90 day employee probation banter

120 replies · 5,293 views

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Having worked in retail, it also sucks when it is so busy you can't get away for your break and have gone several hours remaining on your feet busting your arse for minimum wage. Yeah it sucks you have to wait, but how long have they waited for their break?

Yep, fair call.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

liverpoolfan1 wrote:

...Sometimes things don't work out, and there are always two sides to every story. I think the 90-day probationary period thing is a great idea...it sure beats the previous state of affairs when you were stuck with useless people and actually had to pay them for being useless if you tried to get rid of them and it went to mediation or whatever.

Legislation passed by the Labour government means employment law is so heavily weighted in favour of the employee that managers/business owners have to stand by and watch as useless bastards f**k up their business and if they even so much as try to discipline them, let alone fire them, there are threats of litigation. Talk about rewarding mediocrity.

This.

When I started work in a govt dept in the 80's everyone was on 90-days probation when they started. Be a good employee, the employer will be good to you. Do what's required, you get to stay. Yeah, there are some arsehole employers. Employers don't want to keep on sacking dead sh*t people & replacing them. It cost the company time & money to employ & train decent new/replacement staff.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/oddstuff/4044940/Sickie-employee-busted-on-TV
Wongo2010-08-21 20:34:36

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think with this new 90 day law the one thing I would have preferred was that if you were let go, at least be given a reason, even if they said that you weren't up to it, but to just dismiss someone with no reason given does appear rich.

Example, I know I'd be a lousy salesman so if my employer told me I was lousy and that this line of work wasn't really my fortei, then I would at least know.

However if I actually was very good at my job and then let go I would really like to know why.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

liverpoolfan1 wrote:

The reason she was let go was that her performance wasn't up to it. Why should any employer keep on someone who costs them customers and therefore business?

Proof please. What do you know that we don't? Care to share?

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Owned a business and, I think it would be fair to say, was a very fair and considerate employer. Like all employers I had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with staff who could not meet the requirements of the job. Yes we tried to train and develop them but to no avail. Previously terminating staff who did not / could not perform was nigh on impossible (without a grievance following) unless you literally caught them with their fingers in the till - which we unfortunately did on more than one occasion.

I think the 90 day probation period is a great idea for employers - it gives them a fair and reasonable opportunity to establish if a new staff member can meet the requirements of the job and a simple termination process if they can't.

I think it is also great for employees - under the previous law you would err severely on the side of caution when hiring whereas now I think many employees, who may not have previously been given an opportunity, will get a chance to prove themselves.

Yes there are both bad employers and bad employees but would most employers want to turn staff over every 90 days and go through the recruitment and training process every 3 months. I think the 90 trial period will be beneficial to a great many more than it will hurt.

I also wonder how the Union would feel if the employers they are going to name and shame went public with the reasons staff had been let go ?

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

turkiye wrote:

liverpoolfan1 wrote:

The reason she was let go was that her performance wasn't up to it. Why should any employer keep on someone who costs them customers and therefore business?

Proof please. What do you know that we don't? Care to share?

I don't know anything that you don't. It was a direct quote from the BF manager.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Whitby boy wrote:

I also wonder how the Union would feel if the employers they are going to name and shame went public with the reasons staff had been let go ?

Excellent post. brettdale2010-08-23 11:59:12

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Whitby boy wrote:

Iï¿½alsoï¿½wonder how theï¿½Union would feel if the employers they are going to name and shame went public with the reasons staff had been let go ?

I think you'll find that is why the "naming & shaming" has been limited.

It appears that there has not been too much abuse of the law. And if employers really abuse it, then by all means let the world know about such behaviour.

Far better to work that way than have some over-prescribed legal-based adversarial type system. I prefer to have some faith in human nature and decency. We might just surprise ourselves.

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'm with LF1 becoz I'm a tory very much at heart. Mind you, I'm a complete hypocrate too. Becoz historically I've been extremely lazy, fumbling, bumbling, and with a large pinch of "disinterested" thrown in for good measure when it comes to the subject known as 'work'. But somehow I've gotten away with it. For the most part. It's all about style. I reckon.

90 day probation?!? You're having a laugh.

Stevo2010-08-23 12:40:20

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Love the honesty Stevo!!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

aitkenmike wrote:

liverpoolfan1 wrote:

Cosimo wrote:

Joanne Bartlett's dismissal came a few days after she had asked for more than a single 10 minute lunch break each day she had been receiving for an 8 hour shift.This has nothing to do with the 90 day trial argument, though. You can defend the 90 day law, but that does not mean you have to defend Burger Fuel for being pricks. IF the case is true, of course.

This is factually incorrect. Burger Fuel gves a ten-minute break every three hours. Never let the facts get in the way of a protest though eh?

But that was apparently part of her problem - she asked for what she was contractually entitled to, (At least this is my understanding) but the place was quite often busy, so she was expected to 'help out' and 'pitch in' when busy. Fine if it happens now and then, but if its occouring constantly then they were understaffed and its the managers problem.

Also, I don't buy that it was that hard to dismiss incompetent people under the old law. Yes you couldn't do it instantly, but is it really that hard to give underperforming staff 1) warning they are underperforming 2) extra training/a chance to correct their underperformance.
Yes, the law required some effort on behalf of management, and imposes some costs, but I don't beleive that is a huge sacrifice when compared against the possibility of bad employers exploiting their employees. I've worked for good managers who have done this, and never had any issues with labour disputes, because they deal in GOOD FAITH with their employees, even underperforming ones.

I don't think good faith is to much to ask, and that certainly wasn't shown in the BF example, or in the cry for extending no-cause needed dismissal.

Having been involved in a couple of instances where incompetent people were terminated under the old law, as an employer it was almost impossible to get a positive result without it costing lots of money. Even having gone through the process following the letter of the law it was as if the ERA and Employment Court treated a sacked employee as a victim and the employer as in the wrong as their default position. It would almost have been cheaper and undoubtably quicker just to give the person a large wad of cash and sack them on the spot rather than go through all the warnings and meetings.

Also, I don't see that the 90 day rule will get abused by anyone other than an idiot. It costs far to much to hire and train a new employee to get rid of them all the time but even more important (as Burger Fuel are finding out now) even if you are in the right the damage to your reputation as a business is too great. So good employers will only use the law as a last resort and only bad employers will abuse it. And who wants to work for a bad employer anyway?

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Saying things like employers would be stupid to abuse the 90-day law is kind of moot. Most people defending the girl are commenting on the specific case.

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cosimo wrote:

Saying things like employers would be stupid to abuse the 90-day law is kind of moot. Most people defending the girl are commenting on the specific case.

Which is all pure speculation as none of us know all the facts and most likely never will.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Malky wrote:

Cosimo wrote:

Saying things like employers would be stupid to abuse the 90-day law is kind of moot. Most people defending the girl are commenting on the specific case.

Which is all pure speculation as none of us know all the facts and most likely never will.

Yeah exactly. This case proves nothing about the efficacy of the law.

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Cosimo wrote:

Malky wrote:

Cosimo wrote:

Saying things like employers would be stupid to abuse the 90-day law is kind of moot. Most people defending the girl are commenting on the specific case.

Which is all pure speculation as none of us know all the facts and most likely never will.

Yeah exactly. This case proves nothing about the efficacy of the law.

Agreed!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Whitby boy wrote:

think the 90 day probation period is a great idea for employers - it gives them a fair and reasonable opportunity to establish if a new staff member can meet the requirements of the job and a simple termination process if they can't.

Would you , if you were running a business under the new rule, offer a reason for any sacking?

Profile pic. Should you be interested. Lakhsen, on the right, lost touch with him.
Mohammed, on the left, I'm still in touch with. He's now living in Agadez, Niger. More focused on his animals now as tourism has dried up. Is active with a co-op promoting local goods, leather work and bijouterie, into Europe.
20/5/20

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10667595

BurgerFuel's justification.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

tried it the other day for the first time. nothing to write home about

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

dairyflat wrote:

Whitby boy wrote:

Would you , if you were running a business under the new rule, offer a reason for any sacking?

Yes - under the old rule, new rule or any other rule - that's just common decency.

For me it's not sacking - it is exactly as it is described - a trial period during which both the employer and employee have an opportunity to assess if they wish the relationship to proceed to a permanent status.

As I said earlier I think a great many, particularly younger people with no work history, will now get an opportunity they would not previously have had.

Whitby boy2010-08-23 20:12:10

He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Are there burgers any good? What is the best one?

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

This is the reason small employers will not employ new staff.

The risk and potential cost is prohibitive.

If your useless, sling ya hook.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

simon_hampton wrote:

Are there burgers any good? What is the best one?

Bacon Backfire

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Oh the irony.

Not the Bastard then?

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Manbeast wrote:

simon_hampton wrote:

Are there burgers any good? What is the best one?

Bacon Backfire

This. So much this. I would kill for one of these.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Turfmoore wrote:

Oh the irony.

Not the Bastard then?

yes, but a within the law white collar type bastard.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Good banter on an interesting topic but seeing as:

(a) I love Burger Fuel burgers, and

(b) the case against them seems to be, at best, a bit debatable

I have renamed this topic in the interests of natural justice.

Carry on.

PS: I'm a raving lefty but I still am in favour of the 90 day probationary period because, in my experience, the world is chock full of numpties and if I was an employer I'd be gutted if I hired one by accident and couldn't get rid. If you can't at least masquerade as a good employee for 90 days then you deserve the archer.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I would love to say a lot more, but I feel if I do I may be jeopardizing my political neutrality status. Even more so considering I have worked on this issue during the year.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

I would love to say a lot more, but I feel if I do I may be jeopardizing my political neutrality status. Even more so considering I have worked on this issue during the year.

Do it!

I like tautologies because I like them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

na think I'll pass. Wouldn't want to lose my job and have to apply for a position at Burger Fuel.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

No chance you'd last 90 days.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

At a job interview try telling them you got sacked from your last job and you don't know why.... goes down a treat!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Do you like anything dairyflat?

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Let me see if i've got this right.
It took the manager 89 days to work out that this woman couldn't flip burgers.
Did her acting skills let her down on day 89?

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think the 90 day tril/probation law is a great idea, and Sanday it's not that simple...90 days give the emplotyee plenrty of time to learn the new job, master it and show they can excel, it also gives the employer a chance to assess how the new person is going to perform with an easier out than the cuurent process of verbal warnings,training, written warnings and then sacking.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Still don't see how it takes 89 days to work out she can't flip burgers.
The law is fair as long as it is not abused.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

sanday wrote:

The law is fair as long as it is not abused.

This is the key for me. Unfortunately we know that some bosses are assholes and will abuse it. The Unions will pick up on this and milk it for all its worth until it gets to the point where the success or otherwise of the law will be decided by how it plays out in the media.

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

simon_hampton wrote:

Are there burgers any good? What is the best one?

Chook Royale is my fav.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Peanut piston for me. The V-twin vege with the mushroom,kumara and chickpea pattie is also awesome

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Kumara fries are choice too.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I have never been there. I must try it sometime.

Permalink