Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1981648 22-Mar-2018 16:40

On a very serious note:

Submissions close on the employment relations amendment bill at the end of the month. this could be the single worst move by this government for their whole term IMOP. my key concerns are (aside from increased power for the unions in general):

Obligation to continue to pay employee’s during partial strikes (for the time they spend striking)
Obligation to conclude bargaining coupled with the employer’s right to opt-out being removed, therefore, the unions name the price, tell you you have a legal obligation to conclude bargaining, so like it or lump it.
Obligation for an employee to provide information about a union to new employees - essentially encourage them to join.
Option for an employee of a contractor to elect to transfer to employment under a new contractor at their discretion if the contract ends or is terminated for the original contractor if the work performed is similar. the example in the act is:

An airport operator enters into an agreement with an independent contractor to
provide food catering services at the airport.
Some time later, the agreement under which the independent contractor provides
those services expires or is terminated.
The airport operator then enters into an agreement with a second independent
contractor to provide food catering services at the airport.
Employees of the first independent contractor to whom section 69F applies may
elect to transfer to the second independent contractor.

Essentially as an employer, if you win a new contract, you could be lumped with a random bunch of employees who elect to transfer and remain in the same 'job'. I don't know that there are any opt-outs for the new employer. So if the employee is lazy, slovenly, unreliable, ineffective or for whatever reason not the ideal candidate for the job, you are still obligated to take them on.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981650 22-Mar-2018 16:46

Labours policies on employment honestly scare the living daylights (it's much much worse than that but FUG prevents an honest assessment) out of me.

I'd *love* to know if JA believes these are sensible policies (herself not as a Labour leader).

1, 2 and 4 are horrible. 3 seems reasonable to me. So long as it's done impartially.

I am massively grateful that Labour left the National 90 day trial period intact as it was before, for companies under 20 people. I feel sorry for those 20>200 though.

Still waiting for Labour to deliver on it's promise that it will handle employment disputes differently and cap compensation (Though I don't think they haven't said how much, could be $1m!).

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#1981679 22-Mar-2018 18:48

gzt:
Pumpedd:
and the topic is Jacinda Ardern.....

and now?

networkn:
This should really be re topiced as general Labour Government discussion.

On that basis it's been more or less off topic since the beginning. Also add anything remotely connected to the entire government of NZ including the previous one. This topic has been a total train wreck much of the time.

Most of the policy issues being raised deserve their own topic. They are all going to last the term of the government.

The labour camp topic created was a good example of a focused discussion for the most part.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981712 22-Mar-2018 20:12

rjt123:
Geektastic:
MikeAqua:

An overnight train service doesn't appeal to me. Compared to a 1 hour flight. Usually Wellington CBD to Auckland CBD (bus, plane taxi) was under three hours - before the tunnel.

The train would be so much more civilised.

It sounds quite idyllic. Catching glimpses of the setting sun while meandering through the natives forests and rugged mountainous interior of new Zealand.

Though in reality I'd anticipate a narrow and uncomfortable bed in a smelly, cramped cabin. The ever present rattle and thudding of the train making sleep an impossibility. If that's civilization you're welcome to it, I'm happy to travel cattle class on a rowdy q300 for 45 minutes.

Not at all. Sleepers are wonderful. Last year I went Bangkok to Chiang Mai and it was very pleasant.

Of course I went First Class ($50). I'm not talking about sharing some grubby couchette with garlic eating Frenchmen or anything you understand. More Orient Express.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1982899 25-Mar-2018 16:46

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12019850

I predicted this would be the case in the first few pages of this thread. People just aren't taking her seriously.

Right or wrong as it might be, it's still NZ's loss.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#1982999 25-Mar-2018 19:09

rjt123:

Essentially as an employer, if you win a new contract, you could be lumped with a random bunch of employees who elect to transfer and remain in the same 'job'. I don't know that there are any opt-outs for the new employer. So if the employee is lazy, slovenly, unreliable, ineffective or for whatever reason not the ideal candidate for the job, you are still obligated to take them on.

Essentially as an employee you could have some random kind of employer foisted on you. All you were doing was turning up day after day and working hard at a menial job for what is probably barely enough to feed your family and pay the rent.

There's already enough mechanisms in employment law to get a pound of flesh out of your workers.

i was interested to hear @networkn breathe a sigh of relief about the 90 day rule. In lieu of statistics about the invocations of this rule I have an anecdote from my friend who is HR boss of a SME. The firm has many professionals but because they have a policy of paying low they have many at the start of their careers (read millennials).

They simple behave themselves for 90 days after which true colours are shown and the work of performance management etc. begins.

The 90 day rule is useless for her.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the worker. They are, after all, the people who actually 'do' everything in the economy.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1983000 25-Mar-2018 19:22

elpenguino:

Essentially as an employee you could have some random kind of employer foisted on you. All you were doing was turning up day after day and working hard at a menial job for what is probably barely enough to feed your family and pay the rent.

There's already enough mechanisms in employment law to get a pound of flesh out of your workers.

i was interested to hear @networkn breathe a sigh of relief about the 90 day rule. In lieu of statistics about the invocations of this rule I have an anecdote from my friend who is HR boss of a SME. The firm has many professionals but because they have a policy of paying low they have many at the start of their careers (read millennials).

They simple behave themselves for 90 days after which true colours are shown and the work of performance management etc. begins.

The 90 day rule is useless for her.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the worker. They are, after all, the people who actually 'do' everything in the economy.

Pay peanuts ..... attract monkeys! I have no sympathy for your friends firm.

I'm old school and was brought up in an environment that the workplace was a two way street. Both parties had an obligation to each other, invariably long term. I believe I am seen as a good employer and am rewarded with a good (but small) hardworking and well paid workforce ..... hence my preference to employ older people with like minded values.

EDIT: And I do not fully agree with your final comment.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#1983047 25-Mar-2018 21:14

DaveB:

elpenguino:

Essentially as an employee you could have some random kind of employer foisted on you. All you were doing was turning up day after day and working hard at a menial job for what is probably barely enough to feed your family and pay the rent.

There's already enough mechanisms in employment law to get a pound of flesh out of your workers.

i was interested to hear @networkn breathe a sigh of relief about the 90 day rule. In lieu of statistics about the invocations of this rule I have an anecdote from my friend who is HR boss of a SME. The firm has many professionals but because they have a policy of paying low they have many at the start of their careers (read millennials).

They simple behave themselves for 90 days after which true colours are shown and the work of performance management etc. begins.

The 90 day rule is useless for her.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the worker. They are, after all, the people who actually 'do' everything in the economy.

Pay peanuts ..... attract monkeys! I have no sympathy for your friends firm.

I'm old school and was brought up in an environment that the workplace was a two way street. Both parties had an obligation to each other, invariably long term. I believe I am seen as a good employer and am rewarded with a good (but small) hardworking and well paid workforce ..... hence my preference to employ older people with like minded values.

EDIT: And I do not fully agree with your final comment.

I don't have much sympathy for her firm either. They employ talented youngsters with huge student debts but the starting pay in that profession is very low. Those youngsters are getting a start but not too much more.

You sound like a reasonable employer ( is it is your firm ?) but remember workers at places run as contracts are probably going to be working for larger companies, multinational in some cases. Those firms are run by accountants, not humans ;-)

You disagree with my last statement? Who does all the work in your firm?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1983067 25-Mar-2018 22:12

"work" per se is not just physical exertion. A team without a leader is generally low performing compared to a team without a leader.

Furthermore, the owner of a business (especially a sme) is an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is risk-taking to pursue/develop an opportunity. An employer doesn't take much risk in coming to work every day, an entrepreneur does. Typically the have risked their whole livelihood on the enterprise. That they should therefore have the basic choice of who works for them is not actually unreasonable.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1983070 25-Mar-2018 22:20

elpenguino:
Essentially as an employee you could have some random kind of employer foisted on you. All you were doing was turning up day after day and working hard at a menial job for what is probably barely enough to feed your family and pay the rent.

There's already enough mechanisms in employment law to get a pound of flesh out of your workers.

Actually no. An employee gets to choose where they work. If they don't like it they can leave. The example above was about a worker employwd to work for a contractor, being able to switch to a new employer who takes up the new contract. No obligation to stay in any job or under any manager if they don't like it. Not the same for an employer, the current law actually gives very good protection to the worker, they can't be packed for no good reason.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983073 25-Mar-2018 22:24

elpenguino:

You sound like a reasonable employer ( is it is your firm ?) but remember workers at places run as contracts are probably going to be working for larger companies, multinational in some cases. Those firms are run by accountants, not humans ;-)

You disagree with my last statement? Who does all the work in your firm?

I am wondering if you are an employer or have ever been or run a business?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983083 25-Mar-2018 22:32

elpenguino:

They simple behave themselves for 90 days after which true colours are shown and the work of performance management etc. begins.

The 90 day rule is useless for her.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the worker. They are, after all, the people who actually 'do' everything in the economy.

It's harder to get rid of people after 90 days, and I have only invoked it. In my business, it takes significantly longer than 90 days to properly assess someone but there are warning signs.

I have found regular meetings and discussions around work ons and encouragement for good work is an excellent way forward, but the 90 days (which works both ways) is a way to get rid of blatantly unsuitable people

Managing people out of a business is about the process. You can get rid of people for almost any reason (within reason) so long as you follow the process.

Contrary to popular belief, most employers most valuable asset is their staff. If a staff member is working well there is no way you are going to let them go or deliberately mistreat them. It's hard to find good people. There are ratbag employees and employers.

Your last comment doesn't surprise me but I think it's dead wrong.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#1983230 26-Mar-2018 10:35

rjt123:
elpenguino:

Essentially as an employee you could have some random kind of employer foisted on you. All you were doing was turning up day after day and working hard at a menial job for what is probably barely enough to feed your family and pay the rent.

There's already enough mechanisms in employment law to get a pound of flesh out of your workers.

Actually no. An employee gets to choose where they work. If they don't like it they can leave.

In theory that's true.

Unfortunately the low skilled low paid people who are normally subject to these kinds of travails don't have great work place mobility.

Why is it so unacceptable to offer them a bit of long term stability?

Don't answer that, I'm sure reasons to discard them would be offered.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983282 26-Mar-2018 10:40

elpenguino:

In theory that's true.

Unfortunately the low skilled low paid people who are normally subject to these kinds of travails don't have great work place mobility.

Why is it so unacceptable to offer them a bit of long term stability?

Don't answer that, I'm sure reasons to discard them would be offered.

So in your view there is no good reason for this? How open minded of you.

You seem to have a hell of a chip on your shoulder with your one eyed view of employment in NZ.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#1983284 26-Mar-2018 10:41

networkn:

elpenguino:

They simple behave themselves for 90 days after which true colours are shown and the work of performance management etc. begins.

The 90 day rule is useless for her.

It's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the worker. They are, after all, the people who actually 'do' everything in the economy.

It's harder to get rid of people after 90 days, and I have only invoked it. In my business, it takes significantly longer than 90 days to properly assess someone but there are warning signs.

I have found regular meetings and discussions around work ons and encouragement for good work is an excellent way forward, but the 90 days (which works both ways) is a way to get rid of blatantly unsuitable people

Managing people out of a business is about the process. You can get rid of people for almost any reason (within reason) so long as you follow the process.

Contrary to popular belief, most employers most valuable asset is their staff. If a staff member is working well there is no way you are going to let them go or deliberately mistreat them. It's hard to find good people. There are ratbag employees and employers.

Your last comment doesn't surprise me but I think it's dead wrong.

You seem to have missed out telling us how many times you dropped people during 90 day trial periods.

Imagine what an employer would have to do if there was no 90 day trial period. The employer would have to be thorough and professional with their recruiting interviewing processes. I know of one business who doesn't invoke the 90 day trial with their employees and a manager told me they feel confident their processes are good enough to not need to.

Using the 90 day rule is not the best start to an employment relationship - " welcome about :-) (but I'll be watching you )".

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | ... | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | ... | 268