PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘workforce’ Category

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).

Filed under: Tertiary education, jobs, redundancy, union, workers rights, workforce
15 Comments

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.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Welfare Working Group, economy, jobs, redundancy, superannuation, workforce
64 Comments

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.

Tags:
Filed under: 90 day trial period, Holidays, act party, democracy, labour, legislation, sick leave, workers rights, workforce
9 Comments

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.

Tags:
Filed under: labour, productivity, value of work, workers rights, workforce
25 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

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

From the Archive: Peter Fraser

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 22nd, 2010

Yesterday I attended the rally in Civic Square protesting the government’s latest attacks on worker’s rights. It’s always interesting to put events of today into context. This quote comes from Peter Fraser’s speech to Parliament on the Employment Bill back in 1945:

“…if we have learned anything … it is that the worst thing in the world is to go on making a depression worse by reducing incomes. At that time, the whole power of the State should be used to maintain purchasing-power … I declare that as long as this Government remains in office, notwithstanding what happens in the outside world, notwithstanding what happens to prices, even of our own commodities, we can still produce sufficient to house and feed and clothe adequately our men, women and children, and particularly the children. Never again will this country be permitted to return to the terrible conditions that prevailed before this Government came to office.  It is indeed a terrible thing and a reflection on our civilization that, in a land of plenty, children should lack sufficient to eat…”

The old cliche goes that those who don’t learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them. Ministers in the current National government obviously didn’t pay much attention during their history lessons. Since coming to office they’ve slashed spending on many vital public services, laid off thousands of public servants, and yanked away vital support from many of those who find themselves down on their luck. The purchasing power that Fraser alludes to is being eroded through their GST increase and the inflation it will cause, along with their unofficial ‘wage freeze’.

National’s latest moves to impose ‘fire at will’ provisions on all new employees and sell their holidays will only make matters worse. National promised Kiwis they were ‘aspirational’ – the question is for whom? It certainly isn’t ordinary hard-working Kiwis who are struggling with rising costs, stagnant wages, and lower levels of support from their government.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Unemployment, history, workforce
10 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

Back then…..

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 12th, 2010

One of our caucus visits in Whangarei this week involved a trip to the Marsden Point refinery. While it was Interesting to get a modern day perspective and to tour the site, for me, it was a trip back in personal history to a time when Marsden Point was not only a job, but a lesson in politics.

It’s not hard to find people who worked on the expansion in the 1980’s, because there were 5,000 workers who built that site, along with the thousands of contractors who came and went.

I reckon around 10,000 New Zealanders were involved in the Marsden Point Refinery Expansion Project, including (apparently) Phil Heatley – and me.

It was one of Muldoon’s Think Big Projects, arising from the oil shocks from the previous decade.  My partner and I were young, with a new baby, looking for a way to make a better living. We moved to the nearby farming village of Maungakaramea and my brother and many other people came to join what was then a very well paid, if often dangerous job.

It was a highly unionised site, with a reputation for militancy. We all thought the strikes were justified, particularly around health and safety. We saw friends die on that worksite. Whenever I heard the emergency whistle blow, which could be heard all over Whangarei, I knew that someone I knew or loved had been hurt or killed.

The workers also wanted to protect New Zealand jobs because we thought New Zealanders should be doing the work, not imported workers. One time, we were on strike for six weeks, which created huge hardship.  We were fed by the collective – who gathered up vegetables and meat and distributed them to families through that time.

But the strikes became highly political too. Muldoon was in power and the Minister of Labour was Jim Bolger. The Nats decided a good election platform was to be tough with the unions, and got the opportunity when eight scaffolders went back to work in defiance of the strikes.

Muldoon brought in the the Refinery Expansion Projects Dispute Act to force striking workers back to work. No worker was allowed back on the site unless they signed a paper saying they were prepared to work with the eight strikebreakers – who were named in the legislation. One of them had been a close friend.

My brother wrote about those events ;

“Now when I think about Marsden Point I can hear the sound of boots marching in the fog as a riot squad escorted a van full of scabs towards our picket line, and when I remember I am reminded how a death on a construction site shames us all…”

Those times made a big impression on me. I learned that while workers can have power, governments have even more. I remember saying that if Jim Bolger ever became Prime Minister, I would leave New Zealand.

Well he did  (eventually) – and we left New Zealand and worked overseas after Labour was elected in 1984, and we were all made redundant in 1986. But when we came home just before 1990, the National Party was about to regain power and impose the most unimaginable harm to working families.

That was another lesson in politics.

Tags:
Filed under: labour, personal, workforce
44 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

Old fashioned employers

Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 9th, 2010

John Key seems to want to take the law back to favour old fashioned employers like those in this link.

These are a few of the lines which he no doubt wants us to hear more of.

“Idle conversation and gossip in this office among employees will result in immediate termination. Don’t talk about other people and other things in this office. DO YOUR JOB AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!”

“Do not speak to me when you see me. If I want to speak to you, I will do so. I want to save my throat. I don’t want to ruin it by saying hello to all of you sons-of-bitches.”

“Per Edward Mike Davis’ orders, there will be no more birthday celebrations, birthday cakes, levity, or celebrations of any kind within the office.”

Hat tip whaleoil

Filed under: humour, union, workforce
33 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

A breach of trust

Posted by Grant Robertson on July 28th, 2010

I have known Helen Kelly, the President of the CTU for quite a long time now. I admire her greatly. She has been, and is, an exceptional and passionate advocate for workers in New Zealand, and indeed internationally. I can appreciate the position she was in when National was elected and called on the union movement to be part of their Jobs Summit. I was a bit surprised when the CTU had John Key speak at their conference, but they felt this was a PM and the government that they should, and could, work with.

Just how let down Helen, and the workers she represents, are now feeling is clear from the letter that Helen has sent to the PM.

It is easy to feel the sense of betrayal in her words

She said he had breached his undertaking to consult her if the Government was going to move on union access and non-union collective bargaining.

“You also said you wanted to work with the unions,” she wrote. “And you portrayed yourself as a moderating influence in employment law matters. That has changed.”

I saw Helen at a function last night and I can report in person she is every bit as aggreived.

While the on-going debate will be and should be about the substance of the changes to workers rights and conditions, the role and the approach of the PM should not forgotten here. He led the union movement to believe he was their friend, but as soon as his perception of the political environment dictated a change, he moved swiftly to go against his word. That is a serious breach of trust, and one that I think the PM will live to regret.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: labour, union, workforce
31 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

John Armstrong has a point

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 24th, 2010

I love a good protest. I come from a union that was often left with no other option other than to protest.  It makes you feel like you are doing something, it certainly helps with the anger and gives some hope that there are still people in the world who care about others.

I went along to the protest outside Skycity last Sunday to show my support for my union.  I left when the storming of the wrong building began, feeling pretty certain that the pictures that were showed later on TV would actually help the National Government, rather than deter it.

And in the week since, I’ve had numerous conversations with people about how they view proposed changes to employment law and why they will affect everyone’s ability to earn and make a decent living. I’ve also talked with a lot of workers (of all kinds) about the protest.

So John Armstrong’s piece in the NZ Herald today makes a lot of sense, especially where he says :

The storming of the hotel might have fitted the finest tradition of the labour movement – and McCarten warned of more to come. But it is not itself that the labour movement needs to communicate with if it is to roll back National’s planned changes to employment law.

The Labour Party has worked that out. If the debate is only about what the unions think and want, then it is all over before it has begun. The strategy is going to have to be a little more sophisticated than that.

I can hear the radical left calling me a sell-out already, but I  remember the 1990’s and the Employment Contracts Act and the glorious defeats of those years.  There were many in the union movement then who thought that if workers were treated badly enough, the flag would go up and there would be fight back. There wasn’t. Workers got screwed, and New Zealand has never recovered.

There will be radical protests, the CTU will mobilise their members and take action. That’s fine – that’s what they should do.

But Labour has to reach out to the hundreds of thousands of workers who aren’t in unions, who don’t get why everyone is so upset about the proposed labour law changes, and who have no experience of the 1990’s.

John Armstrong’s right about that needing a lot more sophistication than we’ve seen so far.

Tags:
Filed under: Labour Party, labour, sick leave, union, workforce
46 Comments

John Key’s Pizza Guy

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 21st, 2010

Sanjay, the Pizza Hutt worker who delivered John Key’s pizza earlier this week and who, according to Mr Key, thinks John Key’s idea of a 90 day trial period is a good idea, should know that Prime Minister John Key voted against him getting minimum wage last year.

Mr Key obviously doesn’t know that workers like Sanjay have no rights anyway because Pizza Hutt drivers are independent contractors and not covered by basic employment laws, let alone trial periods. 

Last year, I tried to persuade the National Party to support my members’ bill (Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill) which would have ensured that so-called “independent contractors” like Sanjay would have received at least the minimum wage. 

But guess what, they voted against it and the opportunity was lost.

Much of John Key’s and Kate Wilkinson’s pronouncements about their proposed labour changes this week are based on a view that is sharply skewed by their contact with employers.   The Labour Department evaluation of the 90 day trial period interviewed ar0und 3,500 employers and just 13 workers, so one has to question how balanced the evidence is that the PM is basing his decisions on.

John Key tried to make out he was sympathetic to workers like Sanjay this week by telling the story of this pizza delivery guy who came to his mansion in Parnell. 

But when he had a chance to really make a difference to Sanjay and other contract workers, his government failed.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: low pay, workforce
60 Comments

Enough.

Posted by Jacinda Ardern on July 18th, 2010

Saying a policy is going to help young people, doesn’t make it true- and it’s time the Government was called on it.

First, the facts. According to the household labour force survey there are more than 70,000 young people currently not in employment, education, or training. 70,000.  Youth unemployment is at levels we haven’t seen in decades.  We’re not reaching crisis, we’ve reached it.

It’s natural to look to the government for a policy response, especially in a recession- they hold levers which can effect change, that can turn the situation around. So what lever has the government used? The one that sends us racing to the bottom.

The government claims that young people are unskilled, and that employers don’t want to employ them. Their response then, and now is to take away the rights of young people, make it easier to sack them without any reason what so ever, which 1 in 5 have been. It’s hard to measure the impact this will have on a new generation of young people entering the work force,  but  it will inevitably take its toll (and that’s before we even canvas the wider impact on wages and conditions from the package the government announced today.)

But then there’s the second issue, the fact that the government has copped out. Rather than lifting our game, they have chosen to ignore the fact that some of these young people are unskilled in the first place. This was the lever the Aussies used. They pumped millions into their tertiary sector, giving young people greater access to education and training. Our government instead put a cap on training and education, and started turning young people away.

The government can’t get away with claiming that taking away the rights of working young people is somehow a  substitute for fronting up to the hard issues. Call them on it.

Filed under: Uncategorized, jobs, workforce, youth
17 Comments

Nacts are Rats

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 18th, 2010

P7180102

It wasn’t me who said it, but it sounds about right.

Tags:
Filed under: labour, legislation, protest, union, workforce
19 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »