MikeB4:

 

Both and neither had unlimited budgets

 

Well clearly, I need to put my prices up significantly.

personal I feel the gov need to pay the normal wage of the person there, drop jury duty or force employer to pay(in that order), I know I would be biased if I was forced to go and only get paid $62 for the day.

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

Both and neither had unlimited budgets

 

 

Well clearly, I need to put my prices up significantly.

 

Seriously though managing leave no matter what leave it is just part of effective management and you need to make opex allowances for it..  How many days have you had staff away on jury service in the last two years ?

MikeB4:

 

mattwnz:

 

I think they should make more use of retired people of jury duty. It should solve the problem of people not being able to do it due to other commitments associated with life in 2018. especially as many younger people these days have huge mortgages for overpriced houses, so can't afford the time off. Older people have far more life experience, and can also have far more common sense.

 

 

I always paid full wages to someone on Jury service. I also did not consider it annual leave or sick leave.

 

I can imagine it would be very difficult for some companies to do this, especially if you have only 1-3 staff, as a missing staff member takes away a large percentage of your productive working hours. The only way around it is to charge more, and build up an allowance to cover these things. I wonder if big retailers do pay people on jury service, as some will not pay much more than min wage?  Being self employed it is very difficult, as the money has to come from somewhere, as if you aren't working you don't get paid. I doubt there is any insurance cover for loss of income. Maybe income protection insurance, but I doubt that covers jury service.?

mattwnz:

 

I think they should make more use of retired people of jury duty. It should solve the problem of people not being able to do it due to other commitments associated with life in 2018. especially as many younger people these days have huge mortgages for overpriced houses, so can't afford the time off. Older people have far more life experience, and can also have far more common sense.

 

Unfortunately that skews the composition of the jury though. That's not something that will help contribute to a fair and just trial.

mattwnz:

Older people have far more life experience, and can also have far more common sense.

It is interesting that the standard response form accommodates people who object on religious grounds, but doesn't allow for personal beliefs of a political nature. I wonder if there is any case law that has tested this against section 13 of the Bill of Rights Act?

Ultimately they can probably force you to go, but do they really want people in the jury room who are not willing or able to engage constructively with the other jurors?

mattwnz:

 

I think they should make more use of retired people of jury duty. It should solve the problem of people not being able to do it due to other commitments associated with life in 2018. especially as many younger people these days have huge mortgages for overpriced houses, so can't afford the time off. Older people have far more life experience, and can also have far more common sense.

 

Worst idea ever. It's bad enough that we have juries in the first place; it'll be doubly worse if the most socially conservative group in society became over-represented in juries.

And I am someone who's taken part in jury trials for all three sides of the law.

What happens if a juror keeps falling asleep in court? Trials can continue with 11 jurors. Maybe the judge just releases the juror and that's it? OP, does your employee have trouble staying awake?

dejadeadnz:

 

Worst idea ever. It's bad enough that we have juries in the first place [...]

 

Why? I would have thought that juries were a fairly basic right, and a key protection against oppressive or totalitarian governments. For example, faced with bad law (eg a huge penalty for giving food to the hungry child of a striking watersider in NZ) juries have been known to simply refuse to convict.

JimmyH:

 

Why? I would have thought that juries were a fairly basic right, and a key protection against oppressive or totalitarian governments. For example, faced with bad law (eg a huge penalty for giving food to the hungry child of a striking watersider in NZ) juries have been known to simply refuse to convict.

 

Hardly. Plenty of liberal, democratic countries with excellent record of human rights do not have right of trial by juries. Just look at most of continental Europe.

If the concern is for the getting to the truth and conclusions being reached through a careful and thorough examination of the evidence with as little reference to human prejudices as possible, why anyone would prefer a panel of jurors -- some of whom could be terribly uneducated and stupid -- as opposed to a panel of judges, is beyond me. The panel of judges would have (at a minimum) completed a tertiary degree and will be required to issue a written decision which will be closely examined for their statement of and application of the law and examination of evidence. This is opposed to a bunch of unaccountable jurors being able to just call out someone as guilty or not guilty without having to give any reasons. 

MikeB4:

 

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

when I was an employer it was a pain but the notice period is reasonable and allows time to plan around it. I did on occasion get a key project team member deferred and the process was uncomplicated. On a personal note I was permanently excused service due to my medical condition a few years back. 

 

 

You have obviously never run a small business where having 25% of your workforce is missing. 

 

I don't think there is a way to have reasonable notice of that for some positions within a company. 

 

Worse still, I have to pay this person, while they can't work.

 

 

Incorrect, I have managed staffing establishments from seven staff up to sixty. Yes it's a pain but no more so than managing annual and sick leave, and the key word is managing and it was my job to do just that.

 

For a well resourced government department ?

It can be entirely different in private organisations. 

I'm just saying, your experience is not reflective of all. 

I used to be called for jury duty every year but my job at the time was of critical importance to the company.  Talking millions of dollars in damages if something goes wrong and I am not there at critical points in time. 

So , I managed to get off each time although the last time was very difficult and the authorities were very obstructive. 

However, my job has changed such that I could now do jury duty. But, they have stopped asking! And I'd quite like to try it. 

Same, I was called several times when a student and also when out of the country. Now that I'm in a job where I could go (and I would still get paid) they don't ask me!

If only you could put your name forward to get it out of the way.

MikeB4:

 

networkn:

 

MikeB4:

 

Both and neither had unlimited budgets

 

 

Well clearly, I need to put my prices up significantly.

 

 

 

 

Seriously though managing leave no matter what leave it is just part of effective management and you need to make opex allowances for it..  How many days have you had staff away on jury service in the last two years ?

 

It's hard for me to understand how you could have worked for a small private company and produce these views. 2 Weeks of a Key staff members salary is a significant hit, esp when that person may not be earning for the company in that time as well as not being able to deal with workloads. 

Maybe you have been fortunate to work with companies with huge revenue and profit margins but I'd suggest to you that the VAST majority of companies under 5 people in NZ would find this extremely challenging. 

It's easy to be flippant when it's not your money on the line. 

It won't break me, but it's extremely challenging. 14 weeks of a single day would be considerably less difficult to manage than 14 days consecutively. 

We have decided not to challenge it, I doubt we would have luck anyway now the jury is seated. Wouldn't be fair. I am hoping it's over quicker than two weeks. 

Personally, I think in companies with less than 10 people, there should be tolerance from the Government/Legal System.