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

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869777 20-Sep-2017 20:38

Rikkitic:

And in the meantime we will have a government built on lies for the next three years. I just can't see that as a good thing for this country.

Let me refresh your memory. You saw ex Greens leader Metiria Turei as a GOOD thing for this country, then still went on and voted for the Greens.

I can't wait for this election to end, will just love to see that smirk wiped off James Shaw's face when they don't get their required 5%.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869783 20-Sep-2017 20:40

I just watched the last leaders' debate on TV1. I have already voted, of course, but I can't say I saw anything that would make me change my mind. I think Bill English is still twisting the facts to suit his case, and I think he is not being straight, but others may see that differently. I guess we will know on Saturday what people think.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1869791 20-Sep-2017 20:43

Reciprocity: @nunz Unless I'm mistaken, the taxpayer foots the bill for the 26 was parental leave, not the employer...
And it's not paid at the level that the parent was earning - it works out to less than minimum wage if you calculate it at 40hrs per week.

That is even worse. Thanks for clearing that up.

Labour is really dipping deep into the taxpayers bottemless pockets it seems. I bet everybody is going to run off and get pregnant then. What an excellent policy from labour, we will see another baby boom. Taxpayers forking out to pay moms to stay at home with baby. What a great intensive to have kids, and kids, and more kids......

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869793 20-Sep-2017 20:46

Reciprocity: @nunz Unless I'm mistaken, the taxpayer foots the bill for the 26 was parental leave, not the employer...
And it's not paid at the level that the parent was earning - it works out to less than minimum wage if you calculate it at 40hrs per week.

This is correct.

Oldmanakbar

110 posts

Master Geek

#1869794 20-Sep-2017 20:46

nunz:
As an employer this is the bit that scares me: 26 weeks paid parental leave.

I couldn't afford to employ a woman if I had to pay 26 weeks parental leave, as well as the cost of someone to cover her position. Or have i read that wrong?

As an employer I instituted 4 weeks leave well before it was a legal requirement, we have unlimited wellness policy (e.g as much sick leave as required, not the statutory 5 -10 days), 10% of work time as paid learning, paid well above the minimium, provisions for unpaid leave for parents during school holidays etc - so my comment above is not because I am a tight butt - it is just a really scary thought if employing women that i might face substantial overheads vis a vis parental leave.

As someone else pointed out already, it is government funded.

All Labour is doing to this policy is increase it from 18 to 26 weeks, nothing else. The policy and how it is paid for already exists.

http://www.labour.org.nz/paidparentalleave

https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/parental-leave/parental-leave-payment/

Not hard to find the info.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869796 20-Sep-2017 20:54

Oldmanakbar: Not hard to find the info.

Not hard for anyone who cares about the actual facts. Only for those who want to twist it to serve their own agenda.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Oldmanakbar

110 posts

Master Geek

#1869802 20-Sep-2017 21:08

Rikkitic:
Oldmanakbar: Not hard to find the info.

Not hard for anyone who cares about the actual facts. Only for those who want to twist it to serve their own agenda.

There seems to be an awful lot of people taking a sound byte or comment made by a random person as gospel. For some people once something is in their head as a truth it stays that. That goes for both sides I suppose.

On that note

I was actually still on the fence till this last debate to be honest. I do lean left, but I also know when someone cannot do the job. I voted right last election, because there was no viable option on the left in my opinion.

I was having a conversation over lunch today with someone how National getting back in power wouldn't be as bad as some staunch red team supporters would have you believe, as they have seen the traction Labour got and modified their policies to be a bit more what people wanted. Maybe a more touchy feely National would be a good thing, experience plus new direction, etc etc.

Changed my opinion tonight.

Watching Bill English just blatantly say one thing when everyone under the sun has proven it to be otherwise (the fiscal black hole) over and over again....man. The other two looked at him like he had grown two heads, and I agree with them. Let it go, build a snowman Bill.

He knows he is wrong, he knows its fabricated and yet he still has to go on about it? God that irritated me.

Still haven't 100% made up my mind who it will be , but it definitely is not him.

Quic Broadband

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

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1869819 20-Sep-2017 21:27

Oldmanakbar:
Rikkitic:

Oldmanakbar: Not hard to find the info.

Not hard for anyone who cares about the actual facts. Only for those who want to twist it to serve their own agenda.

There seems to be an awful lot of people taking a sound byte or comment made by a random person as gospel. For some people once something is in their head as a truth it stays that. That goes for both sides I suppose. On that note I was actually still on the fence till this last debate to be honest. I do lean left, but I also know when someone cannot do the job. I voted right last election, because there was no viable option on the left in my opinion. I was having a conversation over lunch today with someone how National getting back in power wouldn't be as bad as some staunch red team supporters would have you believe, as they have seen the traction Labour got and modified their policies to be a bit more what people wanted. Maybe a more touchy feely National would be a good thing, experience plus new direction, etc etc. Changed my opinion tonight. Watching Bill English just blatantly say one thing when everyone under the sun has proven it to be otherwise (the fiscal black hole) over and over again....man. The other two looked at him like he had grown two heads, and I agree with them. Let it go, build a snowman Bill. He knows he is wrong, he knows its fabricated and yet he still has to go on about it? God that irritated me. Still haven't 100% made up my mind who it will be , but it definitely is not him.

I agree with your comments but democracy will prevail on Saturday and I know many of us will accept that whatever party wins we will move on. I feel that some of our commentators on this forum will not accept a change and will continue to look for holes if Labour win. I just hope they grow up and look at the issues. I am sure I would have a hard time looking my children in eye if I had lied like some of our politicians do.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869924 21-Sep-2017 08:26

networkn:

It's a nightmare for a small business under a Labour Government. The repealing of the 90 day thing is especially difficult. Apparently they are going to replace it with a fast simple system, which I imagine will be something like:

If you employ someone, no matter how unsuitable they are for the position, what they do or don't do, how they behave, you will need to pay them a years salary to get rid of them.

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.

As an employer, do you really need 90 days to determine if an employee is suitable? This is a genuine question. I have never been en employer but I would think that if someone was not up to the job or had hidden character flaws, that would become fairly obvious within a month. How important is the 90 days, really?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1869940 21-Sep-2017 08:52

So you are arguing for an even shorter trial period?

It depends entirely on the nature of a job. A person working the tills / customer service type roles will usually show if they are right for the job or not well inside the 90 day period, but other jobs (particularly in large teams) it can be easy for characteristics or lack of ability not to be evident for a while.

Within the first 90 day period, a good employer will talk to the employee throughout this period and try and adjust behaviors to suit, given the stats previously, this accounts for over 99% of employers. If at the end (or near) the 90 day period, the staff member just doesn't get it, better to cut ties and try again.

My wife's work had this recently, a new member was trained by the entire team, supervised daily on completing tasks, shown multiple times how to do things, but each day kept repeating the same mistakes and was costing the company money hand over fist with disgruntled customers. They used the 90 day clause to terminate the employment. Good employer did their best, but despite best efforts, some people just aren't suited to some roles.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1869947 21-Sep-2017 09:01

Not arguing one way or the other, just wondering how important that 90 days really is. It seems like a long time to me but I have no experience employing people.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1869950 21-Sep-2017 09:05

Re parental leave policies: sorry, but I find it fairly ironic that on a thread where people are arguing so passionately in favour of their favourite polis, there seem to be a good number who haven't followed the news and reporting of the parties' election promises - and, well, are fairly ignorant of a significant and well-publicised public policy that's been in place since 2002!

Here are some well-publicised points re this that seem to have escaped people:

* Government-funded paid parental leave (PPL) has been in place for YEARS, as mentioned above, though NZ was apparently once of the last of the OECD to do so; I believe the length of it has been extended once since being put in place (I think it was 14 weeks when my eldest son was born in 2007).

* A private members bill (put forward by a Labour MP) debated in 2016 proposed the extension of PPL to 26 weeks from 18 weeks; vetoed on financial grounds by the Minister of Finance Bill English. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80379819/Increased-paid-parental-leave-a-no-go-as-Government-promises-to-veto-it)

* As such, the extension to 26 weeks has long-been a Labour Party policy - it's not new for the election.

* But what is new is National somehow managing to find the money for an extension, promising at the end of August to increase PPL to 22 weeks, phased in over two years from next July (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11913181)

So, yeah, I completely agree with Labour's criticism of National's turn-around on this - yet another example of them doing whatever it takes in offering election bribes to stay in power. It's been a major criticism of the government across its whole nine-year term - they don't really have a vision or a cohesive package of policies; rather, it's a grab-bag mix of sweeteners to appeal to various groups. To me it shows that National is simply interested in power for power's sake, a reason in itself not to vote for them.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869954 21-Sep-2017 09:11

Wiggum:

Reciprocity: @nunz Unless I'm mistaken, the taxpayer foots the bill for the 26 was parental leave, not the employer...
And it's not paid at the level that the parent was earning - it works out to less than minimum wage if you calculate it at 40hrs per week.

That is even worse. Thanks for clearing that up.

Labour is really dipping deep into the taxpayers bottemless pockets it seems. I bet everybody is going to run off and get pregnant then. What an excellent policy from labour, we will see another baby boom. Taxpayers forking out to pay moms to stay at home with baby. What a great intensive to have kids, and kids, and more kids......

Digging how deep? An extra 8 weeks? Labour brought this in , in 1987, why hasnt National repealed it? So, National supports it, and is digging deep also

The rest is ridiculous, accusing Labour and National of being the cause of our birth rate. Bizarre

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1869958 21-Sep-2017 09:17

Rikkitic:

networkn:

It's a nightmare for a small business under a Labour Government. The repealing of the 90 day thing is especially difficult. Apparently they are going to replace it with a fast simple system, which I imagine will be something like:

If you employ someone, no matter how unsuitable they are for the position, what they do or don't do, how they behave, you will need to pay them a years salary to get rid of them.

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.

As an employer, do you really need 90 days to determine if an employee is suitable? This is a genuine question. I have never been en employer but I would think that if someone was not up to the job or had hidden character flaws, that would become fairly obvious within a month. How important is the 90 days, really?

Yes, in my profession 90 days is minimum. I have had staff I've had a pretty good feeling about after a few weeks, others take time to learn the breadth of the job, prove they can handle paperwork. There is a lot of work that goes into good employees in a service business. Some people are good hamsters can churn away at preset jobs but can't really cope with stuff outside the normal, other people can be a bit more flexible but don't handle paperwork/record keeping.

Outside of the 90 days, there is a series of steps required to remove someone from a business position, which involves meeting, outlining shortfallings, providing support to help them acheive the requirements, more meetings more support. It can *easily* take 3 months unless someone did something seriously bad, and even then...

During the 90 days, I would typically meet with new staff many times, making sure they are comfortable in the role, letting them outline issues, raising our own, trying to work together to get a solution to issues that works for everyone.

I have had bizarre situations where people have made up CV's, with invented certifications and forged certifications lied about attending onsite etc. That same person provided fake references.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1869964 21-Sep-2017 09:20

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Reciprocity: @nunz Unless I'm mistaken, the taxpayer foots the bill for the 26 was parental leave, not the employer...
And it's not paid at the level that the parent was earning - it works out to less than minimum wage if you calculate it at 40hrs per week.

That is even worse. Thanks for clearing that up.

Labour is really dipping deep into the taxpayers bottemless pockets it seems. I bet everybody is going to run off and get pregnant then. What an excellent policy from labour, we will see another baby boom. Taxpayers forking out to pay moms to stay at home with baby. What a great intensive to have kids, and kids, and more kids......

Digging how deep? An extra 8 weeks? Labour brought this in , in 1987, why hasnt National repealed it? So, National supports it, and is digging deep also

The rest is ridiculous, accusing Labour and National of being the cause of our birth rate. Bizarre

No - the own goal is even worse because, as I point out in the post above yours, National is promising to extend PPL.

That said, I'd have thought Wiggum's politics were far to the right of National anyway, so as long as his criticism applies to both parties!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6