Red Alert

Archive for the ‘workforce’ Category

Labour’s Tertiary policy announced

Posted by David Shearer on October 10th, 2011

We have just put out Labour’s tertiary policy. It follows on the big effort that we’ve made to lift skills in our workforce. No need to remind people that times are tough and it’s tough getting any new money. But I think we’ve got a pretty solid mix here that will make a difference.

The key aim is produce the best graduates we can – and keep them in NZ – to help us grow a smart, high-value economy.

The policy has some specifics targetting some of our smartest. It puts back the post-doctoral scholarships for scientists who finished their PhDs that was canned last year. This is critical for not only keeping our best here and giving them time to consolidate their studies, but bringing some of our best back. After all, we’ve already invested massively in these people.

We’ve also put additional funding aside for funding our very best where they are world beating. The ‘brilliant scientist’ concept is simple – give sufficient funding to our best scientists and academics to employ the staff they want, buy equipment they need and then let them get on with it. Smart people attract others – from around the world. Backing our best with resources will grow expertise in core areas where our talent is top shelf. And we DO have some fantastic talent. Those researchers will receive funds personally and are free to choose the NZ institution – or business – where they want to set up.

Other parts of the policy: we must maintain and raise the levels of our universities. Recent results show we are slipping in the world rankings and there’s little doubt that funding is a key part. We run universities that are some of the most efficient in the world, where an extra dollar can really make a difference. Our policy maintains our level by inflation proofing our universities and sets our commitment to increase it.

We need to maintain the affordability of our tertiary institutions so all NZers that reach the standard can access a high quality tertiary education, no matter what background they come from. There’s aspects in the policy here for that too, fixing tuition increases at 4% and restoring $2 million to the Training Incentive Allowance to give a lift to those who want to get a tertiary education – solo mums for example – to get some support. Remember this is the one that helped Paula Bennett before this government axed it.

And we’ve put back the money for adult and community education. Cutting $13.5 million and collapsing it was a travesty. More than 150,000 people no longer access night schools who once did. This is a no-brainer for people wanting to get back into learning.


Let’s back jobs for young Kiwis

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 2nd, 2011

Yesterday Labour launched our Youth Skills policy. Jacinda did an excellent post on the details just after it went public. If you live in Wellington and missed it in the DomPost this morning, look again. You’ll see all the salient details comprehensively covered in the news brief below and to the left of the quarter page article and photo espousing John Key’s babysitting and travel companion potential.

There is a certain symmetry to Labour launching a policy to get young Kiwis into work on the same day the National government signed off on a deal to buy a bunch of new electric trains for Auckland from overseas, rather than build them locally here in New Zealand. I think it’s great that Auckland are getting much needed investment in their public transport infrastructure, but why aren’t we cashing in the potential to create somewhere around 1,000 new jobs and add up to $250 million to our GDP?

The link between these two announcements actually runs a lot deeper than highlighting the contrast between Labour, who want to create local jobs, and National, who want to export them overseas. When I speak to a lot of the tradespeople in my electorate, I’m reminded just how many of them did their apprenticeships at the railway workshops, the post office, the car assembly plants, or the freezing works. With the exception of the railway workshops, that now employs a fraction of the staff it once did, all of those big employers are gone.

Those tradespeople are now sole traders or work largely in firms that employ fewer than 10 people. Taking on an apprentice is something they’re more than happy to do. They learned their trade on the job and they’re more than happy to give future generations the same chance. But it’s a huge commitment financially and a lot to ask of such small businesses. That’s why I know they’ll welcome Labour’s plan to convert the dole into apprenticeships subsidies.

A lot of people have remarked to me in the past how crazy it is we pay a young person to sit at home on the dole but we won’t provide some financial support to those willing to take them on and train them up. Well Labour is going to do something about that. Our Youth Skills policy is one that I’m very proud to campaign on. Our plan to get thousands of young Kiwis into work, education and training is in marked contrast to National’s plan to give a couple of hundred young beneficiaries a pre-pay purchase card.

So while baby-sitter John devotes his time to worrying about how young people spend their pocket money, Labour is focused on providing them with a meaningful vocation and hope for the future. Oh, what was that about nanny state again…?


Young people need jobs, not welfare reform

Posted by Jacinda Ardern on August 14th, 2011

This afternoon John Key delivered the closing address at the National Party conference.  Perhaps my expectations were a little too high- but after calls from across the spectrum (including the business community) for Key to present the country with his plan for economic growth, I didn’t expect a speech as narrowly and as poorly focused as this.

First a little context. Currently youth unemployment for 15 to 19 year olds is the highest on record and we have one of the highest proportions of youth to adult unemployment in the OECD.  None of this is new, in fact this is the Government’s third attempt at a youth unemployment package. But surely, when you have 58,000 young people not in employment, training or education, you start looking at a comprehensive education, transition, skills training and job creation package. Surely? Apparently not when there are a small group of young people on a benefit that can be targeted instead.

While John Key has finally acknowledged the youth transition issues we have been raising, this element has been lost amongst his much bigger announcement that the roughly 1600 young people on the independent youth benefit will face new restrictions on how their benefit is managed. Key put it like this:

“We are not going to simply hand over benefit money every fortnight. Instead, we will have a much more managed system of payments… We envisage that:  some essential costs, like rent and power, will be paid directly on the young person’s behalf; money for basic living costs like food and groceries will be loaded onto a payment card that can only be used to buy certain types of goods and cannot be used to buy things like alcohol or cigarettes; and that a certain, limited amount will be available for the young person to spend at their own discretion……Most importantly, each of these young people will have to be in education, training or work-based learning.”

A couple of points need to be made in response. First, the threshold for this benefit is extremely high. You have to demonstrate a breakdown in your home environment, and you have to be in education or be actively seeking work or a place in training.  Secondly, it’s already illegal to buy alcohol and cigarettes if you are on the independent youth benefit simply by virtue of your age. And finally, if the biggest issue is that these kids are vulnerable, and that they need to be in training, education or need help finding work- how does cracking down on how they spend their $167.83 per week achieve any of that?

The way I see it, this is the crux of the issue- young people want to work, but the jobs aren’t there. In fact when National came into Government, there were roughly 220 young people who had been trying to find work and had been on an unemployment for more than a year. Now that number is 8 times higher. If we want to make a real difference, we need to respond with a decent plan, not food stamps.


Remember when Key wanted to close the wage gap with Aussie – now English is proud of it

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 9th, 2011

John Key’s promise to close the wage gap with Australia was an important policy plank.

Yesterday Bill English formally abandoned that policy and used the fact that our wages are 30% lower to try and sell New Zealand as a long term investment option.


The fundamental competition is for capital, including Australian capital, he said, and over the next few years New Zealand’s advantages would become more apparent.

“One is the wage differential. We have a workforce that is better educated, just as productive and 30 per cent cheaper,” he said.

I suppose it should be refreshing to see honesty from the government but I do feel sad the the first appearance of a plan openly involves keeping wages low.


Create your own ‘nice to have’ poster

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 7th, 2011

“This is not a time we can afford to indulge in “nice-to-haves”, even though sections of the population feel the loss of those services.” Bill English, 29 March 2011

This quote is from a speech that Bill English gave to public service professionals.

Show Bill and John what would be “nice to have” by going to here to create your own poster, email and share it with friends and family.

Here’s mine:

Nice to have


Public Sector bashing an (inter)national sport

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 9th, 2011

Bill English delivered a message today that public servants who can’t handle change and are waiting around for more money should look for a new job. In other words, cop what the government delivers, be grateful, or b*gger off.

Scapegoating the public sector workforce isn’t confined to New Zealand.  Public sector bashing is a favourite occupation of right-wing governments around the world, particularly since the global recession.  And because public sector workers tend to be more highly unionised than the private sector, their unions are also a target.

In the US, New Republican governors, old right wing radio commentators, Fox News and other extremists are stoking the rhetoric, with a simple narrative, repeated endlessly, that public service and public sector workers are the reason for State and Federal budget problems. This is a blatant effort to disguise the real culprits in the global meltdown and an effort by the mega-rich to preserve their privileged position. 

In the UK, public sector workers are in the gun, not only for huge cuts, but also for blame for the recession, while bankers are getting off the hook. George Osborne, the Tory Chancellor, called unions a “force for stagnation” as they prepared to oppose public service cuts to libraries, community workers, childcare staff and health service staff. Osborne is now threatening changes to the rights of workers. UK business organisation the Institute of Directors (IoD) has called for collective bargaining to be scrapped for teachers and NHS staff. 

Millionaires and right wing economists don’t like the public sector. They want more privatisation so as to create more profitable business opportunities. They want sackings and wage cuts which will allow big earners to maintain low tax rates.  It’s the old neo-liberal prescription which, unfortunately we are seeing emerging in New Zealand.

I want to know if people actually believe that nurses and teachers are responsible for this economic mess?

Wasn’t it the greed of the private sector that got us into the global economic meltdown? Wasn’t it caused by unsustainable lending and complex forms of debt by banks?  Aren’t they and the greedy corporations are to blame, not a few thousand workers employed in the public sector?

But now the rich elite and their friends in conservative governments are trying to pass the buck onto workers by attacking their job security.

Bill English continues to talk about the “bloated public services”, as if there are no human beings involved there.  I’ve got no problem with efficiency and productivity gains and nor, I am sure, do our public sector workforce.

But let’s remember that public sector spending goes well beyond the directly employed public service workforce.  In the UK for example, public spending supports 40% of all jobs, with just 15% in public sector employment and 25% in the private sector.  And public spending and public services (including public service utilities) support 50% of the UK economy – twice as many in the private sector as in the private sector. 

So for those who have may have brought into the rhetoric of public sector blame; get real.  Your job probably depends on public sector spending as well, and Bill’s coming for you too.


Let’s talk about these green jobs

Posted by Darien Fenton on January 30th, 2011

A few years ago, before I became an MP, I attended a property services conference in Helsinki, run by the Global Union for Cleaners, UNI.

I was struck by a presentation from ISS, a global facilities service provider, who talked about how cleaning jobs could be revolutionised, particularly with the growing emphasis on green buildings.

At that stage, most cleaners (including NZ) were employed in the traditional way. As the office staff clocked out, the cleaners clocked in – out of sight, out of mind, working for low wages – working at multiple sites and for multiple employers, often wandering from site to site during the night.

ISS talked about this could change – how cleaning could take place during the day, with cleaners working alongside other staff and perhaps expanding their skills beyond cleaning to pick up other facilities work.

So I was interested to read in Saturday’s Dom Post “that there is office cleaning revolution gathering pace in NZ, where the days of mops and wringer buckets filled with unsafe chemicals and sloshed along office corridor floors and noisy vacuum cleanings trailing long chords are numbered.”

ISS NZ is changing the equipment issued to cleaners to lightweight adjustment aluminum mops, microfibre cloths and battery powered quiet vacuum cleaners. Beginning at Te Papa a couple of years ago, ISS, who employs around 4000 cleaners says that the new system has now been adopted by 25% of their clients.

And the biggest change : changing from nighttime cleaning to daytime cleaning, bringing savings for companies in electricity and security.

While ISS says the savings are great for companies, I think the changes can create a revolution for the traditional job of a cleaner, in a number of ways. Firstly, they are more integrated as part of the building staff, not a group of “fairies” who magically appear while we’re at home sleeping. The higher visibility of cleaning staff during the day should raise the overall awareness of the process and more respect towards cleaners, especially when they see them working to keep the building clean. Coming face to face with the cleaner means greater care is often taken by staff and visitors to keep the building clean.

Secondly, daytime work offers much more family friendly options for cleaners and could make the work much more desirable.

I’ve always said cleaners are undervalued. They are responsible for millions of dollars worth of equipment, and now they’re at the forefront of sustainablility in our downtown offices, our airports, schools and hospitals.

The big question is whether that means cleaners’ jobs become worth more (currently, the rate is set at $13.10 an hour), whether there can be decent, full time jobs created through upskilling to take on other work in the day to day life of an office.

NZ’s model of competitive tendering means that more often than not, cleaners are transferred to a new employer who expects them to do the same amount of work for fewer hours.

So, let’s have a revolution in office cleaning, but if it’s still work for vulnerable workers who have to work two or three jobs to make a living, it’s only a revolution for the better off.


Skills development – another 2010 issue for 2011

Posted by Carol Beaumont on January 9th, 2011

The Government’s performance must be measured not only by what they have done but also by what they have not done.

In my mind one of the most appalling omissions of the Key National government is in the area of skills development.   In 2010 $55 million was cut from industry training and went instead to increasing the number of university places.  While I support greater investment in our Universities and Polytechnics and while there may be areas of underspending or poor performance by some Industry Training Organisations the answer is not to take money away from a focus on developing the skills of  those already in the workforce but to look at improving performance and new iniatives.  There has been an absence of action by Government.  The agreed Skills Strategy was dropped, the Skills Forum scheduled to meet 6 times in 2010 did not met once and no new initiatives around upskilling the workforce have been actioned (or even announced).

At every level the need for investing in people and providing ongoing opportunities for upskilling is compelling and yet this is an area of almost complete lack of action.  At a time of low economic growth and high unemployment this is an essential component required to lift our economic performance.  This is recognised by many other countries and indeed has been part of stimulus packages in many of them.

Increasing skill levels is well understood to lift workplace productivity – it is not the whole answer but a significant element.  Higher skills, higher productivity and higher wages are inextricably linked.  The structural problems in all of these areas are clear.   Increasing skills provides greater employment opportunities for individuals and also the potential for greater employment security.  Along with David Cunliffe, Trevor Mallard and Grant Robertson we have been doing a lot of thinking about the links in these areas and will have good policy options to put to the country this year.

The positives are not just economic.  Skills development includes improving literacy, numeracy and IT skills; it includes the so called ’soft skills’ like problem solving, team work, self management as well as technical and trade skills. Skills development can be industry specific or generic and must be seen as an ongoing need.  Learning pre-employment, on the job and in the community as part of life long learning.  As people develop their skills they have the opportunity to increase in confidence and in their ability to participate at work, at home and in the community.   Just imagine the benefits to a family if a parent’s literacy is improved so that they can help their children learn to read or help with their homework.

The importance of the workplace in skills development through apprenticeships, through industry training generally and through deliberate pathways to progress both skills acquisition and skills utilisation and improved pay is fundamental.   There must be a commitment to providing opportunities to re-train to reflect changing needs including situations where people become unemployed through redundancy.  Most of us spend a significant portion of our adult lives in the paid workforce.  80% of the workforce of 10 years time are already in work so this area warrants a great deal of investment.  The respective contributions of businesses and government is something that needs to be agreed as does the respective role of employers, unions, Industry Training Organisations, Universities and Polytechnics. All have a role to play.

What is clear is that National has no vision about the potential of skills development , no real commitment to this area and certainly no understanding of the need to have significant investment in the skills development of New Zealanders.  Labour has a strong track record in this area and we will provide a much more ambitious approach.


We believe in the right to unionise – some people don’t

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 22nd, 2010

Trevor + Helen Kelly

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.


Mourning

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 2nd, 2010

Heading to the coast.

Met several of the guys during the Grey schools’ review.

Was Minister of Labour for the bulk of the mine safety review following the 2006 death.

Just keep wondering if there was anything I should have done that would have made a difference.

Filed under: workforce

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.


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 .


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.


World Literacy Day

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 8th, 2010

Scrabble4

I had a great time at lunchtime participating in a giant scrabble game in Cuba Mall in Wellington.  Lots of members of the public joined in, though I am not sure that all the words ” in the scrabble dictionary” are words!

It was definitely a fun way to highlight World Literacy Day, and in particular the importance of funding literacy training and support in New Zealand.   According to Literacy Aotearoa 40% of New Zealanders have difficulty with the reading and writing  in their jobs.  We must address this and ensure that literacy issues are picked up as early as possible and addressed in our school system.

Once again at the event today people raised with me their concerns over the cuts to adult and community education.  I have come to the view that this will be one of the most expensive $13 million cuts the government will ever make.  Not only because of the impact it has on those who can not access courses, but also the anger that it has created.

There is also emerging concern over cuts to other literacy programmes. Despite the rhetoric from the government, literacy programmes have been cancelled all around New Zealand.  Particularly hard hit are workplace literacy programmes.

Steven Joyce has said that literacy and numeracy programmes are “a priority”, but also that there will no be additional funding for them.  Eventually this ‘all care, no responsibility’ approach has to stop, and real investment needs to happen.


Cleaners get a reprieve

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 1st, 2010

Last week, Grant Robertson wrote about the Massey Uni cleaners who were facing massive cuts to hours or dismissal due to redundancy which was due to happen today.

Yesterday, Chief Judge GL Colgan issued a judgement which requires the parties to bargain for redundancy “entitlements”, but not including monetary compensation for redundancy.  He has also said that the cleaners should not be dismissed today so that the statutory processes arising from their entitlement to redundancy can take place.

It’s an interesting judgement.  It confirms that workers have an right to redundancy entitlements, despite there being specific requirements in the cleaners’ agreement that there be no redundancy compensation.

Of course all of this could be avoided if there were minimum redundancy entitlements in law.  But that’s a story for the next Labour Government (and a sorry tale about redundancy under the NACT government).


The curious case of the missing recovery

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 31st, 2010

Not much good news around about the NZ economy.

Standard & Poor Chief economist David Wyss told Auckland economists yesterday that there is a one in three chance of another crash and while the “recession is over”, it’s a very fragile recovery. NZ businesses say they cut too deep in the recession last year and are struggling to rebuild because many of the skilled workers they laid off have gone elsewhere – and who can blame them?  Tens of thousands got the chop with no redundancy pay and NZ wages and conditions are falling further and further behind Australia’s.  Confidence is faltering and today, our government will fork out around NZ$1.6 billion in taxpayers money to 35,000 depositers in South Canterbury Finance that were covered under the extended guarantee scheme.

The best our government can come up with?  Cut workers’ protection against unfair dismissal, restrict their access to union advice, cut their meals and rest breaks and put their holidays up for grabs.

You don’t have to go far to find some pretty grumpy voters. And they’re set to get a lot grumpier come the 1st October when GST goes up and most find that their tax cut has already been eaten up.

This clip from Jim Stanford (aka Lieutenant Stanfordo), who wrote “Economics for Everyone” has parallels, and also some warnings.  Paula Bennett’s Welfare Working Group has been promoting unemployment insurance, but look what happens to the workers who are laid off in this video.  Compulsory savings is an attractive idea, but without government guarantees, workers can end up getting nothing.  I hope someone makes a NZ version.


Have your say at Select Committee – just kidding!

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 27th, 2010

The most significant changes to workers’ rights in two decades are coming our way via the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Holidays Amendment Bill, which had their first readings in parliament in the last few days.

So, you would think that the government would want New Zealanders (both for and against) to have their say.

Not so, it seems.

The two bills have been referred to the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee, who had, according to the Chair David Bennett, decided “informally” to call for submissions, even prior to the conclusion of the first readings in parliament.

(Disclosure :  I am a member of this Select Committee, where Labour and the Greens are in the minority, so I know what really happened, but I can’t say so publicly).

The timeframe for the submissions for these two bills is at best three weeks, with closing dates on the 13 September and 17 September respectively.

I would have thought the government would be keen to ensure all of support they claim to have had around the 90 day fire at will extension, the sickies get-to-the-doctor-or-else provision and the selling of holidays were able0 to be presented at Select Committee.

Or should I be more cynical?  Is the short timeframe really designed to make sure that unions and workers have as little time as possible to have their say?

If the government really believes there is support for these changes, they would have given more time for submissions.

But then there’s ACT calling the shots and National meekly following on behind.  I forgot that Minister Kate Wilkinson got rolled at Cabinet (again) over her recommendations.


Karoshi – could it happen in NZ?

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 25th, 2010

When it comes to working hours, New Zealand is among the least regulated countries in the OECD. Once, we had a 40 hour week, 8 hour day, but not these days.  New Zealand workers work longer hours than any other country in the OECD, other than Japan. Bizarre as it sounds with our level of unemployment and under-employment, the only working hours regulation NZ has is in regard to meal and rest breaks, which is currently under attack from the NACts.

But working harder and more hours for less money during the recession is starting to take its toll. Job satisfaction is declining, with many workers — including top performers — saying it’s time to find a new job.

Of particular interest is the description of death by overwork in Japan – called “karoshi” and in China “guolaosi” which has become such an extreme problem that those countries have introduced legislation that allows surviving family members to sue companies involved.

In Japan, a typical karoshi victim is that of a businessman who dies at his desk after too many 80-hour workweeks. But several international studies (in Finland, Israel, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) have shown both men and women are at high risk for “overwork” consequences — heart disease, obesity, insomnia and persistent fatigue, but women are far more likely to suffer mental health consequences, especially when they do not take holidays.

A  recent US survey found that 40% of  professionals are thinking about quitting their jobs. They’re tired of not being promoted, bosses that don’t share company goals, being overworked and having bonuses slashed.

And surveys in NZ ths week show that NZ employers made who deep cuts into their skilled workforce during the recession are now regretting it, because finding replacement workers is much tougher than they thought.

NZ employers are getting to the point where they have maxed out workloads for existing staff, with rising work hours for those who still have jobs.

The result?  Too much hard work – whether unpaid or paid overtime — really does hurt (and kill) people. Workers’ lives have gone from bad to better to bad all over again. So, is it time to to ensure (again) that we don’t have to feel guilty (or fearful about losing our jobs) for taking time off?

With the National Government intent on selling the fourth weeks leave of annual leave and weakening the regulations around meals and rest breaks, I suggest that we are heading backwards, and perhaps toward a NZ version of karoshi.


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.


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.