The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0.
So much for all National’s fine words about probation periods and job creation. Today’s Dominion reports that ReStart will not be available for “those who were sacked, including those who lost their jobs under the new 90-day probation law.”
So the conditions for three months “probation” are that you cannot ask for reasons for dismissal in writing, cannot appeal against unfair dismissal, and no matter if it is unfair you do not qualify for any benefit.
At least National’s 1991 Employment Contracts Act kept grievance rights. This is worse.
Taken a matter of minutes ago, the Workers Party protest outside John Key’s multimillion dollar Parnell mansion. Just to remind you that we’ve just seen a man worth tens of millions of dollars take work rights off a whole bunch of people who earn minimum wage.
In case you’re wondering what they’re holding up, it’s this poster.
The Manawatu Standard has a good op-ed piece today on how National has squandered its honeymoon with its arrogant and out-of-touch behaviour on the fire at will bill.
The National party rose to power on the back of, among other things, scathing accusations that a supremely arrogant Labour party had “lost touch” with the people.
The criticisms were well-founded, or at least voters thought they were, and John Key rode a wave of disaffection to power.
How startlingly it is, then, for this new humble, inclusive government to decide to pass into law a 90-day probation period for new workers before Christmas, avoiding public hearings that would allow public discussion and debate.
Kate Wikinson, John Key’s hapless Minister of Labour, has told NZPA the public shouldn’t get to have their say on the fire at will bill because, apparently, we already had our chance with Wayne Mapp’s private member’s bill back in 2006.
This argument is complete bollocks, and she knows it. Perhaps that’s why she refused to front up to Mary Wilson on Radio NZ Checkpoint tonight.
Because while the new bill shares the same underlying premise as Mapp’s bill - that is, to give employers the power to fire staff at will - there have been some pretty significant changes signalled, including a number that have so far had little or no public discussion.
For example:
National has said it will limit the law to firms with fewer than 20 employees. Will this include workers at owner-operated franchises of major companies like Subway, McDonalds and BP?
Will teachers be covered by the bill? Anne Tolley and Kate Wilkinson each gave different answers when asked during the election campaign, neither have since cleared it up.
In the 92 words National made available on this policy before the election we are told “good faith provisions will still apply”. What exactly does that mean? And how will that help someone who has been dismissed unfairly but has no right to lodge a personal grievance?
The policy also says “rules of natural justice will apply”. How?
Wilkinson says employers will not be able to hire and fire the same employee every 89 days. What wording will this provision take, and is there provision to stop employers from hiring and firing different employees every 89 days?
Wilkinson says the bill will protect against human rights breaches. But so long as an employer gives “performance” as a cause for dismissal, no matter the real reason, workers won’t be able to argue the dismissal was unjust. Is Wilkinson aware of this? And can she tell us exactly how many human rights claims succeed each year in relation to employment?
Wilkinson says workers will be able to lodge a personal grievance on the basis of sexual harrassment or discrimination. But what use is this provision if an employer can claim “performance” is the reason without having to prove it?
Wilkinson says mediation will be available for employers and staff who experience problems. But what use is mediation when one party has been so utterly disempowered that the employer can just terminate them whatever the outcome?
And I’m sure there are others I haven’t thought of.
So, plenty of legitimate questions that deserve the proper democratic scrutiny of the select committee process and a wider public debate. There is absolutely no excuse for National to push this bill through under urgency and deny New Zealanders the right to have their say. This is politics, pure and simple.
National has been working hard to push the idea that its fire at will policy introduces a “probationary period” of employment.
This is not true. The Employment Relations Act already allows for probationary employment periods, it simply requires that workers are given the right to fair process and natural justice.
All National’s proposed legislation would do is remove the right to fair process and natural justice, allowing employers to fire their staff at will during the first 90 days of a new job.
[As an example, the current Stuff.co.nz poll reads "Are you in favour of 90-day probation periods for new employees?" - taken literally even the President of the CTU could vote 'yes' on that one.]
These ads made by the ACTU to oppose John Howard’s removal of unfair dismissal rights sure bring home what National’s fire at will law will mean for working families. No wonder National wants to curtail any real debate by ramming it through under urgency.
I’ve just been informed that the National/ACT Government has put its 90 day fire at will bill on the Order Paper and could ram it through under urgency as early as tomorrow.
This is frankly an astonishing abuse of our democracy. A piece of legislation that will remove basic work rights from hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in any one year is being rammed through Parliament without any discussion or debate.
As Phil Goff points out, this really is an outrageous act of arrogance that bodes very badly for the future of this government, especially given the noise they made when they claimed the EFA and the ETS - two of the most widely debated pieces of legislation in the last term - had been “rushed”.
Let’s hope National has the good sense to pull back from the brink.
Tracy Watkins reports that the National/Act government will be taking all work rights from anyone in a new job in a firm with 20 staff or less and they’re going to do it under urgency.
I’ve heard that the question of whether to proceed with the bill under urgency was still being hotly debated within National’s caucus last night as some senior MPs are worried that the protests it would spark will end their honeymoon and help set a narrative of the National/Act government as hardline right. Something that would mean each step of National’s plan to slowly shift the country right would be viewed through a less than sympathetic lens.
But business needs its payback and if Watkins is right then hundreds of thousands of Kiwis will find themselves with no protections or bargaining power very soon.
As with any erosion of work rights it will be the most vulnerable workers that are hit hardest. Workers in the retail and service sector are already poorly paid and more likely to circulated from job to job. Watch as their wages and conditions fall even further as employers in the sector take full advantage of the fact their new workers have no protections to drive wages down and then watch as the wages of those in more secure employment stagnate as employers take advantage of the leverage they gain from having high unemployment and workers with no rights on tap.
I have no doubt that if National have decided to run the no-rights bill through under urgency that they’ll do so as part of a “recovery package” in the expectation that the media will focus on the big infrastructure spend and whatever else they come up with rather than the removal of rights for a big chunk of Kiwi workers. We’ll see.
During this morning’s Nine to Noon politics segment Matthew Hooton was saying how he thought the Government’s 100-day action plan would only include policies signalled prior to the election when he let slip:
“And I’m sure while there will be some complaints about one measure… er… some measures…”
I wonder what that one unpopular measure could be?
Rumours abound that National is planning to ram its 90 day fire at will policy into law under urgency before Christmas to mollify its increasingly restless business base. Could this be it?
Certainly if you were a new government having to take people’s rights off them you’d want to do it quickly and with as little time for democratic discussion and debate as possible, then hope the Christmas break helps push it down the memory hole.
Personally I think it’s unlikely smart operators like National would risk the potential backlash from such a transparently undemocratic move, but my usually reliable sources suggest otherwise. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
In perhaps the most unsurprising announcement of the year, National has let slip it’s going to maintain its 90 day no rights policy, which basically means your boss can sack you for whatever reason he likes within the first 90 days of your employment.
Don’t be fooled by the spin – there’s already a provision for probationary employment in the law provided there is a fair process. National simply wants to remove the fair process.
They’ve softened it a little – apparently there are going to be some safety mechanisms to “prevent exploitation”, but as usual there’s nothing on their website outlining what this would mean in practice or how a sacked minimum wage worker would enforce their rights.
It’s also been restricted to small businesses with fewer than 20 staff, which are ironically some of the worst employers and where workplace protections are needed the most. This would also apply to seemingly large employers like Subway, whose smaller individual franchisees would be free for example to sack an autistic worker for taking a sip of a free cup of coke. I guess that’s what National means when they talk about ‘giving opportunities to those at the margins of the labour market’.
It must be remembered that while all you hear from National these days is criticisms about how hard it is for average Kiwis to buy cheese and pay for petrol, the one workplace policy they’ve come out with would make it harder for workers to improve their pay.
We tried this path before and for most workers it meant wages failed to keep up with the cost of living because their rights at work had been stripped away from them. The result was our low wage economy, our lagging productivity and the opening up of the 30% wage gap with Australia. I’d be interested to hear why National thinks it would be any different this time.
Word is the Nats are going to release some more workplace relations policy over the next couple of weeks while Parliament is in recess. If the past is anything to go by they’ll be nothing more than bullet points filled with say-nothing words like ‘flexibility’ and ‘choice’. Call me old-fashioned, but I think working people deserve a little better than that.
[Oh and for anyone tempted to whinge about the personal grievance 'gravy train' have a read of this DoL report (PDF). Turns out it's a myth.]
