Thursday, March 16, 2006

Being Wrong

I was quite excited when the Maori party was formed - not in the sense that anything positive would result from it. But I thought any step away from Labour is a good thing right?

Not so much.

It takes quite a lot of effort to be worse than Labour - you have to try with both hands. But last night the Maori party voted to send Wayne Mapp's private members bill to the select committee. This bill would enable an employer to fire an employee for any reason they liked during the first 90 days of employment.

UPDATE: Three Maori party members voted for the bill, one voted against it. The one who voted against it was Hone Harawira.

8 comments:

  1. Graham Watson2:26 pm

    When/if you become an employer you will see the sense in this. Sometimes people hired do not work out for some reason, why should a private individual who has risked and created a job be forced to retain them?

    The public service may be a different case, maybe not.

    This is a very sensible law and I'm waiting for the EPMU to come out and endorse it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They're not forced to retain them. A bad employee can be let go, whether they're new or have been there for years. If there is serious misconduct, then they can be instantly dismissed. If they're just not performing at the right level, you give them a fair chance to measure up, then let them go. You can even agree to a probationary period under current law.

    What this bill does is allow employers to sack people arbitrarily, rather than having to follow a fair process. When you're talking about a person's livelihood, I don't think arbitrariness is something we need more of.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah yes, yet another reason to be disappointed with and depressed by the Maori party...

    PS Hope you are well :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Back a quarter of a century or so, when I was a lazy munter who had difficulty turning up for work even when it was providing my urgently-required drinking money, I could definitely see the point of protecting the "right to work", because employers that took me on quickly recognised they hadn't made a particularly wise decision. Having the govt force them to keep handing over a paycheque seemed like a good idea. And of course, now that I'm in the position of having to hire people and be responsible for seeing that they actually turn up and get some work done, the prospect of mistakenly hiring someone like my earlier self is profoundly horrifying. All depends on your perspective - 1980 me says "protect the right to work", 2006 me says "protect the right not to hand paycheques over to lazy munters". Parliament, in its infinite collective wisdom, will decide I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  5. An employment relationship is like having a boyfriend Maia. Before you get settled and serious you want to try him out first, go on a few dates. You can't always tell how things are going to go from first appearances.

    The first time you interview a guy he might put on the charm and have good references. But after a while you might hear otherwise and might see for yourself that this guy's a womaniser and proto-rapist who just wont do. How'd you like to be forced to stick with your new boyfriend for 90 days?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:14 am

    Silly analogy rick - you can fire people who are incompetent, just as you can break up with a crap boyfriend. However unlike with dumping someone, there is a process you need to go through to avoid legal liability. It is not impossible to fire people in this country, I wish people would stop spreading this falsehood.
    http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2006/01/union-myths-4-unions-just-protect.html

    span

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes Rick because I'm a girl the only way that I can understand employment is if you compare it to dating.

    I don't want you posting on my blog any more. I'm sick of your sexist crap. Please go somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suggest the issue with employment law is that the employee is considered to be running close to the bone than the company is. this may not always be true but in most cases it probably is.
    this means that if the relationship breaks up and there are costs (in a sense mutually created losses, unless there is some legal breach etc) it will do less harm to attribute those costs to the one most able to bear them. for example if an employee had very little money getting fired might make him have to sell his house or whatever (probably at a "loss") the company, on the other hand, is likely to just absorb the loss (in MOST cases).

    ReplyDelete