Tag Archive for '90 day policy'

A journal for the ruling class

Published
by
Tane
on December 4, 2008
in media and workers' rights
. 74 Comments

The Herald continues its campaigning today with a puff piece about a poll that claims business wants National’s 90 day ‘fire at will‘ policy enacted as soon as possible.

The policy would remove the right of any worker in a small business to appeal against unfair dismissal during their first 90 days in a new job. But apparently the Herald didn’t think workers - you know, us, the people whose rights are being taken away - were worth talking to.

Instead, they quoted National’s employment spokesperson Kate Wilkinson - “It certainly reinforces the need for a commonsense policy like this” - and Ben Ridler, the managing director of something called the ‘Results Group’ - “It only takes a couple of bad hires to kill a small business, so this flexibility is urgent.”

The Herald acts like it’s a journal for the ruling class, then they wonder why people aren’t buying their newspapers.

Reaction roundup: Nats’ work rights policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 25, 2008
in national, wages and workers' rights
. 39 Comments

Democratic, voluntary organisations of workers:
Finsec: “Within the current framework, many workers have been able to achieve real wage increases like the 5% increase from Westpac our members have been offered this week…These pay rises have come as a result of staff being able to bargain collectively through their own independent union. National’s policies undermining collective bargaining would weaken the ability of workers to achieve real wage rises”

CTU: “National’s policy does not mention how they will lift wages, suggests workers could lose the fourth week of annual leave and have pay for statutory holidays cut, and reduces the democratic right of workers to belong to unions. This is consistent with them opposing all legislation that has improved workers lives over the last 9 years.”

EPMU: “The policy aims to take rights from workers in a new job, undermine collective bargaining, block workers accessing representation on site and undermine annual leave provisions and holiday pay rates…National’s policy shows it has no plans to lift wages in New Zealand. Every point in this policy is an attack on current work rights and every point would put downward pressure on the wages of working New Zealanders.”

NDU: “This policy will keep wages down in the rapidly growing service industries where unionisation and collective bargaining is just starting to recover and deliver improvements for some of the lowest paid workers in the country.”

NZEI: “the pay gap is the problem; strengthening people’s ability to collectively bargain is the answer. What in National’s policy is going to strengthen collective bargaining?”

PSA: “John Key says nothing about how National will lift wages as workers face rising fuel and food prices”

Voluntary organisation of employers:
Business NZ: “We have had quite a few pendulum swings in employment policy over the last twenty years. A period of restraint and consolidation along with enhancement of basic rights is likely to be beneficial”

Between the lines: Nats’ work rights policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 24, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 80 Comments

You know you’re in for a treat when a political party’s ‘policy’ (I still refuse to consider half a dozen bullet points a policy) concerning the rights of New Zealanders at work – the place most of us spend a good part of our days – nearly avoids any mention of the word ‘rights’. On its surface, National’s ‘workplace’ policy seems fairly mild (bullet points help in that regard) but, when you look at what it actually means in practise it’s classic National: anti-worker, anti-rights, anti-wage rises. The difference between this policy and Brash’s extreme 2005 policy is one of tone, not substance.

Introduce a 90-day trial period for new employees by agreement between the employer and the employee, for businesses with fewer than 20 staff.

We’ve discussed the 90 Day No Rights policy already (1,2). It’s a mandate for bad bosses to stand over vulnerable workers. Workers will be able to be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, refusing to do unpaid overtime, joining a union, or any of a limitless list of ‘reasons’. Bad bosses will be able to keep the threat of instant dismissal over new workers at all times.

Continue to allow union access to workplaces with the employer’s consent. • Restore workers’ rights to bargain collectively without having to belong to a union.

Unions currently have the right to reasonably access workplaces to talk to members and to recruit. This policy means National would allow employers to bar the union from the workplace. Non-union collective bargaining is when a ‘bargaining agent’ (often the boss or paid by the boss) draws up a collective contract between workers and the boss. The boss refuses to deal with the workers’ union because there’s already a collective contract; workers can accept the collective offered or get nothing. These moves are designed to undermine collective bargaining and, thereby, weaken workers’ power to win better pay and conditions.

Retain the Mediation Service but ensure it is properly resourced with properly qualified mediators. • Require the Employment Relations Authority to act judicially in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, and the right to cross-examine before an impartial referee. • Allow injunctions and important questions of law to be heard in the first instance in the Employment Court. • Allow a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The mediators in the Mediation service are already properly qualified, unless by ‘properly qualified’ National means ‘pro-employer’. The other changes seem designed to make the system more litigious and expensive, putting roadblocks in the way of workers being able to enforce their remaining work rights.

Keep four weeks annual leave, but allow employees to request trade of the fourth week for cash.

If you believe that the choice will genuinely be in workers’ hands, I have some magic beans you might be interested in buying.

Appoint a working party to review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of relevant daily pay.

Labour introduced relevant daily pay to make sure a worker’s leave pay equalled her average daily pay because many waged workers earn a large part of their pay through regular overtime but were previously only paid their ordinary time wages when they were sick or on holiday. National wants to reverse this.

Sometimes what is missing is just as revealing as what’s there: There’s no mention of ACC, paid parental leave, minimum wage increases, Kiwisaver, meal breaks, time and a half on public holidays, and so on. And despite all the rhetoric we’ve heard over the last year, absolutely no mention of how National would lift wages.

UPDATE: Jafapete has some good analysis here and Rogernome likewise here.

Previewing the Nats’ work rights policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 17, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 25 Comments

The biggest protests during this term of Parliament were against National’s 90 Day Bill when it came up as a private members’ bill. In protests all over the country, over ten thousand workers turned out to oppose having their rights stripped.

The Bill was defeated but National has not given up. National has signalled that the 90 Day No Rights policy will form the centre-piece of its work rights policy, which is due out this week or next. The Herald editorial welcomed the policy and suggests it may be just the start of anti-worker policy from National: “National’s plans for 90 days’ probationary employment are also a taste of a larger likely project… The change would be less significant than what it may signal for employment law generally. Employers have been loaded with so many extra costs, restrictions and obligations”. The costs, restrictions and obligations The Herald is talking about are four weeks annual leave, maternity leave, higher minimum wage, flexible work hours, and Kiwisaver. Will we see policies against these work rights from National?

Yes and no. National’s 2005 policy of ‘allowing’ workers to sell their fourth week of annual leave will be back (don’t kid yourselves, many workers will be forced to give up their fourth week) as will limiting union access to worksites so workers’ can’t organise to fight for wage rises and better conditions and privatising the ACC scheme but don’t expect much more. National can only go public with so much of its anti-worker policy before the election - enough to signal to allies like The Herald and Business NZ that National will keep workers in line but not enough to alert workers to the threat and lose their votes.

Rest assured, there will be plenty more anti-worker policy if they win power. Little pinprick policies that undermine rights and wages. After all, Key “would love to see wages drop” and that’s as simple as not raising the minimum wage and letting inflation do the rest, like they did last time.

90 Day No Rights policy, why?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 15, 2008
in national and workers' rights
. 135 Comments

Why does National want to remove the right of workers to appeal against unjustifiable dismissal in the first 90 days of employment?

The reason National gives us is that workers having the right to sue for unjustified dismissal has a chilling effect on small businesses. Supposedly, they are afraid to hire workers because if they find they want to get rid of the worker they will have to go through a proper process and have a justifiable reason for dismissal. Employers avoid this risk by not hiring people. And that, we’re told, leads to less employment than would otherwise be the case.

First, employment is at record levels and the cry from employers is always ‘we want more workers’ not ‘I’m scared to hire people’. There is no evidence that the right to fair process and justified dismissal dissuades employers from hiring. The policy would not increase employment.

Secondly, a study shows there are 1.5 employment related problems per 100 workers a year in the private sector (2.9 for small businesses). The median cost was $5000 ($3,900 for small businesses). Of these ERPs, most were handled quickly and cheaply by agreements between the employer and the employee; only 5% went on to become personal grievance cases. Only 10% of disputes involved employees who had been employed for less than 3 months.

Personal disputes are rare, in most cases the employee is found to have a good claim and gets a settlement, the payouts are small, and very few involve employees employed for less than 3 months. Workers’ rights are not overly burdensome on employers and when they are used employers are usually in the wrong. Removing these rights would only give free rein to the few bad employers to threaten any workers who don’t ‘behave’ (eg work unpaid overtime, work in unsafe conditions, not join the union) with instant dismissal. Do we really want to reform the law to advantage bad employers?

National might believe its policy is good for employment and reduces a heavy burden on employers but it doesn’t. All it does is give power to coerce workers with the threat of dismissal, which some bad employers will exploit. The law ain’t broke, and that’s no reason to fix it.