Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor. If investing please consider our affiliate links for new accounts: Sharesies or Hatch. To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification
If the op is at the end of his contract period he could be let go straight away. And there is no need even for a notice period by the employer.
If the op signs a new fixed term contract its a new employment agreement, and it may be different to the previous employment agreement. Not sure why u blaming government for this?
Wait a minute... OP is on a fixed term contract, and is being asked to sign another one for the same job? That's not actually legal in NZ. A fixed term contract is only legally allowed to be used for a short term need. If the reason for the fixed term no longer exists, legally they must either lapse the contract and go out to market, or hire the employee full time. You could actually take them to the DOL about that.
That's not how I read the link above:
"Provided that there is a genuine reason for the fixed term agreement, there are no restrictions on how long a fixed term agreement can run for or the number of fixed term agreements to which an employee and employer can agree."
There are other reasons in the link why FTA's might be invalid - but an or many additional contract periods does not look like one of them.
If the op is at the end of his contract period he could be let go straight away. And there is no need even for a notice period by the employer.
If the op signs a new fixed term contract its a new employment agreement, and it may be different to the previous employment agreement. Not sure why u blaming government for this?
Wait a minute... OP is on a fixed term contract, and is being asked to sign another one for the same job? That's not actually legal in NZ. A fixed term contract is only legally allowed to be used for a short term need. If the reason for the fixed term no longer exists, legally they must either lapse the contract and go out to market, or hire the employee full time. You could actually take them to the DOL about that.
Maybe the OP can clarify. My guess is that the first contract is about to terminate. To stay on he needs to accept a new contract with a new start and end date. Perfectly normal.
Changing the contract mid term is a different story. And yes probably against our employment laws.
Jas777: I can't see the issue, your employer wants to pay your a certain amount per hour total. However you have the option to get an automatic 3% pay rise by joining kiwisaver. If the employer wants to only pay that certain amount and they can't be sure you will or will not join kiwisaver then they might as well just offer you 3% less. Which means if you dont want to join kiwisaver you lose out.
Consider this. A new employee joins who is already a Kiwisaver member so get offered a contract for 3% less than their non-Kiwisaver co-worker. However, they then get into financial stress and need to take a payment holiday. They are now under financial stress, getting nothing out of Kiwisaver and earning 3% less than their co-worker.
Good to see its Nationals fault, again, and our 'National' pass time of finding someone to blame is at least consistent. Vote Labour so we can go socialist and have state control of everything so blaming and relying on others is easier. :)
Spot on mate. I cant think of anything worse than having a labour run government again. Just hope it never happens in my lifetime.
We probably will, that's the nature of the beast. Frankly, I can live with either Labour or National - there are some differences but, albeit with some craziness around the edges, they are relatively similar. They both understand that they have a reasonably prospect of actually having to implement what they promise, and that anything too nutty will rapidly impact the currency, interest rates, business confidence, growth, and jobs.
It's the crazy minor parties that they have to deal with (the Greens, the Conservatives etc) that can become the "tail that wags the dog" that worry me more. Personally I would prefer a grand coalition to anything that lets either Colin Craig or Russel Norman anywhere near the actual levers of power.
gzt: No one has questioned any of that and you are comparing an entirely compulsory employer contribution to some entirely optional extras.
Yes, it is now illegal to use this as an out to reduce the minimum wage - that had to be determined in court because it was not written into the legislation imho because reducing wages by moving this cost to employees was exactly the effect the government was hoping for.
Ie; No different for instance than a (hypothetical) attempt to load the cost of compulsory employer ACC payments onto employees by saying that can also be included in hourly rate.
Sorry, I'm going to cry bollocks on that one. It's about remuneration. Either immediate (salary) or deferred (Kiwisaver). I'm on a total cost of remuneration package at the moment, where I decide whether I want some of my salary going into KS. That suits me better than having a lower salary (to reflect the cost if I choose to join KS) and then only being able to reclaim what I have lost if I choose to join KS, even if I don't want to. That's the reality of the market - no employer is going to pay me more than I'm worth, and I would rather that I am the one who determines how my rem package is paid to me.
If the Nats didn't like the court decision they could have changed the law, and they haven't. If they were really out to cut the minimum wage they would have cut/frozen it - instead of increasing it faster than inflation. They simply made some economic policy choices, which people may or may not agree with, because they thought that they were on balance the best changes to achieve some goals.
There was a court case not too long ago where I think some cleaners on minimum wage took their employer to court over this very matter with the bigger question being whether they can be paid less than the minimum wage as a result of the employer not actually contributing to kiwisaver out of their own pocket but instead of the employees pocket. The ruling came out that the employer was in the right - there was a small stink that was kicked up then it quickly died in usual death that many topics face in the media these days.
This is the reason why I ended up opting for a five year holiday on my kiwisaver - pretty much all my pay rises ended up going to kiwisaver rather than me receiving them in a pay rise. I was originally on $14.87 per hour and when I put myself on the kiwisaver contributions holiday it went up to $15.23 per hour - it doesn't sound a lot but fortnightly it helped a lot having those few extra dollars in the pocket. As I've always said - give an employer and inch and they'll take a mile. People wonder why there needs to be laws written around labour relations given the sense of entitlement so many employers have.
Btw, I don't blame National or Labour - I blame employers.
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"
There was a court case not too long ago where I think some cleaners on minimum wage took their employer to court over this very matter with the bigger question being whether they can be paid less than the minimum wage as a result of the employer not actually contributing to kiwisaver out of their own pocket but instead of the employees pocket. The ruling came out that the employer was in the right - there was a small stink that was kicked up then it quickly died in usual death that many topics face in the media these days.
Suggest you see gzt's post on page 2, you have the ruling backwards, the courts found in favour of the employees, requiring the employer pay contributions on top of the minimum wage, not deducted from it.
------------ The Court of Appeal chose yesterday to uphold last year's decision by the Employment Court that employers paying the minimum wage had to pay their KiwiSaver contributions on top. This would give some minimum-wage workers an extra $540 a year.
Lower Hutt caregivers Vasivasi Faitala and Dalrene Goff took their employer, TerraNova Homes & Care, to court last year, claiming it was unfair they had to pay their own and TerraNova's KiwiSaver contributions.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
