PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Employers’ Category

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

Heather (no not that one) wins her case

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 24th, 2010

The first 90 day trial period case has been heard in the Employment Court, which has found that young pharmacy worker, Heather Smith was unjustifiably dismissed by her employer (due to a failure to comply with the contracting requirements of the Employment Relations Act), and the employer failed to treat her in good faith or to comply with her employment agreement.

The Employment Court says this gives Heather several grounds for compensation for the appalling way she was treated.

However, the President of the CTU, Helen Kelly warns that :

“This law was rushed through Parliament without a proper select committee process and therefore has to some extent failed to achieve what the Government set out to do, creating a high risk for employers that have already sacked workers unfairly under the scheme. The Government intended to allow the reckless dismissal of workers without reasons and without giving reasons. What the Court has found is that the Good Faith requirements prevail and while an employer still may not have to have reasons, where they do, and where they are considering dismissing someone – they will need to tell them.”

“Heather’s employers relied on the law to completely indemnify them from any standards of decent employment practice. They have been found to not only have breached good faith requirements but even the terms of the employment agreement they entered into her with.”

“The disgraceful thing is that the policy intention of the Government is to remove from Heather and every other worker employed on a 90 day agreement the right to take a case against unfair dismissal.”

“While this decision is a real victory for Heather and justifies our decision to stick by workers like her, the Court decision still makes it clear that where employers get it right, and form and perform contracts correctly, this new law will still enable dismissals as unfair as Heather’s to go unchallenged.”

Pleased for Heather, but not pleased about all of the other workers who will be unfairly dismissed under the government’s plan to extend the 90 day trial to all workplaces.

Mind you, the other Heather (Roy) might be out on her ear, according to TVNZ news tonight.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, workers rights, workforce, youth
22 Comments

Is this the poster boy for good employers?

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 23rd, 2010

Saturday’s Herald had a feature on the biggest shake-up of employment laws in 20 years and gave an example of a Fijian carpenter, Basa Jal, who apparently owes his job and his New Zealand residence to the current 90-day trial period law.

To the rescue came Sean Robertson-Welsh, who owns New Zealand’s biggest fencing supplies company, Effective Fencing in Penrose, who agreed to give Mr Jal a job under the 90-day trial law, and support his application for a work permit. Mr Robertson-Welsh said he wouldn’t have taken on Mr Jal without the 90 day trial period.

So far, good story for those who claim the 90 day trial period is providing jobs for those on the “margins”.

But then, this.

Mr Robertson-Welsh, an English immigrant who bought the company in 2008 after running a similar business in Britain for 15 years, is a bitter opponent of the current employment laws allowing sacked workers to seek compensation for unjustified dismissal.

“It’s so bloody archaic here. I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “I’ve been in the Employment Court seven times in three years. In Britain I was in business 25 years and never went to the Employment Court once, which shows you the culture.”

What? Is he serious?  In the Employment Court seven times in three years!  That’s got to be a record for any employer, let alone one that employs less than 20 people.  It’s hard work for a worker to get a case to the Employment Court and this suggests to me that this employer has some real problems in his employment practices.

I also wonder whether he thought some of the other laws in the UK were “archaic”, such as working time regulation, meals and rest breaks, and minimum redundancy entitlements – which New Zealand either doesn’t have or is in the process of wrecking.

But hardly a poster boy for good employers.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, union, workers rights, workforce
54 Comments

Migrant Workers & Economic Recession

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on August 22nd, 2010

I attended a session at the NZ Diversity Forum in Christchurch today and am a panellist at one of the sessions tomorrow.  Today’s session was organised by Migrante Aotearoa and was called “Migrant Workers & The Recession – the South Island Experience.  There were a number of excellent speakers and they raised some very important issues.  These issues are not new to Christchurch MPs as we have been very well-briefed about the impacts of the recession on skilled migrants who were still in the process of working their way to residence when the recession hit.  Jim Anderton & I wrote to Minister Jonathan Coleman requesting a meeting to discuss the situation and he refused to meet, because he knows everything.  The result of the government’s policies is that skilled migrants are not having their permits renewed (having been subjected to a fresh labour market test) and are being forced to leave New Zealand even though they have a job and are on a pathway to residence.  This means we are losing these people, despite the fact that we know we will need them again.

The session included Mike Bell from Move2NZ, giving an overview of the problems that occur when policies change after people are already in NZ. He made very good points about the link between residence and work permit policies and how changes in one impacts on the other and it is simply unfair to do that when people have quit their job and sold their house to come here. I totally agree.   I think the Minister is wrong to think that his department doesn’t encourage people to come on visitor visas, so they can look for the job that will support their skilled migrant application for residence.  It is sophistry to argue that they couldn’t expect their work visa to be automatically renewed as it is only a temporary visa.  Mike made the point that close to 40% of permanent residents were on a temporary visa in New Zealand when they applied for residence.  It’s not good enough to ignore the reality of the situation and treat them as temporary visa holders when the government knows they were planning to get residence.

We also heard from a dairy worker, Roberto Bolanos, who described the difficulties Fillipino workers faced and some of the barriers that are put in their way by Immigration requirements that they cannot easily address from Ashburton.  He also spoke about the discrimination at work – some subtle, some not so subtle, including having to speak in English with each other even on their breaks. I actually couldn’t believe this was still happening – it happened in the hospital kitchen 30 years ago where the kitchen staff were told they had to speak English – probably because the supervisors (who only spoke English) were worried that the Samoan cooks were talking about them behind their backs.  I took the case up as the union delegate and made the point that they most definitely had much more interesting things to talk about.  I also said that I would go to The Truth newspaper (that used to be useful in those days) if they didn’t take the notice off the wall – it was gone the next day!  

The session included two EEO advisers from the Human Rights Commission who talked about the migrant issues that arose in the National Conversation on Work.  This is well worth looking at as it debunks some of the myths around work, as well as identifying the issues that need addressing.  And finally we had Bill Rosenberg, an economist from the CTU, who gave an excellent overview of the current economic situation and how that impacted on the prospects & challenges for migrants – locally and globally. I have linked to the CTU’s Economic Bulletins.

I am glad that these issues are being debated, because we will always need skilled migrants, and we cannot afford to see NZ’s reputation for having a well-balanced immigration programme undermined just because we are in recession and expectations have changed.  These changed expectations should be managed from the front end – not at the point of no return for those who had a legitimate expectation they were working their way to residence.  It isn’t fair and it’s damaging to our future.

Filed under: Employers, Immigration, economy
12 Comments

Meaning the opposite of what they say

Posted by Clare Curran on August 22nd, 2010

work rally august

Today Dunedin-ites hit the streets again to protest against the Government’s unfair, unreasonable work laws.

I don’t know how many people, around 500, turned out on a sunny day. It was a good march and rally. Working people talked about their workplaces and the ridiculous nature of these laws and the effect they’ll have. This issue will continue to grow in momentum.

Last week Minister Kate Wilkinson stood in the House at question time and described the Employment Relations Bill as fair and reasonable.

Every time this government says certain words, you know it means something else. The opposite. It’s called Orwellian language which means an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda,  misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

She says this Bill is not major, it’s only a little change. That means a big change. Just like Tony Ryall who talks constantly about change in health. Change, which equals cuts. Or Bill English who talks about change in the public sector and reprioritisation. Words that mean cuts. Cuts to peoples services and people’s jobs.

And the icing on the cake is when the government talks about its policies being aspirational. Which means “we don’t really mean it”. They are now aspirational about closing the wage gap between NZ and Australia (despite promising to do so before the last election). They are no doubt aspirational about creating 170,000 jobs. And there are countless other things they are “aspirational” about.

Unfortunately they are not aspirational about this Bill. They really mean it. But it’s not, as Kate Wilkinson describes, a small change that is fair and reasonable. It’s a major shift towards fundamentally affecting the reltationship between employers and employees in our NZ workplaces.

It’s taking us backwards as a country. It will affect the morale and productivity of employees. Hard working NZers, people who earn wages and salaries. People who arent liars and slackers.

It will make workplaces harder to be. It entrenches unfairness in our employment relations system. It won’t do anything to address the fact that we don’t have enough jobs in this country, we don’t have an economic plan.

And then I heard yesterday that Paula Bennett plans to force people on  sickness benefits to get jobs, or they’ll be cut in half (and that’s for starters). Leaving aside the issue of whether people who shouldn’t be working will be forced to try to find work, just where are these jobs going to come from? And watch the messaging she uses. Code for people on sickness benefits being bludgers. Just like those on the DPB.

In the meantime there’s higher unemployment. And we’re about to have a GST rise.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, inequality, jobs, legislation, protest, workforce
29 Comments

Another worker’s story

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 16th, 2010

Heather is another worker who has come forward to the CTU about being unfairly sacked under the 90 day trial period law. Here’s her story. Now watch the righties go hunting for a conspiracy.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, justice, labour, union, workforce
40 Comments

Florence and her 90 day trial

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 16th, 2010

This is the latest CTU video about the 90 day trial period.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, union, value of work, workforce
88 Comments

John Key and the 90-days report

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 11th, 2010

When John Key announced the expansion of the 90 day fire at will law at his National Party Conference, he released a deliberately delayed Department of Labour research report to claim success of the current law and to justify enabling all employers to have unfair dismissals during a 90 day trial period.

The report is very unbalanced, with only 13 workers and more than 3,000 employers surveyed for the background research. Despite that, it doesn’t provide evidence for John Key’s claims. There is no evidence to show it has led to increased employment opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged job seekers, the 90 day trial period has not been negotiable and voluntary, with many jobs being made conditional on acceptance of a 90 day trial. And many employers have failed to meet even the most basic legal requirement of putting the agreement in writing, as required by the law. The report’s worth a read, if you haven’t already – and I strongly recommend you get into the detail, not the summary at the beginning.

I think these new pictures of the DOL report cover from the Fairness at Work Facebook page are a much more accurate description of the report’s findings.

40098_116038831779801_113487335368284_109105_5912207_n

40098_116038825113135_113487335368284_109103_8117055_n

Filed under: Employers, workforce
41 Comments

Trade Me Jobs for 90 days

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 5th, 2010

job-ad-90-day

After a quick trawl through the Trade Me and Seek sites, we found six advertisements for web developers and designers, pet groomers, sales staff and a structural engineer, all of which say “the 90 day trial period will apply” (emphasis added in sample image above – click for a larger view).

Funny that.  John Key and his Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson have been insisting that 90 day trial periods are subject to discussion, good faith negotiation and agreement between employers and prospective employees.

These advertisements show that employers are already breaking the existing 90 day trial legislation by making a 90 day trial a pre-condition of employment.

This will spread if National goes ahead with its plan to extend the 90 day trial period to all employers and employees.

The government keeps insisting that employees can’t be forced into trial periods – but these advertisements plainly break the law.  The only answer the Minister could come up with at question time today was that employees “don’t have to apply for these jobs”.

Weak, Minister.

Tags:
Filed under: Employers, labour, union, workforce
37 Comments

Unimaginable – removing the right to have a rest or meal break

Posted by Carol Beaumont on August 5th, 2010

At the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee today CTU President Helen Kelly gave a strong challenge in her oral submission.   She rightly stated that it is unimaginable that a Government would remove the right to something as fundamental as the right to have a break during the working day.  Yet this is what National is doing. 

Essentially there is a removal of rights by creating the following regime – rest and meal breaks will be taken at times agreed by employees and employers but in the absence of such agreement it must be at a reasonable time or duration as specified by the employer.  The removal in this Bill of a statutory minimum means that there is no standard below which agreement cannot fall – anything is possible as long as it is agreed.  In the absence of agreement the only protection in relation to imposition by the employer is that it should be “reasonable” however the Bill provides that employers can specify reasonable times and durations that, having regard to the operational environment or resources and the employees interests, enable the continuity of service or production.   

Helen Kelly also pointed out that the changes proposed in this Bill must be seen in the context of other changes.  For example how strong will a worker’s bargaining position be around meal and rest breaks when for the first ninety days of their employment they can be sacked without reason or redress (except in cases of discrimination).   If the employer thinks theyare not being flexible enough about having (or not having) a break watch out!  If they want advice about their rights they won’t necessarily be able to see a union representative at work given the proposed change to the access provisions.

I am not suggesting this is how most employers will behave but legal minimums are to provide protections for the most vulnerable.  Furthermore in competitive industries good employers can face pressure if bad employees employers cut costs by exploiting  workers.

Filed under: Employers, Meals and Rest Breals
24 Comments

Same job, same uniform, different pay

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 28th, 2010

Qantas has been paying its New Zealand pilots up to 40% less than its Australian pilots, even although they wear the same uniform and fly the same routes.

Positions previously held by Qantas pilots are being lost to Jetconnect pilots as Qantas pay and conditions are much inferior here.

Despite being set up to undertake domestic flights within New Zealand, Jetconnect now operates 154 flights between Australia and New Zealand every week and is effectively an operating division of Qantas, says the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).

Its New Zealand pilots wear Qantas uniforms, have Qantas staff numbers, and fly Qantas aircraft with travel routes determined by Qantas.

The ACTU says that where workers are doing the same job as Australian workers and in actual fact replacing Australian workers, Australian work legislation should apply to them.

The gap between Australian and New Zealand wages has grown by more than $50 a week since November 2008.  The government has no ideas or plan about how to address this gap, other than to further reduce workers rights.

New Zealand has become a desirable destination for Australian companies who want to pay workers less.

Tags:
Filed under: Australia, Employers, business, economy, labour, value of work, workforce
10 Comments

Good managers don’t need an unfair law

Posted by Clare Curran on July 25th, 2010

Methodist Mission Dunedin has called on Otago’s biggest employers to make a decision not to put new workers on a 90 day trial.

The Mission wants the University of Otago, Southern District Health Board (merger of Otago and Southland) and the Dunedin City Council not to adopt the extension of  the 90-day trial period to all workplaces if it makes it through into law.

Between them they employ the majority of the Dunedin workforce.

The Mission has decided tnot to adopt the trial and the Mission’s Executive Director Laura Black said these bigger workpalces should be well enough managed to choose the right people for the right job.

The DHB CEO has said he couldn’t absolutely commit to making that decision, but he also couldn’t see the trial period being relevant to the baord.

The University said it would consider its response and the DCC said it was too early to comment.

Good on the Methodist Mission. They are calling on all large tax-payer funded organisations, many of whom work with the disadvantaged to demonstrate the quality of their management by refusing to take up this retrenchment of basic human rights.

The Methodist Mission is setting a good example for the rest of the country to follow. There’s no evidence to demand such laws. They are unfair and good managers should reject them.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Employers, labour
10 Comments

Should I explain John Key’s policy to him?

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 17th, 2010

As workers gear up to fight against the government’s moves on employment law, it’s clear that Prime Minister John Key doesn’t understand what he’s about to announce tomorrow.

He said on TVNZ last night : “you can’t just sack someone (under the 90 day trial period) – you have to go through a formal process, but what the process avoids is a personal grievance just for the sake of things.”

Well, he’s wrong.  Under the 90 day trial period, an employer can just sack someone. They don’t even have to tell them why. They can just say “Don’t come Monday.”

And a personal grievance just for the sake of things?  Please.  He has no idea what an effort taking a personal grievance is and why would he think someone would do it “just for the sake of things”.  The number of grievances that proceed to mediation or beyond are tiny in comparison to New Zealand’s 2 million workforce.

Key went on to describe the law as “probationary periods”.  We already had those in the law prior to the 90 day Act last year, and still have them for all workers.

John Key needs to study up on his policies. I’m happy to help.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, legislation, policy, workforce
35 Comments

Productive employment relations?

Posted by Carol Beaumont on July 17th, 2010

Members of the National Government say the word productivity a lot.  I certainly agree there is a need to lift our productivity as a nation.  However I get annoyed that there is little real action and no focus at all on workplace productivity.

In fact the track record of this Government, including the recent announcements on extending the 90 Day No Rights provisions and limiting union access to workplaces, has taken a cost reduction approach to employment relations.  Lifting employment standards and improving the quality of our workplaces doesn’t feature. 

In my speech on the Prime Ministers Statement to Parliament in February I made the following comments :

Where is the government investment in industry and regional economic development?  Where is the recognition that we need to lift the quality of workplaces – the wage rates, the work conditions, the quality of interaction. Productive employment relations. This Government sees workers and their rights as a cost to be reduced.

Look at the double speech in the PMs statement. Under the section on Better Regulation we have:

“Whether labour laws are imposing excessive costs on the country and holding back opportunities to create jobs”

Holidays and PGs not to mention union access to workplaces and collective bargaining. Remember what this meant last time and if we want to find reasons for the gap in income between Australia and NZ  this is a good place to start.

Attacking workers rights and reducing current standards will not encourage the motivated workforce we need. Failing to invest in improving skills in our workplace will  similarly not provide for a motivated workforce able to work smarter.  There were no new initiatives in the area of workplace learning in the Budget.  In fact under the Labour portfolio we see money moved from the Skills area to a completely different area of work.  The Skills Forum spoken about very positively by the Prime Minister at the CTU conference last year has met once under this Government (still we know how reliable undertakings made by John Key to the union movement are!)

A recent report on management practices in the manufacturing industry showed that NZ managers surveyed are “average to middling by global standards”  Furthermore people management emerges as the weakest area.  And we are going to give poor people managers the right to fire at will for 90 days (except for discrimination covered by the Human Rights Act)!

 A specific need identified in the Skills Strategy agreed by the last Government, Unions and Employers was around the need for more management training.   We need forward looking people management that recognises that paying more not less, improving conditions of employment and genuine flexibility and respecting the need for independent worker voice that is engaged in improving the workplace and the products and services created/provided  is what is required. Workplaces that are focussed on lifting productivity and where productive employment relations are seen as an integral part of this. We have some of these businesses but we need many more.

Fundamental to this approach is respect.  I know from my own experience as a union organiser that workers value and desire respect at work.   Respect for them as individuals but also respect for their unions.  They also want to work with and for employers they respect.   

I would like to see a real focus on productive employment relations but it will not happen under the approach being promoted by this National Government.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employers, Manufacturing, Skills, productivity, union, workforce
7 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »