Red Alert
Archive for the ‘minimum wage’ Category
Glad government listens (very occasionally)
Posted by Darien Fenton on March 29th, 2011News just in from the Ministry of Health regarding the sleepovers case – where the Court of Appeal determined that disability support workers were working when they stayed over in IHC premises, and therefore should be paid minimum wage for every hour worked.
“The Government, health and disability service providers and unions have agreed to enter negotiations on payments for staff who work sleepovers in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision. These discussions are due to start on 1 April 2011.”
Good. That’s what Labour said they should have been doing way back. They should have saved the expense of joining the Court of Appeal case and got on with doing the right thing.
Still, better late than never.
They won!
Posted by Darien Fenton on February 17th, 2011A Court of Appeal decision yesterday confirmed a previous Employment Court ruling that “sleepovers” performed by disability support workers is “work” and should be paid at the adult minimum wage of $13 for every hour of their shift.
My congratulations to the disability support workers and their unions for their persistence and determination in pursuing this outcome. They’ve had everything thrown at them since the 2007, including an Employment Relations Authority hearing, an Employment Court case in 2009 and the Court of Appeal.
The government joined the appeal through the Attorney General to argue that the Minimum Wage Act enables averaging of the minimum wage across a pay period, but now the Court of Appeal has also disagreed.
The Court noted the union lawyer’s comment that “no-one had ever heard of the averaging theory until it was created for this case, and most unions, workers and employers consider it to be bizarre”. It seems that this argument had been dreamed up to avoid the obligation to pay minimum wage to these workers.
The Court has left it to the parties to reach an agreement over how the decision will be applied, with the option of returning if agreement can’t be reached. The government needs to meet with unions, disability support providers and representatives of service users to find a durable solution that will ensure a quality service can continue to be provided with workers being paid their basic entitlement to minimum wage.
It will mean that the government will have to fund providers to pay their staff the legal minimum wage and that clearly has significant implications for the health budget.
But New Zealand has relied on the goodwill of caregivers in disability support for years. These workers and the people they care for should now be able to rely on the government’s support for the important work they do.
Waitangi and ANZAC day confusion
Posted by Trevor Mallard on February 6th, 2011Just 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.
Sorry, but just what exactly did John Key mean?
Posted by Clare Curran on January 20th, 2011I’ve been mulling this over for a few days.
There’s a lot of unanswered questions about Pike River. The Royal Commission is yet to begin hearings and that process is important. But there’s been some strange utterances about Pike River in the last week.
Most strange has been John Key’s pronouncement about sealing the mine and Gerry Brownlee’s back-tracking from that position.
Ponder this:
Last Thursday, Police Commissioner Howard Broad said at the Greymouth media conference:
Based on all this advice it would have been quite wrong for the Police to hold out great hope that the men will be recovered and I have decided that the recovery phase of this operation will come to a conclusion. The means of concluding this operation is by handing the mine back to the receiver who controls Pike River Coal Mine. I have written to the receiver today, outlining this point, and inviting him to immediately reply to this step.
On Friday, John Key endorsed that decision, saying the recovery plan had failed and there was no credible way to retrieve the bodies. He said:
The Government was fully committed to doing everything we could to making sure the bodies were removed and that full closure could be achieved for those families but that’s just not possible and its not an issue of money or time or commitment.
He said it was “likely” the mine would now be sealed but it was up to the mine company receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Mr Key cited the fact the decision was based on the views of three independent experts and on international advice.
Yet, on Monday, the receivers said work to stabilise the mine would continue for five to eight more weeks.
And then, just to complicate things, on Tuesday, Gerry Brownlee said this (reported by Marie McNicholas from Newsroom):
I don’t think there has been any lack of clarity about what’s going on.
I think there has been a range of interpretations that have been unhelpful in all of this.
When you boil it all down you are talking about a group of people who have lost their loved ones in the most tragic of circumstances. They went to work and they didn’t come home. How do you expect people to simply accept that that’s it; it’s all over?”
He blamed a “somewhat literal” interpretation of what sealing a mine meant for the confusion over Prime Minister John Key’s view that the mine would probably be sealed.
Mr Key had not meant the mine would be locked up for good, Mr Brownlee said.
Um… when someone talks about sealing a mine, I know what I think. What exactly did John Key mean? And why is Gerry covering for him?
There was a good editorial in yesterday’s NZ Herald. Read it
What should the 2011 minimum wage be?
Posted by Darien Fenton on January 17th, 2011The Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, will shortly announce whether the minimum wage will increase from 1 April this year. I’m hoping the increase will be more than last year’s miserly 25 cents an hour for our lowest paid workers.
The debate began this morning with Helen Kelly vs Phil O’Reilly on Business Breakfast.
Unions are arguing for more, but agree that $15 an hour is a good first step. They are also campaigning on the $15 minimum – at Skycity Casino, for example, unions have been taking action over one of their claims – a $15 an hour minimum for any worker employed at Sky – and given that Sky City employs workers doing the same jobs in Australia for at least the Australian minimum wage, which was increased to A$15 a hour last year, I think this is a reasonable ask.
Business NZ says the minimum wage should at least stay as it is : at $12.75 an hour.
There’s a good case for the minimum wage to be increased substantially, given big increases in food and living costs over the past year, along with GST and petrol price hikes. It’s not just about helping struggling families, but also helping the economy, as low-income households are more likely to spend any additional income.
Labour supports a $15 minimum wage and Trevor Mallard has a members’ bill in the ballot that would implement this from 1 April this year.
Some of you will say there should be no increase – and perhaps a decrease – and some of you believe that fair wages for low income families are a critical part of New Zealand’s economic recovery to have their say as well. You know where I stand on this issue, but here’s your chance to have your say.
Let me know.
We believe in the right to unionise – some people don’t
Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 22nd, 2010
This is the latest from Sir Peter on the Hobbit debacle. It makes the agenda very very clear. Sad really. Diminishes one of my heroes and undermines my faith in our processes of government at the same time.
Worse, it was clear to ourselves and to the studio that the MEAA, had an agenda to unionize the NZ film industry by exploiting a grey area that existed in employment law. The change in the law, which clarified the independent contractor status of film industry workers, gave the studio confidence that the film could made in New Zealand without the threat of unjustified ongoing industrial action and for that we remain very grateful.
The area of law wasn’t grey. It dates back a long way and was confirmed in 2005. It drew a line between contractors and employees and Sir Peter has made all of his films on that legal basis. it worked. To deny that is nonsense.
Here’s an Idea Minister – sort the muddle
Posted by Darien Fenton on December 22nd, 2010Thousands of carers employed by Idea Services will have to wait until February for the Court of Appeal’s decision on the sleepover case, where the Attorney General and IHC are appealing an Employment Court decision that ruled that sleeping over on an employer’s premises and being on call was “work” and should be paid the hourly minimum wage of $12.75 per hour.
But while the appeal drags on, there’s confusion between government departments about how to apply the Employment Court ruling.
On the one hand, existing workers continue to perform sleepovers at the fixed allowance of $34 a night, while the Department of Labour keeps its head down.
On the other hand, Immigration NZ is refusing to allow overseas workers to work for Idea Services because they are “not complying with New Zealand employment laws” – specifically the Minimum Wage Act. They are applying this to both work permits and residency applications.
One young woman who has been in New Zealand for ten years studying and working as a Mental Health and Disability Support worker had her application for residence turned down for this very reason. She had a job offer from Idea Services, but her residency application based on her qualifications and job offer from Idea Services was rejected because “Idea Services is not complying with employment laws and therefore her employment creates unacceptable risks to the integrity of New Zealand’s laws and policies.”
Technically, Immigration NZ are correct. Under policy SM7.20 : requirements for employers, all employers wishing to employ non-New Zealand citizens or residents must pay employees no less than the appropriate adult minimum wage or other contracted industry standard.” I support this policy strongly, but how bizarre that one arm of government (Immigration NZ) says it’s not okay for Idea Services to employ workers in breach of the law, yet the other (Department of Labour) appears to think it is.
I’ve written to the Minister about the young woman’s case because either Idea Services is breaking the law, or it isn’t and there needs to be consistent application by government departments. She needs to sort this muddle out.
As for the government – it’s joined the appeal and is poised to amend the Minimum Wage Act should the appeal fail, to avoid having to cough up the millions that will be needed for the backpay owed to New Zealand workers who continue to work for less than minimum wage.
Not much Xmas cheer for Idea Services workers.
Blood on the coal
Posted by Darien Fenton on December 16th, 2010Last night, TV3’s 60 minutes screened its investigation into mining safety called Blood on the Coal. If you missed it, you should watch it. It’s sad and it’s disturbing.
The EPMU have again called for the issue of mine check inspectors to be put before the Commission of Inquiry, saying that ‘Blood on the Coal’ highlighted that having check inspectors at the Pike River mine might have made the difference between safety and tragedy.
A check inspector is an elected, experienced, qualified and trained miner who can immediately order the withdrawal of worker from the mine or part of the mine believed to be dangerous to life or injurious to health (as determined by the inspector), or order immediate discontinuance of any dangerous practice, or order evacuation of the mine in emergency situations. They inspect the mine every two weeks or on a miner’s request regarding a dangerous condition or practice, and report in writing to the mine manager; they support health and safety representatives and committees in the development of safety cases and make recommendations to the department (of Labour) regarding granting/withdrawing any high risk activity license.
EPMU National Secretary, Andrew Little says :
“The Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, needs to dust off the work done in 2008 on this and other mine safety issues and put it in front of the Commission. We owe it to the 29 men who died in the Pike River coal mine and the rest of the 7,270 people that work in mining sector to do this.”
“Elected check inspectors were experienced miners with special safety responsibilities and checking functions in mines, but they were scrapped despite warnings at the time that doing so would risk the sort of disaster that happened at Pike River mine on 19 November.”
“The deregulation of health and safety in coal mines in 1992 by the then National Government replaced a prescriptive approach that included a mechanism for workers’ safety concerns to be aired with an open-ended system in which the workers’ voice has been devalued.”
“Even in other countries, like the UK and Australia, which introduced less prescriptive overall health and safety legislation, they made sure it was supplemented with detailed regulation for clearly hazardous industries like underground mining.”
“The EPMU has campaigned on behalf of miners for the reinstatement of check inspectors since 1992, renewing its call for them in the aftermath of workplace deaths in the Black Reef and Roa mines on the West Coast in 2006. Subsequent changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act have failed to fill the gap in the system left since then.”
“The 2008 review of mine safety ordered by then Minister of Labour Trevor Mallard was on track to carefully examine the case for reintroducing check inspectors, but after a change of government in 2008 the new Minister of Labour, National’s Kate Wilkinson, failed to address the gap in the system and chose not to reintroduce check inspectors.”
I hope the government’s listening.
More flannel, no help
Posted by Brendon Burns on December 16th, 2010I hope Coasters aren’t getting up any hopes for a Government cash injection to help them recover from the Pike River disaster and closure.
Yesterday in the House Gerry Brownlee continued to flannel on the Government’s abject failure to provide any ongoing assistance to his own Christchurch business community after the quake. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/3/2/1/49HansQ_20101215_00000004-4-Earthquake-Canterbury-Business-Recovery.htm
His answer is that these businesses need more customers. The Government’s response is a pathetic $100,000 cash grant. So if that’s all a region of more than half a million can expect, the Coast with less than a tenth of that population will be getting any cash stimulation paid in silver coinage.
Gerry’s boss, the Teflon smile and wave man will continue hoping that no media commentator takes him to task about the commitment he gave in the week after the quake that the Government “will do whatever it takes” to assist Canterbury after the nation’s biggest-ever natural disaster.
Meantime, visits today to another couple of businesses in the CBD of my electorate continue to tell me that they are angry and let down by a Government they mostly voted for. Should make for an interesting meeting tomorrow morning at 7.30 called by struggling SME owners with the city’s politicians.
Pity all the miners
Posted by Darien Fenton on December 13th, 2010As if losing 29 of their workmates weren’t enough, the remaining workers at Pike River Mine now face a bleak Christmas with the Company going into liquidation.
Pike River Coal chairman John Dow announced today that New Zealand Oil & Gas had appointed a receiver to the company at the request of the board of Pike River Coal, with John Fisk, David Bridgman and Malcolm Hollis, partners from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, being appointed as the mine’s receivers.
This was on the cards from day one of the disaster and I understand contractors were laid off almost immediately – with nothing.
But there’s now doubt as to whether the miners directly employed by Pike River Coal will get their one month of notice paid out, redundancy payments and any other entitlements such as holiday pay.
I know the Company’s not a charity, but for goodness sake – surely they could have waited until after Christmas?
Ross Wilson would give the Royal Commission credibility
Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 5th, 2010Ross Wilson is a former President of the CTU and Chair of the ACC. He is an experienced lawyer.
He has probably forgotten more about Health and Safety than anyone else in New Zealand has ever known.
While I’m not as cynical about Peter Whittall as Matt McCarten is today I don’t think it is right to deify him either.
There is already a lack of credibility around what now appears to be a combined Police Department of Labour investigation.
Therefore it is important that someone with real New Zealand health and safety experience is on rather than just giving evidence to the Commission.
Ross is the obvious choice.
Bully state – let’s change this law too
Posted by Darien Fenton on October 28th, 2010While everyone’s been obsessed with the Hobbit there’s another battle looming that could have the same end result – the government rushing off to change labour laws to prevent workers accessing rights.
Today, the Service & Food Workers Union is in the Court of Appeal defending the right of disability support workers to be paid the lawful minimum wage during periods they are required to remain on the employers premises on-call to the 4 -5 intellectually disabled residents they are supporting (known as a sleepover).
Last December, the Employment Court confirmed its decision that being required to stay on the employer’s premises during the night to support people with intellectual disabilities was “work” and should attract the minimum wage. The court described the responsibilities during sleepovers as ‘weighty’ and ‘critical to the business of the employer.’
IHC, the National Residential Intellectual Disability Providers, Business New Zealand and the Department of Labour put forward the argument that if the requirement to pay $12.50 an hour was averaged over a pay period employers could offset higher paid periods for those where rates below the minimum hourly rate were paid, but the Court disagreed.
Now the government’s joined the appeal, with AG Christopher Finlayson appearing alongside the employer (IHC). They will argue that it is possible to average the minimum wage across a pay period and thus it is possible to earn just $3.00 an hour for some hours worked.
The AG will be arguing that the Court’s decision to have these workers paid properly for sleepovers will be a catastrophe for the NZ economy because it will destroy the system of salaries, commission and piece work.
But just in case they lose, the government is currently working on an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act to overturn the Court judgement and allow “averaging” and legal rates of pay as low as $1.00 an hour.
What’s really behind it is that the government will have to stump up with a whole lot of extra cash for Disability Providers if the Court judgement stands.
No problem bailing out SCF with $1.6 billion, but a big problem paying these workers properly.
So, easy. Let’s change the law. After all, they’ve done it for the Hobbit, so why not?
Hobbits and Goblins
Posted by Darien Fenton on October 1st, 2010Much of the media commentary in the past few days around the Hobbit stoush has been has been about the cheek of an Australian Union (the MEAA) daring to take on our very own Lord (Sir Peter Jackson) over the pay and conditions of NZ performers on the Hobbit set.
We’ve even seen the extraordinary situation where a Minister of the Crown and Attorney General has (mis)used his position to seek and publish advice from Crown Law to take sides in what is essentially an industrial dispute.
But underlying this is a much deeper issue. New Zealand’s competition laws impose huge restrictions on the rights of contract workers to collectively organise and bargain – no matter how dependent and how vulnerable.
I’m not qualified to comment on whether NZ performers in the Hobbit are being fairly paid or not. Nor do I pretend to understand the complexities of “residuals”” and other industry norms. But what I understand very well is the problem we have in New Zealand of dependent and independent contracting, and how this is often used to deny more vulnerable workers basic fairness.
I did a lot of work on this issue a couple of years ago when my members’ bill, Minimum Wage & Remuneration Bill was being debated through parliament (and was eventually defeated under the National/Act government).
At the time, NZ Actors Equity supported the bill saying :
“We have many NZ productions which we are all justly proud of, but rates of pay in some productions are nothing to be proud of. The poor pay & conditions of many performers is not commonly known, who, because they are classed as dependent or independent contractors, are expected to work for a whole lot less than workers who are employees.”
NZ law dictates that a worker who is not defined as an “employee” has no rights – even if they are vulnerable, dependent and poorly paid.
So, who can be surprised if from time to time, a group of workers, even if they happen to be performers and supposedly above needing to earn a decent living, use what leverage they can gather to get their boss to talk to them.
The privileged few National supporters are frustrated
Posted by Raymond Huo on August 21st, 2010On our weekly radio show, Minister of Ethnic Affairs and I receive questions and messages from a new form of Chinese social media istars.me. Using cloud computing, it is loosely a combination of a Chinese-language variation of Facebook, Twitter and online broadcasting.
Answering four questions last Wednesday (18 August), the Hon Pansy Wong said that exports had decreased under Labour and have increased since National came into office.
She neglected to mention that it was then Minister of Trade Phil Goff who signed the Free Trade Agreement with China. This opened the trade floodgates with China, making China our second largest trading partner. In the first year of the FTA, trade increased by 62 percent with China – National were in office for less than four months of this period.
On the issue of the spiraling Asian unemployment rate, which has just hit a record high of 10.5 percent, Ms Wong said that “although unemployment is increasing so is the rate of employment, although the speed of job creation is slower than that of the number of people who are losing their jobs.”
I’m not sure whether that statement even makes sense – but it shows you the Minister has no answer to the now more than 23,000 Asian-New Zealanders who are unemployed.
On ACC, Ms Wong stated that ACC deficits had been reversed under National.
Let’s take a look at the figures. In 2009 ACC collected $4.2billion and spent $3.1billion. This equals a $1.1billion surplus, not a deficit. You have to read the Listener article of 24-30 Oct 09 (Vol:220) to appreciate that $4.8B deficit is a farce.
And on minimum wage, she said the country may not be able to afford it should it be increased (the above is not verbatim translation).
Judging by the mood of that social media site, it is becoming increasingly painful for those National supporters that the National government is being exposed on a daily basis.
They try to shut down the quality debate by resorting to abusive comments. For example, here are the comments from the three apparent National supporters:
nzwine , 8964
2010-08-16 14:30
???????????
????????????????????????
?????????????
CD?? 2010-08-15 23:17
???????????????
****
Receiving criticism and unpleasant comments is part and parcel of being an MP – it’s unavoidable. But watching “the usual business” of those National supporters who can only resort to slanging makes me feel sorry for the National Party.
While Labour supporters have displayed reasoned debate, it is unfortunate that those National supporters choose to shut it down with derogatory and insulting comments which add nothing to the subject at hand.
To translate these comments above softens the meaning. But the way they presented themselves appeared to support the suggestion that they are the same small group of people that have operated consistently and systematically since the 2008 general election.
A reason why I am posting these comments is to also alert the National Party to this. Their reputation and image is being tarnished in the Chinese community by those reckless supporters.
Silly idea number 5 – what do you think ?
Posted by Pete Hodgson on August 16th, 2010Decide that the New Zealand economy needs a “step change” and that mining on the conservation estate is the way to achieve it. Ignore the “sustainable” part of the sustainable economic development. (How many times can you mine gold?)
Blame Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcolm for being emotional, then note that 30,000 others begged to differ by marching down Queen Street, Auckland with them.
Then argue internally. Then stage a complete U-turn, claiming it wasn’t really a U-turn at all.
Loading ...In support of Gerry (kind of)
Posted by Grant Robertson on July 20th, 2010There has been a bit of comment yesterday and today (including from Guyon Espiner on TV1) that Gerry Brownlee “over-reached” himself when it came to the mining of Schedule 4 land. I certainly think that Gerry failed miserably to sell the policy, but its a bit harsh to blame him for over-reaching when we have this from the John Key’s opening statement to Parliament in February this year.
Notwithstanding the public consultation process, it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of these recommendations and make significant changes to Schedule 4. This is because new mining on Crown land has the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs.
That is an unequivocal commitment to major changes to Schedule 4 and to new mining. Gerry was only acting with that in mind. I still think that by the time they got to announcing anything they planned to use Great Barrier as a bit of a stalking horse, but the initial blush of enthusiasm was very much John Key’s. Which is why it was so interesting he tried to get as far away as possible from this policy disaster today.
As an aside in Parliament today the pressure of this and the industrial relations package was telling on Mr Key. He got very side-tracked by interjections, launched into Darren about his hair (he may have a point on that score 
) and at one stage totally tossed his toys and sat down in the middle of an answer. Tough day at the office.
Still looking for that step change…
Posted by Grant Robertson on July 19th, 2010I really am happy that the Government’s ill-conceived plan to mine our most precious conservation land looks as if it has been shelved. Even though I am sure there was never a plan to do anything on Great Barrier, overall it is a great victory. But where to now in terms of the “step-change” for the economy? The big Jobs Summit delivered almost nothing but a cycleway that might sound good, but has delivered a handful of jobs. The mining was the next big idea, but the government appears to have backed right out of that. What we are left with is tax cuts and trickle down economics. This ain’t no step change.
And to answer the question before its asked. This is the time for investment in a clean green, high tech economy that builds on our traditional strengths, and opens up new opportunities.
It’s going to ruin us – (we’ve heard it all before!)
Posted by Darien Fenton on June 10th, 2010This video is produced by the CFMEU – the Miners Union in Australia, in response to the whingeing about Rudd’s mining windfall tax. Good on the Miners’ Union for taking a progressive stance on this.
As for NZ – remind you of anything in our past (or present)?
Child workers in NZ – what to do?
Posted by Darien Fenton on May 29th, 2010Earlier this week, along with Moana Mackey and Carol Beaumont, I attended a Youth Forum in Gisborne organised by Young Labour, the NZCTU and local unions.
It was a wake-up call for those who were there to listen to the 40 or so young people – almost all of them still at school – talk about the issues facing them as they take on work. One young woman talked about how she thought her employer would go ballistic if she asked for a written employment agreement, even although the law says she is supposed to have one. Most of the young workers there didn’t have much of an idea about what they could expect from their employer and what their employer could expect from them. All were being paid less than minimum wage – because for workers under 16, there is no such thing.
I spent a bit of time talking to one young woman who delivers for the local newspaper. Her story was no different to the many thousands of other young people who are taken on as leaflet or newspaper deliverers, told they are independent contractors, and end up being paid a pittance.
NZ has a tradition of school-kids working for spare money and I’m sure many of did so in our youth. These days, Kiwi kids work on farms, in convenience stores, in fast food restaurants and retail outlets, and on the streets delivering advertising and newspapers. Kids are often eager to earn the money to buy extras. In some cases, their families need them to work to supplement family income to help make ends meet.
But children’s work in in NZ is very loosely regulated, and is out of step with the other first-world countries. There is no minimum age for employment in New Zealand. Our labour legislation defines an employee as “any person of any age”. But more concerning than that, there is no minimum age for a self-employed person or anyone else who performs work under independent or dependent contracts. In other words, a child can enter into an agreement as an independent contractor, where they have to pay their own ACC, GST and other tax, and where they are expected to understand their rights under commercial law.
The hours of work of young people tends to be much more closely regulated overseas, while NZ only has a general guideline that work hours should not be such that they endanger health & safety, and in the case of young people 15 and under, the hours should not interfere with school attendance.
Health and Safety legislation applies to young people working as employees under the Employment Relations Act, where generally kids under 15 should not undertake hazardous work and shouldn’t be employed between 10pm and 6am. But these rules don’t apply to kids working as contractors, such as newspaper and leaflet deliverers.
Statistics tell us that one child each year dies from a workplace accident and several hundred are seriously injured, and the working hours of many interfere with their educational progress.
Then there’s the National Government’s 90 day trial period and the obligation-free work of employers who employ children as contractors.
We need to discuss these questions :
- Should there be a minimum age of employment?
- Should there be minimum wage and standards for young people working?
- Should kids under 16 be able to be employed as contractors, without employment rights?
I’m assuming that no-one would want to regulate babysitting arrangements, lawn-mowing and odd jobs, but when our kids get into the corporate world, shouldn’t there be better standards?
