Labour's "other" policy with significant potential for disruption

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

Forums › Politics › Labour's "other" policy with significant potential for disruption

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869123 20-Sep-2017 11:16

Rikkitic:

It isn't all one-sided. Unfortunately there are numerous small business employers in this country who shamelessly exploit their employees, even to the point of indentured servitude and near-slavery. Yet another prosecution for this was reported on RNZ just the other day. Of course not all employers do this, and not all employees are out to take advantage of the boss. But there is a big power imbalance and proposals like the ones suggested by Labour are an attempt to redress this at least to the extent possible. I am not an employer in this country. I do not know if these ideas are good or not, or practical or not, or fair or not. But they are not designed to make life hard for employers just for the hell of it. They are designed to give employees protection from unscrupulous employers who are not as fair-minded, well-intentioned, unmotivated by greed, honest, and capable as the ones you are describing. Not all employers are good guys.

As someone who has employed staff for 20 years, I can tell you that these policies have a very negative impact on our employment of staff. Where if someone was pretty good, but you weren't 100% sure about them, you might be inclined to give them a chance or someone had a chequered past but was trying to turn things around, now those people significantly less chance. I know that most small businesses I deal with (and I deal with a lot) feel much the same way.

Labour think they are fighting for the "little" guy, but in fact they are hurting the chances. Same with the youth rate. As someone pointed out, if it's a choice between hiring an inexperienced teen or an adult, at the same rate, who will now hire a teen?

There are ratbags in every part of society, but Labour has no idea about small business and what value they hold to the economy. Their policies will not change ratbags, it will just allow the government to punish them more.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869142 20-Sep-2017 11:42

networkn:

Rikkitic:

It isn't all one-sided. Unfortunately there are numerous small business employers in this country who shamelessly exploit their employees, even to the point of indentured servitude and near-slavery. Yet another prosecution for this was reported on RNZ just the other day. Of course not all employers do this, and not all employees are out to take advantage of the boss. But there is a big power imbalance and proposals like the ones suggested by Labour are an attempt to redress this at least to the extent possible. I am not an employer in this country. I do not know if these ideas are good or not, or practical or not, or fair or not. But they are not designed to make life hard for employers just for the hell of it. They are designed to give employees protection from unscrupulous employers who are not as fair-minded, well-intentioned, unmotivated by greed, honest, and capable as the ones you are describing. Not all employers are good guys.

As someone who has employed staff for 20 years, I can tell you that these policies have a very negative impact on our employment of staff. Where if someone was pretty good, but you weren't 100% sure about them, you might be inclined to give them a chance or someone had a chequered past but was trying to turn things around, now those people significantly less chance. I know that most small businesses I deal with (and I deal with a lot) feel much the same way.

Labour think they are fighting for the "little" guy, but in fact they are hurting the chances. Same with the youth rate. As someone pointed out, if it's a choice between hiring an inexperienced teen or an adult, at the same rate, who will now hire a teen?

There are ratbags in every part of society, but Labour has no idea about small business and what value they hold to the economy. Their policies will not change ratbags, it will just allow the government to punish them more.

Good points. If Labour wants to be relevant every election instead of the change cycle/time for a change, there needs to be more balance between employers and employees. I work for a large company, so Im not aware of the mismatches that currently exists or might under a union focussed Govt, there are probbaly chnages both parties can make, but the last thing we want is a union vs employer battleground

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1869147 20-Sep-2017 11:45

networkn:

What Labour continues to misunderstand, mostly because no-one who is a Labour MP has ever run a business or had responsibility for staff, is that as a business owner, staff are your biggest asset. If a staff member is good, you will do everything you can to keep them. Equally, if it's required to remove someone from your business, the costs are already significant.

I read this the other day. An interesting comparison of "front bench" experience in the Private Sector.

Labour:

Jacinda Ardern – nil private sector experience. Worked in Parliament, UK Government and a US union. Did once demonstrate cookware at Farmers though.
Kelvin Davis – nil private sector experience. Worked as a teacher or for Ministry of Education.
Andrew Little – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then unions.
Grant Robertson – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then MFAT and Otago University
Phil Twyford – worked as a journalist for the Auckland Star and a promoter for Book Month so the first Labour MP to have some private sector experience. Otherwise worked for Oxfam, including as a lobbyist in DC for them.
Megan Woods – has been a copywriter for a private business, and did business development for a CRI.
Chris Hipkins – nil private sector experience – student politics, an Industry Training Organisation (Govt funded) and Parliament
Carmel Sepuloni – nil private sector experience – teaching, NGOs and university
David Clark – nil private sector experience – Treasury, church and Selwyn College

National:

Bill English – farming when young (but on family farm, not his own)
Paula Bennett – worked as a recruitment consultant
Steven Joyce – set up his own company when almost a teenager and turned it into Mediaworks
Gerry Brownlee – carpenter
Simon Bridges – lawyer
Amy Adams – farmer and lawyer
Jonathan Coleman – General Practitioner and business consultant
Chris FInlayson – lawyer
Michael Woodhouse – private hospitals CEO

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869149 20-Sep-2017 11:45

In my opinion, small businesses have always been treated like dirt by Labour. To the, we are all people who rip innocent perfectly behaved employees off for our own greedy purposes. To vote Labour they would need to demonstrate that they have moved away from that mindset, something as long as they are 50% controlled by Unions, I don't ever see.

The changes Labour have said they will implement will be a disaster IMO.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869153 20-Sep-2017 11:47

6FIEND:

Jacinda Ardern – nil private sector experience. Worked in Parliament, UK Government and a US union. Did once demonstrate cookware at Farmers though.
Kelvin Davis – nil private sector experience. Worked as a teacher or for Ministry of Education.
Andrew Little – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then unions.
Grant Robertson – nil private sector experience. Worked in student politics then MFAT and Otago University
Phil Twyford – worked as a journalist for the Auckland Star and a promoter for Book Month so the first Labour MP to have some private sector experience. Otherwise worked for Oxfam, including as a lobbyist in DC for them.
Megan Woods – has been a copywriter for a private business, and did business development for a CRI.
Chris Hipkins – nil private sector experience – student politics, an Industry Training Organisation (Govt funded) and Parliament
Carmel Sepuloni – nil private sector experience – teaching, NGOs and university
David Clark – nil private sector experience – Treasury, church and Selwyn College

This scares the snot out of me.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869226 20-Sep-2017 12:00

If you vote labour, you are also voting for the Unions as they have a huge say in what labour does.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869227 20-Sep-2017 12:02

Pumpedd:

If you vote labour, you are also voting for the Unions as they have a huge say in what labour does.

The *only* policy that Labour has I like, is the one that puts Rail between AKL CBD and Airport, something that should have been done 10 Years ago!

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1869270 20-Sep-2017 12:26

The rail to the airport was proposed by a councillor 30-40 years ago but shot down, I can't recall the specific details (it might even be older than that, I remember my father telling me about it years ago).

Its interesting that those that argue most for protection against employers have (mostly) never actually had the responsibility of employing people themselves. Its very easy to look over the fence and think that employers have got it easy and that they are out there to screw over their staff, but for the bulk of employers, that just isn't the case.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869290 20-Sep-2017 12:32

sen8or:

Its interesting that those that argue most for protection against employers have (mostly) never actually had the responsibility of employing people themselves. Its very easy to look over the fence and think that employers have got it easy and that they are out there to screw over their staff, but for the bulk of employers, that just isn't the case.

No it isn't, but you keep hearing these horror stories about bad ones.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869298 20-Sep-2017 12:40

Rikkitic:

sen8or:

Its interesting that those that argue most for protection against employers have (mostly) never actually had the responsibility of employing people themselves. Its very easy to look over the fence and think that employers have got it easy and that they are out there to screw over their staff, but for the bulk of employers, that just isn't the case.

No it isn't, but you keep hearing these horror stories about bad ones.

Let me ask a question. How many have YOU personally read about in the past 12 months? Without googling, guess how many small businesses there are in NZ?

What you don't hear about, but I'd suggest is significantly more common, is the number of employees that steal, or do majorly problematic things, that a small business often ends up just wearing because the recourse is so much harder the other way. Even laying charges for criminal behaviour is pretty difficult.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869340 20-Sep-2017 13:18

OK, without checking, I think I have probably seen at least three or four stories within the past year, possibly more, about rogue employers forcing employees to accept inhumane conditions and cheating on tax obligations. Over the same period I have probably seen a similar number of stories about employees defrauding their employers, though these were mostly civil servants who abused positions of trust.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869345 20-Sep-2017 13:29

Rikkitic:

OK, without checking, I think I have probably seen at least three or four stories within the past year, possibly more, about rogue employers forcing employees to accept inhumane conditions and cheating on tax obligations. Over the same period I have probably seen a similar number of stories about employees defrauding their employers, though these were mostly civil servants who abused positions of trust.

OK. 4 from how many small businesses that operate in NZ? How many times are we going to entirely change the way a business runs to "protect" employees, when clearly, given prosections are occuring, they already have protection?

Even if you say 10x that many small businesses are treating staff unfairly, it's still a TINY percentage.

Now, how many potential employees will not be employed as direct result of changes Labour intends to make ? Does it seem sensible based on that reasoning?

Even if you aren't an employer, you should be able to see the logic.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1869352 20-Sep-2017 13:35

Rikkitic:

OK, without checking, I think I have probably seen at least three or four stories within the past year, possibly more, about rogue employers forcing employees to accept inhumane conditions and cheating on tax obligations. Over the same period I have probably seen a similar number of stories about employees defrauding their employers, though these were mostly civil servants who abused positions of trust.

OK - first up: I cheated and used Google.

More importantly... I discovered that there are over 150,000 businesses in NZ that employ at least one person.

If we boost your 3-4 examples to 15 (because maths) that would make it 0.01% of businesses exploiting their employees.

Labour's argument seems to be that it makes sense for Government to impose stricter labour laws on the 99.99% of businesses that are not reported as being exploitative because of the 0.01%. (And double the number of Labour Inspectors at the same time)

EDIT: @networkn Snap!

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1869361 20-Sep-2017 13:45

Labours whole approach is to bolster the strength of the unions, get them back into more boardrooms fighting for the rights of workers. their fears have little to do with "employees loss of power" but more to do with unions loss of power. If you say that it is ok for employees to negotiate direct with their employers, you are saying that they aren't needed.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18662 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869378 20-Sep-2017 13:58

I am not defending Labour's position on this. I don't know enough. I don't know if the proposals are fair or even-handed. I do know that one-size-fits-all requirements centrally imposed by government are often ham-fisted and overbearing. Maybe this is a bad idea. I can't say. I would rather see something, if at all possible, that took more account of individual situations and circumstances.

I guess the real problem I have is that some people, specifically @networkn, seem to have decided they can't bear the thought of a Labour government under any circumstances, and are cherry-picking things to make the prospect of one look as disastrous as possible. I tend to feel the same way about a National government. I really, really don't want three more years of the same. National has been repeatedly caught out in lies and scandals. They are trying to blatantly buy the election. In terms of health, social welfare, housing, pollution and other issues important to all but those shielded from reality by wealth, the nine years of National government have been catastrophic for the well-being of New Zealand. I don't want more of that. I hope Labour wins. If they do, I hope their policies will be moderated as necessary to bring the most benefit to the most people. They have already shown a willingness to change their minds (yes, they are just cynically trying to maximise votes, etc. etc. - we have heard it before).

If National wins, I hope the effect of the election will be to moderate some of their more destructive policies. That would also be a win for New Zealand.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6