understanding

5. The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to set or use their labour laws, regulations, policies and practices for trade protectionist purposes.

6. The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic labour laws.

The important point for this blog is that it is inappropriate to reduce protections to encourage investment.

Which is exactly what the government did in order to secure the Warners Hobbit investment.

I don’t think it is likely that anyone will take a case against us – but one thing is for certain, any plans we had to work with the AFLCIO towards a US free trade deal died when Key gave Warners the pen on our industrial relations legislation.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, Skills, coalition management, economy, regulation, sick leave, union, value of work, workforce
40 Comments

Labour Day or Halloween?

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 25th, 2010

It’s leading up to Halloween in Ottawa and the kids are already out on the streets in some pretty impressive costumes. Older kids have painted their faces black or ash grey with dripping faux blood and are parading about the town. While I feel irritated that Halloween was imported to NZ as another commercial opportunity to cash in on, I am amused that an ancient pre-Christian rite has become mainstream.

labor-dayMeanwhile it’s Labour Day in New Zealand. Now I do care about that and what it stands for.

I hope while people are enjoying the day off (at least those who get a day off) will remember that Labour Day is about Samuel Parnell’s struggle for an eight-hour working day.

Irony is there’s no longer any eight hour day regulation in NZ anymore (apart from an old reference in the Minimum Wage Age that a truck could be driven through.

In fact there is almost no NZ regulation around working hours, apart from the meals and rest breaks legislation, which National is in the process of decimating and paid leave laws, which are also under attack.

Canada celebrates Labo(u)r Day in September.  It goes back to 1872, when the Toronto Trades Assembly organised Canada’s first significant demonstration for worker’s rights to demand the release of the 24 leaders of the Toronto Typographical Union who were imprisoned for striking to campaign for a nine-hour working day.

Difference is that like  most other developed countries, Canada still has working time regulation including an 8 hour day, with provisions for flexibility and extended hours provided overtime is paid.  Mealbreaks apply after five hours and there are prescribed periods of rest between shifts. Workers must receive at least 24 consecutive hours off work in each work week, or at least 48 consecutive hours off work in every period of two consecutive work weeks.

So I’m happy to give Halloween a miss (if I can hide) and celebrate the day that reminds us that workers’ rights issues are still out there and needing attention.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, Holidays, Meals and Rest Breals, international, workers rights
13 Comments

Submission from AFFCO/Talley’s

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 6th, 2010

Today was the final day hearing submissions on the Employment Relations and Holidays Bills.  And it ended with the most extreme submission received from employers – good old Talley’s – now AFFCO -TGL. That’s Talley’s, who locked out workers for six weeks at Open Country Cheese recently and who defied Employment Court orders.  That’s Talley’s, who in the 1990’s was of the only employers (or perhaps the only) who had a ruling saying their contract was harsh and oppressive – and that was under the Employment Contracts Act!  That’s Talley’s, whose employment relations views haven’t come into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

I think this video from the SFWU website sums it up pretty well .

Tags: ,
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, humour, workers rights, workforce
13 Comments

Gimme a break

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 25th, 2010

The Rest and Meal breaks amendment bill was reported back to Parliament yesterday from the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee.

What a joke.

The NACTs might as well have just repealed Labour’s 2008 Act, because their Bill all but guts it.

Why is having a break enshrined in law such a big deal for the government?  Surely the right to rest and meal breaks is pretty basic?

I was on the select committee that heard evidence in Labour’s 2008 Act and then National’s 2010 bill.  Having decent and safe work in New Zealand is something a first world country like ours shouldn’t be afraid of, but apparently that’s just too hard.

So, the Government is ploughing ahead with a Bill that means employers can refuse breaks. There can be ‘compensatory measures’,  but goodness knows what that means, because the Bill remains murky about that. I see another bonanza coming for lawyers.

I can’t understand why any government would want to promote a law that could require workers to work for nothing. I thought slavery had been abolished.

Gimme a break.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, Meals and Rest Breals, workers rights, workforce
18 Comments

Will submissions change the government’s mind?

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 15th, 2010

According to the CTU, an estimated 6000 submissions have been forwarded on the government’s antiquated Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee.

This is the bill that :

• Extends the 90 day no rights trial period to all workplaces

• Restricts the right of workers to have access to their unions at work

• Weakens fair processes where workers actually manage to get a grievance hearing

among other things.

Submissions hearings begin tomorrow in Wellington, and are likely to take up a lot of time in the next few weeks.  The Select Committee will travel to other places (to be determined) and also meet during House Sitting time to get through the very tight timeframe of reporting back the bill by 7 November.

I’ve read some of the submissions so far and the arguments are comprehensive and convincing.  With unions planning a national day of action in October, it will be interesting to see if the National Government members, who have the majority on the committee, are prepared to listen – and if necessary convince their Minister to change her mind.

We’ll see – but not holding my breath.

These are public hearings, so come along if you can.

Tags:
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Employers, Holidays, jobs, labour, parliament, regulation, sick leave, workers rights
8 Comments

« Older Entries