Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘workers rights’

Sleepover bill nearly there

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 27th, 2011

Labour supported the “Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill’  tonight to select committee, in a truncated process that will see the bill reported back to the House next week and hopefully finalised.

We’ve been pushing this issue all year and we’re pleased the government has finally reached a settlement with the unions and caregivers.

I want to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of the disability support workers and their unions. I’m delighted that years of a dragged out process, including three court cases and the threat of a Supreme Court case is coming to an end.

I’m particularly pleased that the government has seen sense and not tried to legislate the Court decisions away.

Backpay is coming. It’s well deserved. But having said that, I want to acknowledge the generosity of these workers, who through their unions, are accepting a 50% settlement of backpay and a drawn out process toward being paid minimum wage.

The settlement is great.  But the contribution of the workers is even greater.


Something else happened this week

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 9th, 2011

With all the excitement around the Rugby World Cup it may have slipped your notice that the long battle by Disability Support workers to be paid minimum wage for “sleepover” shifts looks like it might come to an end by Christmas – if the government gets its act together.

The government, IHC and the unions have reached a compromise deal, which will see the full minimum hourly rate paid for sleepovers by December 2012.

50% of the backpay owed will be paid eight weeks after the government legislates, which will need to happen to enable a variation of the Court’s decision and the very reasonable position taken by the unions of enabling the minimum wage to increase over a period of time.

I’m pleased that after a drawn-out process lasting five years and workers jumping through the hoops and appeals in three Courts, Tony Ryall has finally decided to get the matter settled. I’m also intensely relieved that the government has shelved any idea of amending the Minimum Wage Act to avoid these payments. This would have had an impact on tens of thousands of workers.

The only note of concern is that Minister Ryall is saying legislation won’t be passed before the election.  If that happens, there is no trigger for the backpay to be paid and workers will have to wait a lot longer. There’s no reason settlement legislation can’t happen in the next three sitting weeks.

After all, the government managed to ram through significant changes under urgency that removed rights for a whole category of workers so they could please Warner Bros. They can please the nearly 4,000 workers who have made a claim by getting the legislation through the House asap.  Labour will co-operate with the government so these workers can be paid.

Well done to Service & Food Workers Union and PSA for hanging in there.  You’ve done your members proud.


Toe in the water

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 5th, 2011

Never thought I would find myself agreeing with Bill Ralston – or at least hardly ever, but his column in this week’s Listener, where he says that ‘most of what Human Resources departments do is ludicrous” caught my eye.

Ralston says that

HR people are the new corporate shamans, weaving their spells to improve business outputs to the detriment of any real humantity

He describes some  HR tools – psychometric testing for new employees, the setting of KPIs, the annual employee engagement survey, and most insultingly of all – the “exit interview” – even where a worker has been sacked.

I don’t want to denigrate HR people. It’s important to have competent and capable Employment Relations practitioners among firms and unions.

But the worst mistake HR people make is thinking that they are the voice for their employees.  They’re not and that’s where I think this whole fad has gone horribly wrong.

Someone I met recently observed that he had just attended a conference with 1200 employment lawyers and HR specialists. This intrigued me.

When I first started working as a rookie union organiser in the late 1980’s, disputes were negotiated between hands-on lay people. It would have been hard to find 120 employment law specialists and HR people, let alone the thousands that are out there today.

Ironically, the National Government’s Employment Contracts Act (ECA), which lasted a decade in the 1990’s, was designed to bring so-called freedom and individual choice to the workplace contributed to this.  It spawned a whole new growth industry.

It promoted individualism over collectivism and a “contractual relationship”; it was regulation-lite with words like “freedom” and “choice” prominent in the ideological language of the time (sound familiar?). What regulation there was shifted from collective to individual workplace relationships and a deliberate undermining of unions as representatives of working people.
(more…)


Meanwhile, in Wisconsin…..

Posted by Darien Fenton on March 12th, 2011

I know it’s a long way from New Zealand and our sorrow about Christchurch – and now Japan.

But dramatic events have been taking place in Wisconsin, USA – so radical to democracy, we need to take notice.

After weeks of the Democrats avoiding a vote in the Wisconsin State Assembly, Governor Scott Walker and the Republican dominated Senate have used a legislative manouvre to pass a bill that will strip public sector workers of their fundamental international and human rights.  The bill is based on the scapegoating of public servants we are seeing around the world.   Somehow public sector workers are to blame for the economic meltdown and burgeoning deficits and they must be punished.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has  insisted that stripping the rights of public sector workers is essential to resolve the state’s budget deficit—and rammed through anti-union measures that take away the rights to collective bargaining for public sector workers.

It all happened so quickly and undemocratically  : a special conference committee that hadn’t existed just a few hours earlier called into session, and a brief statement from the Republican chairman that basically boiled down to “We’re allowed to do what we’re about to do.”

Apparently, it was over in seconds.

No discussion. No debate.

Other US States are endeavouring to follow Scott Walker’s approach.

Wisconsinites are stunned and outraged. Thousands have descended upon the Capitol. There will now be big efforts to recall all of the Republicans who voted in favour of this outrageous breach of fundamental rights.

While Libya and the Middle East are also in the news and causing real concern, we need to be aware that in the so-called” free world”, serious attacks on democratic decision making and the fundamental right of workers to join together and bargain with their employer are occurring.

It’s a trend that is extremely worrying.  It’s a deliberate attack on public sector unions, who, in countries like the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand have much higher levels of union membership and collective bargaining than the private sector.

We’ve seen a milder (but no less offensive) version of the rhetoric here – “bloated public services,” “backroom office staff,” “bureaucrats” etc.  We better take heed of the lessons of the US and what buying into this kind of blame this can lead to.


Contracting – how to avoid rights

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 7th, 2011

In January, a courier driver was killed in Taranaki, and many of his workmates went public saying that the industry is so squeezed the drivers have no choice but to work long hours and take risks on the roads. Even some owners of the industry agree that the lack of standards in their industry and dog-eat-dog competitive tendering make the industry unsafe and unsustainable.

Many companies are using contracting to avoid labour rights and it’s worth it to them. They have few obligations to the worker, the contractors can’t associate together and collectively bargain without flouting NZ competition law, they get no paid holidays, sick leave, public holiday pay or minimum wage. If the job is lost, the worker takes all the risk and consequences.

The most recent examples are the Pike River Mine contractors, whose families faced not only the loss of their loved one, but also the loss of all money owed to the contractor and his employees – and the workers in the film and video production industries, who, thanks to the government’s panic over the Hobbit, now don’t even have the right to contest whether they are contractors or employees under the law.

One courier driver I talked with told me that he started the process of going to Court to argue he and his workmates were employees, not contractors.  Many thousands of lawyer’s fees later, he got an agreement in mediation to have an in-house disputes process and a representation clause in their contracts, which was soon shelved by the company.  He couldn’t afford to take it further, even although the company dictates the runs which can require working up to seven days a week, badges their vans so they can’t be used for other work, impose 12 month contracts with no right of renewal and regularly changes or reduces the rates.

There was a very good article by lawyer Helen White last week in the NZ Herald, entitled “employers finding ways around job law”.   She says that

Our society is failing to protect those who need it because it is not recognising the use of a particular breed of “contractor” – those who are not truly independent but who often contract to work exclusively for a single enterprise and finance their equipment through the company they are contracted to.  In actually, suh contractors are far less “dependent” than employees because they stand to lose more if terminated.

Sure, many contractors are happily independent and don’t want it any other way.  I’m not concerned about them.

But I am concerned that many companies and even government enterprises are increasingly contracting workers to avoid employment rights and ultimately, this undermines fundamental protections for all workers.


Unfairness on its way

Posted by Darien Fenton on November 23rd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Labour Day or Halloween?

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 25th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


Pansy on message (not)

Posted by Darien Fenton on September 9th, 2010

Pansy Wong was answering questions for the Minister of Labour today in the House. I hope Kate wasn’t listening because she will be tearing her hair out. Pansy confirmed that the government is considering changes to collective bargaining and refused to rule out either a move to contracting out of personal grievances or the reintroduction of a youth minimum wage. We haven’t even begun the select committee submission process on the current proposed law changes to the Employment Relations and Holidays Act – and now Pansy has let the cat out of the bag about the next round of draconian law change wage and salary earners can expect from the NACTs.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Nacts are Rats

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 18th, 2010

P7180102

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


Should I explain John Key’s policy to him?

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 17th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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


A muffin or a bottle of wine with your free labour?

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 17th, 2010

Interesting day at the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee today as we heard submissions on Kate Wilkinson’s Rest and Mealbreaks amendment bill.

The Bill enables employers to place restrictions on breaks, such as requiring a worker to be on call or perform duties, but the Government seems to have overlooked that in many workplaces, a half hour meal break is unpaid. 

Under this bill workers could be required to provide free labour and to forfeit breaks for whatever the employer decides they should be compensated with.

The provision of ‘compensatory measures’ for where a break is not provided is wide open to interpretation, and my questioning of officials today confirmed that a compensatory measure could be as little as a muffin.

One submitter told the committee that a compensatory measure could be a bottle of wine.

I guess that’s a little better than a muffin – but not much.


Sick leave – more or less?

Posted by Darien Fenton on June 7th, 2010

I see that even David Farrar thinks that the statutory minimum of 5 days of sick leave entitlements isn’t sufficient and he would be happy to see 10 days, but it looks like less sick leave, not more, is on the cards.

Word is that the government’s review of the Holidays Act could result in significant cuts to sick leave and annual leave, especially for workers who work more than an 8 hour day. It goes like this :

All leave is allocated in hours instead of days, so for sick leave it’s 40 hours, not five working days per year.

So if someone who works 4 x 10 hour shifts per week takes 3 days sick leave, that’s 30 hours used up.  That worker then only has 10  hours left  - in other words, one day – so that worker will lose 1 day of sick leave a year under this arrangement.

It gets worse if annual leave is calculated in the same way.   Currently, annual leave is calculated at either the ordinary weekly wage, or the  average earnings for previous 12 month period, whichever amount is greater.  This is particularly important for workers who work shifts and for part-time and seasonal workers who work irregular hours.

Holidays calculated on the basis of hours will mean less than four weeks paid annual leave for many workers.  Apparently, there’s going to be a whole new Holidays Act and goodness knows what other gems will be in it.

Watch this space.


Illegal Easter Traders should pay double time

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 7th, 2010

I’m the first to admit that the Easter Shop Trading laws are a mess, particularly around trading on Easter Sunday.

But I’ve always taken the view that as long as shop workers oppose the opening up of shop trading laws on Easter Sunday, I will too.

The most recent attempt to liberalise Easter Sunday shopping hours by Rotorua MP, whathisname Todd McClay, went down in a hail of MP opposition and joined the many other attempts to standardise the law over the last few years.

But it seems that many retailers have just decided to flout the law and cop the $1,000 fine.  The Department of Labour reports that they found 38 establishments open illegally over Easter – half on Easter Friday and the other half on Easter Sunday.

At least those working on Easter Friday would have been paid time and a half and get another day in lieu – although this could be hard to enforce, if their workplace was open and trading illegally.   But the poor buggers working on Easter Sunday get nothing extra.

$1,000 fine for breaking the law seems very weak.

Perhaps the fines should be increased to the equivalent of giving the workers made to work on Easter Sunday double time.   That might be more of a deterrent.


Those ‘offensive’ signs of support

Posted by Jacinda Ardern on October 14th, 2009

The sloganJust to follow up on the comments made by Clare and Darien….

In support of  the parliamentary staff who are currently facing a pay freeze and a reduction in their redundancy conditions, a number of Labour MPs sported short wee signs on the boxes we take into the House each day.

David Garrett took offence to them, the Speaker ordered that we remove them, and one national member even called the signs ‘offensive.’

Moana is kindly modelling said offensive slogan. I’ll let you be the judge.