Off Topic

90 day employee probation banter

120 replies · 5,293 views
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Currently, if people can't do their job properly they can be fired after verbal / written warnings. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 
The 90-day law opens up the likelihood that 'bad' employers will use it to treat employees unfairly. You'd be dreaming to think that there aren't a fair few employers who won't abuse it.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Today's 90 day news

What worries me more is that someone can be on a permanent contract, new owners come along and you can start them again on day one? Is this normal?

I let my guitar speak for me

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Colvinator wrote:
Currently, if people can't do their job properly they can be fired after verbal / written warnings. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 
The 90-day law opens up the likelihood that 'bad' employers will use it to treat employees unfairly. You'd be dreaming to think that there aren't a fair few employers who won't abuse it.
 
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike wrote:
Are Burger Fuel outlets franchises? If so, i'm all for boycotting the auckland one, but there very well may be good responsible employers running the other sites, and I wouldn't like to punish them over one knobend manager.

Agree with Steve-o[/QUOTE]

They are franchises I think- but they market on ethical recycling and organic food- absolutely no reason why this should not extend to basic rights in contracts. The boycott should stand and head office should sort their sh*t out.

If a release comes out that no Burger Fuel employees are subject to 90 day fire-at-will trials fine.

Otherwise all should be boycotted and if they don't like it they pay for the brand- they should take that up with their brand manager.

P.S. mods- can you change this back to the message? I posted it this way on purpose.

Boycott Burger Fuel! I haven't had any reply from the Burger Fuel chain on the matter by email. Until this happens I think it is only fair to let my call for Boycott stand under my own reasoning.

kiwi pie wrote:
10 minute lunch break?

ffs, sort your sh*t out NZ.


So this! I can't stand some of the crap - good employees will be kept on. What a load of crap. There could be anything a bad employer could be picky about.
[QUOTE=
Burger Fuel defends 90-day firing]Mr Roberts said everyone was entitled to their breaks, which differ between full and part-timers, but there was also an expectation that employees step up and work during busy periods.


Read between the lines on this. Stroppy cow asked for her contractual rights, so we fired her. If you don't work without a break when we want we can fire you without giving a reason and say something about our culture. That is how it works. Or if you wouldn't let the boss flirt with you, or whatever.

Stand up for your workers NZ!

The day these companies get as much scrutiny as this girl has been put through here  (and I'm all for two sides- BUT BF HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ME WITH IT and the newspaper article linked to does not cut it or refute the assetions about her sacking. )

I'm not going to call her a liar, especially in these circumstances. That's akin to other kinds of cases and I don't like either of them. The power is not with the girl or worker in either case.

Will go back through and read the rest of the thread now.  Cheers.


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
Colvinator wrote:
Currently, if people can't do their job properly they can be fired after verbal / written warnings. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 
The 90-day law opens up the likelihood that 'bad' employers will use it to treat employees unfairly. You'd be dreaming to think that there aren't a fair few employers who won't abuse it.
 
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.
 
Especially if you have a unionised workforce.  My mother is a charge nurse in a hopsital and it is extremely difficult for her to get rid of anyone, even those who are completely imcompetent because the union will pay for legal advice and pore all over the process making it almost impossible to get rid of anyone.  She's given up firing people.
 
NZ has extremely worker friendly labour laws.  in the UK 3 mth probation is completely normal - I cannot see a single downside to the law if applied correctly.  I'm sure if people spent as much time actually doing their jobs as they do complaining about these laws there would be no problem with them being kept on after 3 mths.

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Piney I certainly don't have your experience as an employer, only mine as an employee. I get fired up about my work as well as my football, and respect that for you it's both!

But the employer has plenty of reasonable rights in these circumstances. They are asking now for unreasonable rights, and being given them. Some of these were designed by the military government of Pinochet in Chile- that is where the power relationship and mode of thought comes from. http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/unions-are-to-capitalism-what-opposition-parties-are-to-politics/

Employees need a bit of assistance from governments. They certainly have them in Australia, and have had them because Australians stand up for their workers and themselves.


martinb2010-08-24 22:44:07


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
Championship side Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
Colvinator wrote:
Currently, if people can't do their job properly they can be fired after verbal / written warnings. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 
The 90-day law opens up the likelihood that 'bad' employers will use it to treat employees unfairly. You'd be dreaming to think that there aren't a fair few employers who won't abuse it.
[/QUOTE]
 
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.
 
Especially if you have a unionised workforce.  My mother is a charge nurse in a hopsital and it is extremely difficult for her to get rid of anyone, even those who are completely imcompetent because the union will pay for legal advice and pore all over the process making it almost impossible to get rid of anyone.  She's given up firing people.
 
NZ has extremely worker friendly labour laws. 


This is the problem. You genuinely believe this. Have you never asked yourself why our wages are so much lower than Australias? The chap from BFuel will spell it out for you

"Every state in Australia has this - and they are a far more unionised country that we are - so we are just catching up.

Only with the firing mind- not the unionisation or the wages.

[QUOTE=james dean]
in the UK 3 mth probation is completely normal - I cannot see a single downside to the law if applied correctly.  I'm sure if people spent as much time actually doing their jobs as they do complaining about these laws there would be no problem with them being kept on after 3 mths.


Because of the bullsh*t and straight out lies of this government you might not be aware that there is actually in fact provision in the legislation that exists now a probation period. Can you tell me why we need the fire at will period? They said jobs. No jobs.

Why is it necessary and how is it helping us really? Are we complaining? Not a f**kn nuff. All the complaining on here has mostly been done about employees, not by them. There isn't a single downside??

wow.




Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
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.


Oh My God!!!

I can't believe this kind of language.

Allow my to decontruct the above. In the story there are some arseholes. They have been given unreasonable powers and unsuprisingly abuse them.

So the bad people are the unions for what? Ummm...telling people about it.

This is key for me boppy. Explain me why arseholes need unreasoble powers, and 17 year old burger flippers don't need reasonable rights.

Or are you happy with collaterol damage? (See the kiwipolitico thread above. It's just a matter of degree)


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Interested to hear people opinions on these...
1) If there were changes to personal grievances laws so that it was easier to remove people who aren't performing (say less focus on employers following correct process), would there still be a need for a trial period?
2) Should new employees who have recent work experience, and referree from previous jobs, be excused from a trial period, or should a trial period be available to apply to all new employees regardless of theei work history.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb wrote:
Piney I certainly don't have your experience as an employer, only mine as an employee. I get fired up about my work as well as my football, and respect that for you it's both!

But the employer has plenty of reasonable rights in these circumstances. They are asking now for unreasonable rights, and being given them. Some of these were designed by the military government of Pinochet in Chile- that is where the power relationship and mode of thought comes from. http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/unions-are-to-capitalism-what-opposition-parties-are-to-politics/

Employees need a bit of assistance from governments. They certainly have them in Australia, and have had them because Australians stand up for their workers and themselves.
 
That blog is one of the most stupid things I have ever read.  NZ is not a manufacturing economy, it's is a nation that relies on farming and SMEs for employment.  The unions are obsolete and in most cases unnecessary (the protections provided by NZ labour laws and the Employment Relations Authority fill the gap).  Most union leaders are 70s misfits or politics junkies infatuated with class warfare.  The concept of a capitalist elite in NZ for anyone who has lived overseas is laughable.
 
This myth has been perpetuated for years - increase wages, strengthen the unions and NZ will match Australia for working conditions and wages.  What a load of rubbish.  Australia has had phenomenal productive growth off the back of its mining sector, NZ has terrible productivity but still bench marks itself in quality of life terms against other, more productive, OECD economies.  We have an incredibly unskilled, uneductaed, unproductive workforce and we produce almost nothing.  We've relied entirelty on an unsustainable property boom (plus Fonterra) to drive our economy and then realised that we're now completely f**ked - we're now trapped into a way of life that we can't afford nor sustain.  Meanwhile productive growth continues to stagnate.
 
All these suggested changes do is give the employers of our country the option to rectify hiring mistakes.  WHen many are small businesses who will struggle to ansorb losses that can be caused by a bad hiring decision this legislation is entirely correct and fair.  The union response to this has been completely ridiculous (but not unexpected).  I still don't understand why employees want the right to be crap at their job and not be fired.  If you can't perform for the first 90 days in your job you deserve no sympathy.

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I just fear leaving a stable and financially secure job for another job just as good if not better and even though i have the skills to do the job get fired after 89 days with no reason or right of reply where does that leave me right royally screwed 
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
giddyup wrote:
I just fear leaving a stable and financially secure job for another job just as good if not better and even though i have the skills to do the job get fired after 89 days with no reason or right of reply where does that leave me right royally screwed 
 
In that case then you would want/need to negotiate with your new employer not to include a probation period in your contract

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

From memory, every job I have had has had a 3 month probation period.  I have been pretty sh*t at each and every one of them and am yet to ever be fired.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
martinb wrote:
Piney I certainly don't have your experience as an employer, only mine as an employee. I get fired up about my work as well as my football, and respect that for you it's both!

But the employer has plenty of reasonable rights in these circumstances. They are asking now for unreasonable rights, and being given them. Some of these were designed by the military government of Pinochet in Chile- that is where the power relationship and mode of thought comes from. http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/unions-are-to-capitalism-what-opposition-parties-are-to-politics/

Employees need a bit of assistance from governments. They certainly have them in Australia, and have had them because Australians stand up for their workers and themselves.
 
 The unions are obsolete and in most cases unnecessary (the protections provided by NZ labour laws and the Employment Relations Authority fill the gap).  Most union leaders are 70s misfits or politics junkies infatuated with class warfare.  The concept of a capitalist elite in NZ for anyone who has lived overseas is laughable.
 
This myth has been perpetuated for years - increase wages, strengthen the unions and NZ will match Australia for working conditions and wages.  What a load of rubbish.  Australia has had phenomenal productive growth off the back of its mining sector, NZ has terrible productivity but still bench marks itself in quality of life terms against other, more productive, OECD economies.  We have an incredibly unskilled, uneductaed, unproductive workforce and we produce almost nothing.  We've relied entirelty on an unsustainable property boom (plus Fonterra) to drive our economy and then realised that we're now completely f**ked - we're now trapped into a way of life that we can't afford nor sustain.  Meanwhile productive growth continues to stagnate.
 
All these suggested changes do is give the employers of our country the option to rectify hiring mistakes.  WHen many are small businesses who will struggle to ansorb losses that can be caused by a bad hiring decision this legislation is entirely correct and fair.  The union response to this has been completely ridiculous (but not unexpected).  I still don't understand why employees want the right to be crap at their job and not be fired.  If you can't perform for the first 90 days in your job you deserve no sympathy.


Ahh you are an idealogue who simply doesn't want to distribute wealth in the economy.

If your response to a resecession is to ask for a fireatwill legislation you are joking.

Australia has had phenomenal productive growth off the back of its mining sector, NZ has terrible productivity but still bench marks itself in quality of life terms against other, more productive, OECD economies.  We have an incredibly unskilled, uneductaed, unproductive workforce and we produce almost nothing.  We've relied entirelty on an unsustainable property boom (plus Fonterra) to drive our economy and then realised that we're now completely f**ked - we're now trapped into a way of life that we can't afford nor sustain.  Meanwhile productive growth continues to stagnate

This is very true. But you are saying that by some miracle employers will share the wealth with everyone if they don't have to. Or simply have never had a bad boss, and have always been aware of your rights. You seem fairly educated.

Unions are about negotiating resonable pay rises and conditions, supporting things like workplace ltieracy and helping people who on their own can't help themsleves. Unions are essential to a functioning democractic capitalist society. Employers and societies that engage unions see the benefits.

This is a great debate and the problems with the employment suggestions are much broader. the 90 day trial is a bit of a distraction.

They are unreasonably
 - restricting union access to workplaces, a breach of huiman rights under the ILO
- changing the law around justifiable dismissal
- wanting to cash up holidays
- give employers the right to demand sick notes for a day off for a cold.


All these suggested changes do is give the employers of our country the option to rectify hiring mistakes

I'm not sure if you didn't read my post or if you are unwilling to engage with the issues. First, why punish good workers for employers mistakes?

I've worked under probation conditions (in fact just finished a probation period currently), and only once worked as part of a unionised workforce. It isn't about protecting people who can stand up for themselves, it is about making sure the weakest in our society aren't taken advantage of.

I'd love to keep these two issues separate if possible
1) Boycott Burgerfuel. They claim to be ethical, but don't treat their workers well.
2) The divisive attitude of the government in these suggestions and their evidence for their benefits.




Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
giddyup wrote:
I just fear leaving a stable and financially secure job for another job just as good if not better and even though i have the skills to do the job get fired after 89 days with no reason or right of reply where does that leave me right royally screwed 
 
In that case then you would want/need to negotiate with your new employer not to include a probation period in your contract
You'll find some employers are writing in the probation periods into their contracts without negotiations with the employee.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I do find it strange when people support the much bigger guy in a fight....
Employees have certain powers, but let's not kid ourselves that they have the power.
 
 
 
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb whilst your concern for your fellow employees is admirable I suggest, with respect, that you are overly focusing on the few bad employers that may abuse the 90 day probation period. 
 
I suggest, again with respect, that you think about the bigger picture for a moment. We had employment laws that were a significant disincentive for employers to hire anything other than "sure thing employees". It was all but impossible to terminate an unsatisfactory employee for anything other than a proven criminal offence.  Yes, in theory, there was provision, after due process, to terminate an employee but in practice it was an almost impossible process to follow without some element of subjectivity e.g. in the evidence, witnesses, documentation etc etc. Once you introduce subjectivity you introduce the grievance risk. Grievances were a game played by Unions and employees and inevitably ended with a cheque to make it go away - the cheque had nothing to do with the merits of the case and everything to do with it being the least cost option for the employer.
 
The consequence of the old system, as I have said, was very gun shy employers and a lot of young kids without work experience or potential employees with some "history" who were never going to get a job opportunity.
 
Now employers, who are often good people risking their money and working or thinking about their business 24 x 7, can afford to take a risk.
 
A lot of people are going to get a chance (job opportunity) under this law who would have otherwise have ended up on the scrap heap.
 
Yes the sh*t bag employers will abuse it but, in my experience, there are not many of them, and why deprive thousands of an opportunity to deal with a few sh*t bags who you probably wouldn't want to work for anyway.
 
I have been involved in negotiations with Unions - some organisers were good and genuinely worked for the interest of their members.
 
Some unfortunately cared little about their members in comparison to their slavish adherence to "the doctrine".
 
I think the Unions have got this very wrong and in the interest of protecting very few they are prepared to deprive many.
 
He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.


Got a couple of examples?
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 Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Whitby boy wrote:
 
I think the Unions have got this very wrong and in the interest of protecting very few they are prepared to deprive many.
 


Bit lost here. Who would be deprived?
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 Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
dairyflat wrote:
Whitby boy wrote:
 
I think the Unions have got this very wrong and in the interest of protecting very few they are prepared to deprive many.
 


Bit lost here. Who would be deprived?
 
Those people who an employer may be willing to take a chance on knowing that they have the backstop of the 90 day probabtion - someone who might not get a look in if the employer knew that they were hiring them for good.
 
The onus on the employee is to then prove that they made the correct decision.
 
I still don't understand why employees are not able to take responsibility for 3 mths to prove they can do a job.  If in your first three months of employment your boss finds a reason that they want to sack you why do you deserve any sympathy??

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
dairyflat wrote:
Championship side Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.


Got a couple of examples?
 
go and read any recent examples of decisions made by the emplomeny relations authority - see here for some examples.  Anyone who has been an employer, or involved in employment law, will tell you the same thing.  Emploment law in NZ is a process focussed legislation - you must follow the process perfectly, the court will not judge the merits of the sacking.  Even if it is for gross negligence, unless you followed the process correctly then there will be a grievance.  It's completely unbalanced
 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/garth-george-on-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502867&objectid=10660301

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
JD - regardless of whether I agree with you or not, using an article written by someone who is a climate change denier is not really backing up your argument very well. 2ndBest2010-08-26 23:30:28
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb wrote:
james dean wrote:
martinb wrote:
Piney I certainly don't have your experience as an employer, only mine as an employee. I get fired up about my work as well as my football, and respect that for you it's both!

But the employer has plenty of reasonable rights in these circumstances. They are asking now for unreasonable rights, and being given them. Some of these were designed by the military government of Pinochet in Chile- that is where the power relationship and mode of thought comes from. http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/07/unions-are-to-capitalism-what-opposition-parties-are-to-politics/

Employees need a bit of assistance from governments. They certainly have them in Australia, and have had them because Australians stand up for their workers and themselves.
 
 The unions are obsolete and in most cases unnecessary (the protections provided by NZ labour laws and the Employment Relations Authority fill the gap).  Most union leaders are 70s misfits or politics junkies infatuated with class warfare.  The concept of a capitalist elite in NZ for anyone who has lived overseas is laughable.
 
This myth has been perpetuated for years - increase wages, strengthen the unions and NZ will match Australia for working conditions and wages.  What a load of rubbish.  Australia has had phenomenal productive growth off the back of its mining sector, NZ has terrible productivity but still bench marks itself in quality of life terms against other, more productive, OECD economies.  We have an incredibly unskilled, uneductaed, unproductive workforce and we produce almost nothing.  We've relied entirelty on an unsustainable property boom (plus Fonterra) to drive our economy and then realised that we're now completely f**ked - we're now trapped into a way of life that we can't afford nor sustain.  Meanwhile productive growth continues to stagnate.
 
All these suggested changes do is give the employers of our country the option to rectify hiring mistakes.  WHen many are small businesses who will struggle to ansorb losses that can be caused by a bad hiring decision this legislation is entirely correct and fair.  The union response to this has been completely ridiculous (but not unexpected).  I still don't understand why employees want the right to be crap at their job and not be fired.  If you can't perform for the first 90 days in your job you deserve no sympathy.


Ahh you are an idealogue who simply doesn't want to distribute wealth in the economy.

If your response to a resecession is to ask for a fireatwill legislation you are joking.

Australia has had phenomenal productive growth off the back of its mining sector, NZ has terrible productivity but still bench marks itself in quality of life terms against other, more productive, OECD economies.  We have an incredibly unskilled, uneductaed, unproductive workforce and we produce almost nothing.  We've relied entirelty on an unsustainable property boom (plus Fonterra) to drive our economy and then realised that we're now completely f**ked - we're now trapped into a way of life that we can't afford nor sustain.  Meanwhile productive growth continues to stagnate

This is very true. But you are saying that by some miracle employers will share the wealth with everyone if they don't have to. Or simply have never had a bad boss, and have always been aware of your rights. You seem fairly educated.

Unions are about negotiating resonable pay rises and conditions, supporting things like workplace ltieracy and helping people who on their own can't help themsleves. Unions are essential to a functioning democractic capitalist society. Employers and societies that engage unions see the benefits.

This is a great debate and the problems with the employment suggestions are much broader. the 90 day trial is a bit of a distraction.

They are unreasonably
 - restricting union access to workplaces, a breach of huiman rights under the ILO
- changing the law around justifiable dismissal
- wanting to cash up holidays
- give employers the right to demand sick notes for a day off for a cold.


All these suggested changes do is give the employers of our country the option to rectify hiring mistakes

I'm not sure if you didn't read my post or if you are unwilling to engage with the issues. First, why punish good workers for employers mistakes?

I've worked under probation conditions (in fact just finished a probation period currently), and only once worked as part of a unionised workforce. It isn't about protecting people who can stand up for themselves, it is about making sure the weakest in our society aren't taken advantage of.

I'd love to keep these two issues separate if possible
1) Boycott Burgerfuel. They claim to be ethical, but don't treat their workers well.
2) The divisive attitude of the government in these suggestions and their evidence for their benefits.


MASSIVE FAIL, JUST LIKE UNIONS Kiwi Hatter2010-08-27 00:21:04

We're the WELLINGTON Phoenix

And this is our Home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
JD - regardless of whether I agree with you or not, using an article written by someone who is a climate change denier is not really backing up your argument very well.
 
I don't see how that is at all relevant.  Anyway, his views are his own, I just used it as it highlighted some of the absurdities that can develop with respect to employee grievance process

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
It shows to me that he deals in misguided opinion rather than fact.  He's a columist not a journalist.
 
The only evidence he uses is statement from a editorial.  Hardly concrete.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Championship side Championship side Championship side Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
Colvinator wrote:
Currently, if people can't do their job properly they can be fired after verbal / written warnings. I don't think this is unreasonable.
 
The 90-day law opens up the likelihood that 'bad' employers will use it to treat employees unfairly. You'd be dreaming to think that there aren't a fair few employers who won't abuse it.
 
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.
As a small  business owner and an employer of fourteen full and part time staff  I find  the new  trial period not only simplifies the whole disciplinary procedure in relation  to terminating the work contract of a person who is not capable of performing the job requirements asked of him or her  even after training,counselling  etc ,it also helps with the morale of the established workforce who tend not to want to work alongside a person who for whatever reason isn't up to the standards they work by.
My line of work involves people working as a team and if we take on someone who ultimately has to be carried by his/her fellow workers  then the general team spirit and camaraderie breaks down this then  affects the quality of  service provided to the customer which  in turn leads to a down turn in sales  if this is  not rectified it can  end up in job losses,who wins there?
Employees are not stupid they are not keen on being stuck with a lemon and from my experience are happy when such people are let go,they understand the common sense in this .
Before the 90 day  trial  was introduced initially to businesses with under 20 employees,now to be expanded to large employers as well who incidentally have more union membership within their workforce,it was difficult to actually fire anyone at  all except in  the most extreme cases,theft assault etc .
An employee could take a grievance out against the company usually encouraged by some dodgy  0800SACKED lawyer who despite not charging fees would   take a minimum of 40% from any settlement made in favour of the employee ,the case would go to mediation and if not settled there  would then go "upstairs " to a full employment hearing in the employment court ,this could cost the employer a minimum of $10,000 in lawyers fees plus the cost of time away from managing at work, it would cost the former employee nothing  hence the reason that most employers whether in the right or wrong would generally just settle by throwing money at the problem to make it go away ,whole thing became a horse trade rather than any real and fair justice for the  both parties  involved !
In my opinion the new law is open to abuse by a small group of  bad employers but the old system particularly in relation to smaller companies who didn't have the benefit of huge H and R departments  and in house lawyers etc  was far worse  which in turn  as I have mentioned before was  detrimental  to the established workforce.
 The question has  has been  asked  in previous posts  why on earth would an employer who takes on an efficient  productive employee who  is happy in the environment provided and works well along side his or her  fellow workmates  ,why would they want to get rid of someone like that?Its simply nonsensical
It has  taken the unions this long to drum up its anti 90 day law campaign, maybe due to the fact that there was so little negative reaction to it (common sense can be difficult to argue against) ,and I dont wear the line that there are thousands of workers trembling in fear of instant redundancy if they dared to pipe up, if this is the case then I'm sure they will register their feelings at the next election with a massive landslide victory to Phil Goff and company ,lets see what  happens!


Kiwi Jambo2010-08-27 12:32:09

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
<!-- -->
<!-- -->
<!-- -->
<!-- ARTICLE - START -->

The Government's decision to extend 90-day new-employee trials to all businesses was made after a suggestion from the Act Party, and went against the recommendation of its own Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson.

Government papers also show the proposal to enable bosses to demand proof of sickness from workers without first having reasonable grounds for suspicion was made without the advice of the Department of Labour.

The Government's proposed labour law changes, announced in July and now before a select committee, have been strongly opposed by unions, Labour and the Greens.

They include enabling employers to require a medical certificate from a worker on sick leave at any time, and extending the 90-day trial beyond companies with fewer than 20 workers.

The 90-day trial lets employers dismiss workers without giving a reason. Redress is possible only on grounds of discrimination or harassment.

But Cabinet papers - released to the Herald under the Official Information Act - show Ms Wilkinson wanted the trial to be extended only to companies with up to 50 workers.

 
She did not want larger businesses covered, as they had "robust systems to undertake good recruitment and employment practices".

Act leader Rodney Hide said last night that extending the scheme to all businesses was his party's idea.

"The National Party came to us for support and wanted to extend it to 50, and we said, 'If it's good for businesses with 50, it will be good for business with 51 and 101 and 1001.'

"We persuaded the National Party to go the whole nine yards. It wasn't an arm-wrestle."

The Cabinet agreed, and a bill to extend the scheme got the required support of the Act Party to pass its first reading this month.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard, a former Cabinet minister, said Act had too much power for a party that won only 3.65 per cent of the party vote.

"What is becoming absolutely clear is that on certain issues, like this, [Prime Minister] John Key is being led by Rodney Hide and the Act Party.

"If Key had any balls he would have said, 'It's 50 or we don't introduce the legislation'."

Mr Mallard said it was unusual for the Cabinet to override a minister's recommendation.

"What often happens, if a minister is unsure, is the minister will provide options and Cabinet will pick. But here no options were provided, so it sounds like an ideological decision."

Mr Mallard, Labour's industrial relations spokesman, said it was also unusual that Ms Wilkinson did not seek the Department of Labour's advice on changes to sick-leave law.

"If she got careful advice, they wouldn't have made this decision, and I wouldn't be surprised if they back off because the current system works well."

Ms Wilkinson justified the decision in a Cabinet paper, saying current rules requiring an employer to have reasonable grounds to demand a medical certificate on any sick day, were an "unreasonable burden on employers".

"Anecdotal evidence suggests that the compliance costs and time associated with establishing suspicion can be high and onerous on the employer," the paper said.

But a regulatory impact statement said Ms Wilkinson made her decision, and the Department of Labour "was not asked to provide advice".

The only department advice on the matter was after a meeting with the Meat Industry Association, which wanted the change but also wanted workers - rather than the employer - to pay for the medical certificate.

The department said this would be an "unreasonable financial burden" and would require employees to go to a doctor even for a minor illness.

Cabinet papers also show that the Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development criticised the speed with which the changes were prepared.

"Agencies have had a limited time to consider the current proposals and a number of proposals that may impose additional costs on businesses were made late in the review process," one Cabinet paper said.

The Government also ignored Labour Department advice to leave rules on union access to the workplace unchanged, as there was no widespread evidence that the system was being abused.

MINISTER ROLLED

Government documents show:

* Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson's proposal to enable employers to demand a medical certificate from workers without first having "reasonable grounds" of suspicion was made without the advice of the Department of Labour.

* The department recommended the status quo for union access to workplaces, but the Government is changing the law so unions need the employer's permission, which will not be allowed to be withheld unreasonably.

* Ms Wilkinson wanted to extend the 90-day job trial to companies with up to 50 workers, as she said large firms already had "robust systems". Act suggested it be extended to all enterprises, and that proposal was accepted.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I agree, the Act party with their two and a half members do seem to have an in-ordinate amount of leverage over the Key led Labour Lite government  at present , suppose thats a byproduct of the electorial system we now have ,a system which Hyde (Mr angry potato head) ironically  is against! Kiwi Jambo2010-08-27 17:55:01

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Main reason Jambo is that they haven't released their actual proposals yet. It was extreme window-dressing worker-bashing for the National conference to try and drum up some funding perhaps, but we have been waiting on exactly what it is.

There are other higher priorities than this that I listed before.

Also Helen Kelly and other union leaders, who are an important part of any economic discussion about our country, were in consulation with the prime minister about the law changes. He broke his assurance to them about changing union access. They then wrote to him two weeks in a row and didn't receive a reply. When he finally replied he asked for instances of abuse, claiming there hadn't been any.

This is why there was no campaign until then.

I think people's perception of what a union is differs wildly. They aren't the bloody reds going to overrun us for the commies. Well the ones I met. They were pragmatic and simply representing the best interests of their clients in negotiations. Plus a discount card and a NZ run bank equivalent....

I also can say when the NZ minimum wage was $7.50 I got paid $17AUD in a basicallyl unskilled position, plus 1.5x on Saturday and 2x on Sunday. That's nothing to do with mineral wealth, but good conditions.

I personally can't speak about the dismissal procedure- but think that you have to remember these are people not new machines. Even perfect employees can get depressed, injured, sick, have relationship break ups or have any number of things that affect their performance. Stress about being at the complete mercy of a boss who might be a creep, or a Gold Coast supporter or a Mormon or Scientologists or whatever for 3 months is also not cool. It is also insulting to someone who is highly qualfied and experienced.

If market principles are in fact applied stronger candidates will avoid smaller businesses where probation applies, because they don't have to have the instability.

Interesting to hear your take as a small business owner. cheers. the 10k cost v. nothing when some small business owners actually end up on less than the hourly minimum wage and without the guarantees of an actual employee, is very  poor. This is not the ideal solution though.
martinb2010-08-27 19:02:39


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
dairyflat wrote:
Championship side Championship side Liverpoolfan1 wrote:
In reality, this is a lot harder than it sounds.  I've lost count of the number of Personal Grievance claims I've heard about where incompetents have been awarded compensation because of unfair dismissal, when really it was just an uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" in the whole process. 
 
How some people can have the gall to even take their employers to court or mediation after being completely hopeless while working for them is beyond me.  I'd be embarrassed and just get the f**k out.


Got a couple of examples?
 
What, do you think I'm just making it up?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Whitby boy wrote:
 A lot of people are going to get a chance (job opportunity) under this law who would have otherwise have ended up on the scrap heap.
 
Yes the sh*t bag employers will abuse it but, in my experience, there are not many of them, and why deprive thousands of an opportunity to deal with a few sh*t bags who you probably wouldn't want to work for anyway.
 
I think the Unions have got this very wrong and in the interest of protecting very few they are prepared to deprive many.
 


Whitby- I appreciate your experience. Two things bother me- we shouldn't be divided at this point, we should be constructive and trying to create jobs by growing the economy.

I personally believe having met people whose lives have been really affected by being fired - remember not necessarily people with large amounts of self belief or high levels of education- they don't have the confidence to keep pushing themselves forward only to get knocked back- that any abuse is too much.

This is why I think low unemployment is a damn good goal- it prevents so much flow on anguish and gives everyone something to do and belong to. It has so many positive externalities.

The government is deliberately fudging the numbers by fudging the methodology: see this summary from Russell Brown

There is no conclusive evidence to support statements of massive benefit . The unemployment rate is too high and the best way to create new jobs is to grow and stimulate the economy which hasn't been done- in fact we've been cutting back.

to quote the relevant bit:

It looks to me as if an exercise in doing what the notes say � assessing employer understanding of recent changes in employment law � has been hijacked to allow the government to claim that one particular policy, the 90-day trial period, has worked well and created few if any problems. It doesn't show that. It couldn't show that.

And yet it's being used to justify the extension of the trial scheme to all workplaces, where it will affect an estimated 400,000 employees annually (that's the number changing or moving into jobs).


Sorry also for my slow reply.
martinb2010-08-28 11:13:48


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb, no disrespect intended but I can't be arsed reading the link and I'm not in to conspiracy theorists with political agendas.
 
I'm going to leave it at this;
 
Coincidentally I turned the radio on the other night in time to listen to a guy who had, on and off, spent 20 years in jail. It was talk back and the subject was justice and not employment laws.
 
He said he had turned his life around because; 1) He wanted to and 2) Someone gave him a chance (a job).
 
There will be thousands, like this guy but with less dramatic stories, who will also now get a chance because employers will now take a risk they would not have taken under the old law.
 
Enjoyed the discussion.
 
Cheers
 
He dribbles a lot and the opposition dont like it - you can see it all over their faces. (Ron Atkinson)
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/trial-periods/index.asp

Whitby- I respect your experience as an employer- here is the link to the trial employment research which is what Russell is discussing. It is rather insulting to dismiss people like that because they have evidence (in this case the government commisioned Department of Labour survey)which doesn't suit as conspiracy theorists. Russell is a respected journalist, media commentator and blogger.

You simply don't know that thousands will get chances because of this law. Yet this is the basis it is going ahead, not on the evidence or facts.


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:


That blog is one of the most stupid things I have ever read.  NZ is not a manufacturing economy, it's is a nation that relies on farming and SMEs for employment.  The unions are obsolete and in most cases unnecessary (the protections provided by NZ labour laws and the Employment Relations Authority fill the gap).  Most union leaders are 70s misfits or politics junkies infatuated with class warfare. 
 


Who is disconnected?

Where the Nats fail most workers, union represented workers succeed in closing the wage gap with Australia.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1008/S00326/unions-closing-australian-wage-gap.htm

Plus VIDEO! a bit of classic Australian working class humour- What Have the Unions Ever Done For Us?

Joke's a bit sour in NZ. What the f**k is an award system or superannuation?

Also  basic civility in treatment at work with minor union won successes reports The Herald

Gee this is becoming a union reader. Freakn. I just wanted Burger Fuel to pull their socks up and not be pricks.


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Latest on the Burger Fuel case
 
Unite Union wrote:
Sacked on the 89th Day of Employment

Two weeks ago the Unite Union gathered to protest at BurgerFuel Mission Bay against the termination of the local franchisee's employee, Joanne Bartlett, on the 89th day of her 90 day trial period. Nationwide protests organised by the newly formed Solidarity.org.nz network were due to take place today, Saturday.

Following this event Unite have been in discussions with the BurgerFuel head office to discuss the employment agreements used across the system and also the particulars of Joanne's situation.

Unite is pleased to advise that those discussions have progressed positively and that to date BurgerFuel have demonstrated a willingness to improve their probationary period processes and to cease using the current 90 day trial period provisions.

To this end, both parties are currently working on a revised Individual Employment Agreement that will allow fairer processes for the employees. It is BurgerFuel's intention to provide this new Employment Agreement to their franchisees for use in all stores across the nation.

Unite Union is pleased with the commitment from BurgerFuel CEO, Josef Roberts who said �Now that these matters have been brought to my attention in full detail, we believe that Unite Union's requests are fair and reasonable and in fact, will help our Franchisees improve their employment culture and work environment"

Unite Union's Campaign organiser, Joe Carolan, said-
"BurgerFuel has really come to the table on this one and listened to the people. We're pleased with the outcome for Joanne. But more than that, we're impressed that management have understood how the National government's proposed 90 Days fire at will legislation will impact negatively on New Zealand's workers. They've resolved to reject this divisive law and find a better way. Sometimes, there is a happy ending. We hope that many other companies and employers out there will take note. That includes you, John Key."

An update will be forthcoming in the next two to three weeks, however, we now feel that BurgerFuel understands the position of the Unite Union and accordingly the proposed BurgerFuel nationwide protest action by the Solidarity network for today Saturday September 4th will not take place.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yay!

Back to the Bastards for me!

Thanks BurgerFuel!


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Earthquake in CHCH is perfect opp for employers to take on staff for a quick job, and dismiss staff as they are closed   temporarily. Double blow for those relying on a job and/or stability.

I let my guitar speak for me

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
VimFuego wrote:
Earthquake in CHCH is perfect opp for employers to take on staff for a quick job, and dismiss staff as they are closed   temporarily. Double blow for those relying on a job and/or stability.


There is literally  no stability in Christchurch for small business owners or employees at the present time!
I don't think that there is any point in trying to suggest thatl business owners are manipulative exploiters   ,I can't imagine that many business people in ChCh will see this  as a" perfect  opportunity "as you put it to take advantage of the 90 day trial .
It is just as difficult for a someone who has perhaps spent a lot of time, money and effort building up a business only to watch it being destroyed over night by an act of nature /God (take your choice) as it is for an employee finding out they don't have  a job to go to any more,the whole situation is very sad and difficult  not a time for political sniping in my opinion!The quake was very even handed in the misery it has  dished out!

Kiwi Jambo2010-09-08 14:45:58

The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
unions run by the likes of Bob Crowe are fascist bully boys who will never win.  I would rather walk 2 hours to work in the snow than let that c**t think he has had any impact.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This is just my opinion. It really shouldn't matter about a 90 day trial period. It's to the employers benefit as it's a good way to find out if you've employed the wrong person. Being a farmer it's very frustrating (although I am a worker not an owner, it's frustrating for us too) contracting some chump for 12 months who puts up a good front at an interview only to find he can't do 75% of the things he said he could do, it's the same for any other kind of business. In reality if you can't do a job don't apply for it and there will be no embarrassment. The downside is of course employers who abuse the 90 day trial and don't tell someone they are there for short term cover, promise them a long and successful career and flick them off 89 days later.
Permalink Permalink