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 | ... | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | ... | 268

2916 posts

Uber Geek

#1983288 26-Mar-2018 10:47

networkn:

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.

That's one of your favourites isn't it

Yes, thats what I'm saying. I think the 'modern' idea of employment contracts is seriously flawed.

I agree with you about your comments about staff and for workers with good employers the feeling is reciprocated. Thats why so many workers put a great deal of their personal energy into their employment and form great relationships with firms over decades.

The dream of high paid 6 month contract work might sit well for a DB developer in the city, but it's not going to be much good for a cleaner at the airport.

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

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983379 26-Mar-2018 12:23

elpenguino:

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 )".

I missed a word in my prior post. Twice.

There was a really great quote that I think applies here. "I was a really amazing parent... Until I had kids".

The 90 day trial period is a fantastic piece of legislation. It gives both parties some time to assess if a person is or isn't suitable for a position. I could get into why, but your mind is firmly closed so I won't waste my time.

Let me know when you run a small business and employ people if you have decided against trial periods and let me know how that works out for you.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1983405 26-Mar-2018 13:10

elpenguino:

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.

It's hardly a 'discussion' if i'm not allowed to answer. So i'll ignore your last sentence...

Your post was a strange contradiction. You are saying that they don't have good workplace mobility yet you are advocating for more mobility to be enshrined into law?

The reality's of business (which you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand) are that good staff are you're best asset as previously stated by aomebody else. If that employee is actually worth their salt they will most likely be a likely candidate for the new employer, and it will make sense for the new employer to take them on and make good use of their experience. If the employee has chosen on the other hand to remain firmly fixed in the 'hard to employ' bracket, then they don't deserve the benefit of job stability that other employee's have worked hard to establish. To remove that, is to dis-incentivise increased productivity by the employee, which incidentally is actually one of the reason's for this bill (increasing productivity).

elpenguino

2916 posts

Uber Geek

#1983431 26-Mar-2018 13:34

networkn:

elpenguino:

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 )".

I missed a word in my prior post. Twice.

There was a really great quote that I think applies here. "I was a really amazing parent... Until I had kids".

The 90 day trial period is a fantastic piece of legislation. It gives both parties some time to assess if a person is or isn't suitable for a position. I could get into why, but your mind is firmly closed so I won't waste my time.

Let me know when you run a small business and employ people if you have decided against trial periods and let me know how that works out for you.

Another favourite of yours

if you want to open it you will have to try something more convincing than 'it's really really hard being an employer'. I argued the trial period is irrelevant and unnecessary for a professional employer which uses a thorough recruitment process. You don't seem to have a counter-argument for that.

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

elpenguino

2916 posts

Uber Geek

#1983436 26-Mar-2018 13:43

rjt123:

elpenguino:

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.

It's hardly a 'discussion' if i'm not allowed to answer. So i'll ignore your last sentence...

Your post was a strange contradiction. You are saying that they don't have good workplace mobility yet you are advocating for more mobility to be enshrined into law?

The reality's of business (which you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand) are that good staff are you're best asset as previously stated by aomebody else. If that employee is actually worth their salt they will most likely be a likely candidate for the new employer, and it will make sense for the new employer to take them on and make good use of their experience. If the employee has chosen on the other hand to remain firmly fixed in the 'hard to employ' bracket, then they don't deserve the benefit of job stability that other employee's have worked hard to establish. To remove that, is to dis-incentivise increased productivity by the employee, which incidentally is actually one of the reason's for this bill (increasing productivity).

There's already mechanisms for removing employees who aren't fit or who are under-contributing.

I agree employees are a firm's best asset - after all they actually earn all the income for the firm, generate the IP and so on. Without the employees the firm is a few completed forms at company's house and a bank account.

This discussion point is on the issue of employees being dismissed on the spot simply because a contract has been awarded to another party. Why should a worker be down the road just because some other company is now in charge of ,say, digging holes in the roads in your area? He /she is still (would still be) doing the same thing in the same place with the same tools.

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
Inactive user

#1983480 26-Mar-2018 14:24

elpenguino:

networkn:

elpenguino:

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 )".

I missed a word in my prior post. Twice.

There was a really great quote that I think applies here. "I was a really amazing parent... Until I had kids".

The 90 day trial period is a fantastic piece of legislation. It gives both parties some time to assess if a person is or isn't suitable for a position. I could get into why, but your mind is firmly closed so I won't waste my time.

Let me know when you run a small business and employ people if you have decided against trial periods and let me know how that works out for you.

Another favourite of yours

if you want to open it you will have to try something more convincing than 'it's really really hard being an employer'. I argued the trial period is irrelevant and unnecessary for a professional employer which uses a thorough recruitment process. You don't seem to have a counter-argument for that.

The counter argument being that the low-skilled, hard-to-employ type, or the younger, inexperienced workers don't get a look-in if you take that approach. Many employers are actually sympathetic with that type, and they would be happy to try them out if there is a trial period protection. Furthermore, hiring is an expensive and time-consuming exercise, and the idea that employers want to give a new employee the sack is a fallacy, a totally false narrow-minded point-of-view touted by unionists who have no understanding of business whatsoever. The cost of employing and training a new employee means an employer actually hopes that their first choice will be a good choice, they hope they don't have to give them the sack. Having a trial period gives the employer confidence to take a punt, when they didn't know if they needed an employee, but they take them on to see how it goes.

Your argument earlier that they will be on their best behavior for 90 days is naive. 90 days is long enough to find out their character, and if they are capable of performing satisfactorily for that period then a good manager will know how to bring out the best in them in the long-term as well.

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983483 26-Mar-2018 14:25

elpenguino:

Another favourite of yours

if you want to open it you will have to try something more convincing than 'it's really really hard being an employer'. I argued the trial period is irrelevant and unnecessary for a professional employer which uses a thorough recruitment process. You don't seem to have a counter-argument for that.

What is another favourite of mine?

Have you ever employed or even managed people?

It's "easy" to sit on the sideline and criticize things you have no experience or knowledge of. It's the hallmark of this Labour Government to do the same.

If recruitment is so perfect, why is it that every recruitment company has a sale or return clause? If the employee doesn't work out for 90 days you get a refund of your fees. It's obviously common enough.

Let me ask you this. If an employee tries their best and does a good job, what fear should they have of a 90 day policy? A 90 day trial is for BOTH parties to determine if the fit is good.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1983511 26-Mar-2018 14:48

elpenguino:

rjt123:

elpenguino:

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.

It's hardly a 'discussion' if i'm not allowed to answer. So i'll ignore your last sentence...

Your post was a strange contradiction. You are saying that they don't have good workplace mobility yet you are advocating for more mobility to be enshrined into law?

The reality's of business (which you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand) are that good staff are you're best asset as previously stated by aomebody else. If that employee is actually worth their salt they will most likely be a likely candidate for the new employer, and it will make sense for the new employer to take them on and make good use of their experience. If the employee has chosen on the other hand to remain firmly fixed in the 'hard to employ' bracket, then they don't deserve the benefit of job stability that other employee's have worked hard to establish. To remove that, is to dis-incentivise increased productivity by the employee, which incidentally is actually one of the reason's for this bill (increasing productivity).

There's already mechanisms for removing employees who aren't fit or who are under-contributing.

I agree employees are a firm's best asset - after all they actually earn all the income for the firm, generate the IP and so on. Without the employees the firm is a few completed forms at company's house and a bank account.

Another clear demonstration you have no clue about business in the real world.

This discussion point is on the issue of employees being dismissed on the spot simply because a contract has been awarded to another party. Why should a worker be down the road just because some other company is now in charge of ,say, digging holes in the roads in your area? He /she is still (would still be) doing the same thing in the same place with the same tools.

Why? Because that was the terms they were employed on. If they didn't want that job they shouldn't have applied. If they want the boot on the other foot they should start up their own company. You might say 'that's ridiculous, they don't have the skills or resources'. In which case they should be appreciative that somebody i.e. their employer, had taken the risk in setting up a business that has given them employment to this point. If they had put in the hard yards at school, or taken after-hours tertiary study to make themselves employable, if they tried to up-skill themselves, they would have the luxury of a choice of jobs they could be accepted for, and they wouldn't face the dilemma of having to accept a low-paid job that has poor job security. By and large, you get out of life what you put in, if you hope to cruise along when you're young, and then hope to be well-off when you want to start a family, generally speaking you'll have a rude awakening.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983519 26-Mar-2018 14:56

Not that I have skin in this game, since despite being self-employed I avoid becoming an employer like the plague and use contractors to outsource work I do not want to do myself, but the trial period concept is fairly common elsewhere.

I would not know about blue collar jobs, never having had one other than as student holiday work, but every professional position I occupied in the UK most certainly came with a "probationary period" and it was commonly 6 months. To be fair, it usually required some significant reason to biff someone under that clause - "we do not like you" was not a sufficient reason - and I do not think I ever heard of anyone actually being biffed, but that might be as much to do with the nature of the work and the type of people who do it as it is to do with anything else.

Out here in the Wairarapa, when talking to tradesmen etc, I hear all kinds of horror stories about the low quality of potential employees, drunkeness, drug use, failure to turn up at all with no warning, dishonesty and all sorts. I would think at least 65% of the tradesmen I have employed in the past 10 years have said that the lack of reliable, trustworthy, competent employees is the biggest factor in restricting growth of their business. Most just say "I don't bother trying anymore - it's just not worth the aggro".

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1983633 26-Mar-2018 16:40

Geektastic:

Out here in the Wairarapa, when talking to tradesmen etc, I hear all kinds of horror stories about the low quality of potential employees, drunkeness, drug use, failure to turn up at all with no warning, dishonesty and all sorts. I would think at least 65% of the tradesmen I have employed in the past 10 years have said that the lack of reliable, trustworthy, competent employees is the biggest factor in restricting growth of their business. Most just say "I don't bother trying anymore - it's just not worth the aggro".

yep. I see no basis for imposing such workers on an employer without the employer have any right to object.

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983644 26-Mar-2018 17:06

Oh my GOD. Another day, another suggested "Independent Panel" taskforce by Jacinda, this time as an effort to unlock the pay dispute between DHB's and Nurses.

Also, I wish that every time she wanted to emphasize a syllable, she didn't do so whilst goosing her neck. It's majorly distracting.

elpenguino

2916 posts

Uber Geek

#1983646 26-Mar-2018 17:11

networkn:

elpenguino:

Another favourite of yours

if you want to open it you will have to try something more convincing than 'it's really really hard being an employer'. I argued the trial period is irrelevant and unnecessary for a professional employer which uses a thorough recruitment process. You don't seem to have a counter-argument for that.

What is another favourite of mine?

Have you ever employed or even managed people?

It's "easy" to sit on the sideline and criticize things you have no experience or knowledge of.

This is a very poor argument.

I've never been to space but would happily enter into a discussion about astronauts.

It's the hallmark of this Labour Government to do the same.

Really - that's your response ? Since you have no counter argument can we agree the 90 day trial period is irrelevant and unnecessary for a professional employer?

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
Inactive user

#1983649 26-Mar-2018 17:14

networkn:

Oh my GOD. Another day, another suggested "Independent Panel" taskforce by Jacinda, this time as an effort to unlock the pay dispute between DHB's and Nurses.

Also, I wish that every time she wanted to emphasize a syllable, she didn't do so whilst goosing her neck. It's majorly distracting.

And then she advocates for more collective bargaining. Is the government going to set up an inquiry for every industrial dispute?

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983653 26-Mar-2018 17:26

elpenguino:

I've never been to space but would happily enter into a discussion about astronauts.

Haha, brilliant. Would you profess to know more about space and space travel than an Astronaut ?

Your question has been answered, but as you mind is closed it's "not valid". The 90 Day trial period is an important employment tool for both parties to determine the suitability of an employment situation for both employer and employee that doesn't require the employer to spend as long removing an unsuitable candidate as they have been employing them for.

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983654 26-Mar-2018 17:27

rjt123:

networkn:

Oh my GOD. Another day, another suggested "Independent Panel" taskforce by Jacinda, this time as an effort to unlock the pay dispute between DHB's and Nurses.

Also, I wish that every time she wanted to emphasize a syllable, she didn't do so whilst goosing her neck. It's majorly distracting.

And then she advocates for more collective bargaining. Is the government going to set up an inquiry for every industrial dispute?

Well, to be fair they have set one up for almost every other little thing.

1 | ... | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | ... | 268