Not really a surprise at all.  I hope they come down hard on the companies, they know what they are doing is breaking the law

Not surprised at all the installers that did my parents fibre install admitted to only doing the job so they can get residency and then quit the job and move on to OZ

John 

Linux:

 

Not surprised as all the installers that did my parents fibre install admitted to only doing the job so they can get residency and then quit the job and move on to OZ

 

John 

 

They will not receive Australian benefits once they move there.

ajw:

 

Linux:

 

Not surprised as all the installers that did my parents fibre install admitted to only doing the job so they can get residency and then quit the job and move on to OZ

 

John 

 

 

They will not receive Australian benefits once they move there.

 

These people would not care! 

John

I hope the government bans chorus from importing labour from overseas, I see this has happened at several restaurants already for the same reasons.

This is obviously a very clear and deliberate breach on behalf of the contractors, chorus is of course shielding itself by using contractors.

This is very well known in the industry and I am surprised it has taken so long for someone to finally investigate this.

Labour need to revisit the skilled migrant minimum payment that National picked up a few years ago and dropped it fairly quickly.

John

From the NZ Government:

 

The Government’s priorities to strengthen employment law, to better protect New Zealand workers and stamp out migrant exploitation, are justified by the findings revealed today by the Labour Inspectorate’s investigations into Chorus subcontractors, says Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Iain Lees-Galloway.

 

“Initial analysis by the Labour Inspectorate has revealed that of 75 proactive visits to subcontractors rolling out broadband networks for Chorus throughout Auckland, 73 had likely breached minimum employment standards.

 

“The investigations found that contracting employers were failing to maintain employment records, pay employees’ minimum wage, holiday entitlements, and provide employment agreements.

 

“This is simply not acceptable and it is not welcome in New Zealand workplaces.

 

“This activity is in breach of minimum employment standards required by law, it is clearly exploiting migrants, and it is a timely reminder why the Government is strengthening employment law to protect vulnerable workers.

 

“This also demonstrates the previous Government’s procurement process prioritised cost over the welfare of New Zealand workers in allowing contracts that encouraged this kind of behaviour.

 

“The Labour Inspectorate operation’s findings demonstrate why the Coalition Government has embarked on a programme of restoring fundamental rights for New Zealand workers.

 

“One of my top priorities for this term of Government is improving protections for contractors and workers in precarious employment arrangements.

 

“The Coalition Agreement also sets tackling migrant exploitation as one of this Government’s top priorities. We have already increased the number of Labour Inspectors and further work to stamp out migrant exploitation will begin before the end of the year.

 

“It is critical that our workplaces are free of the kind of exploitative practices that the Labour Inspectorate has found. It is bad for workers, it is bad for our reputation and ultimately, bad for our economy,” Iain Lees-Galloway says.

 

 

 

Not holding my breath for the change needed - The relevant unions aren't there to protect workers, just to clip the ticket, and Chorus has been willfully ignoring this for a long time - they have internal team members who perform QA checks on faults, network build, and installs (usually former technicians who stepped into a Service Delivery role) as well as general site visits, and I don't think there's a single technician out there who'd keep what goes on a secret from them. Combine that with some of the restrictions that have been placed upon specific service partners, the 7-day repeat rule, and the fact that they've gone along with the narrative of the service companies that the coded (pay per task) models are a Good Thing, with no regard for the realities of it, and you're really pushing the metaphorical up hill.

Internet is a service being delivered by primarily a monopoly (The LFCs aren't here to shake up the existing structure, all they need to do is beat the copper pricing, which Chorus has already worked out deals with the relevant parties regarding), and when you have a for-profit company tendering work on a specialized network with no competing employers (to my knowledge all the LFCs utilize the same service partners as Chorus, because the skill base is narrow and well defined, limiting the existing contractors), and you're going to get the race to the bottom, and the primary contractors WILL cut costs where they can to secure that contract, because you don't go to your manager in a multi-national corporate environment and say "We couldn't trim the fat enough to tender the best offer, and we don't want to reduce employment costs", you just make things happen to ensure that next pay packet comes along, or someone else will. Previously, that meant importing a large amount of bodies from the Philippines, more recently they've gone to other territories and some service companies (such as the ones discussed specifically in Auckland) have found their way around restrictions laid upon them, by further contracting things out, and further diluting the final pay the technician can expect.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, there's a simple solution here. Chorus/LFCs directly hire the technicians, and begin to build, maintain and operate a network based on the real costs, not the hypothetical costs these contractors tender.

Looks like that's ballooned into a bit of a rant - point is, nothing will improve until we have a massive shift in how we as a nation perceive the communications networks we depend upon, which I doubt will happen fast enough. My personal (unfounded with no real research, just conclusions drawn from my industry experience) is that given enough time, we'll end up with a Kiwirail or Telstra situation, with a dilapidated network being sold back to the Government after it's past the too late threshold.

With people expecting everything for free in this world - including a fibre install that can have a true value of several thousand dollars, I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is going forward.

One of the main issues is Chorus (and probably the other LFCs) subcontractors are paid using codes.

Chorus want a fibre installed into a house as a "standard" install, Chorus will pay $xyz for it. Its up to the subcontractor to do the work for $xyz as that's all Chorus will pay for it. The equipment prices are all set with the suppliers, so the only thing that is variable is the quality of the job, or the amount the installers get paid.

This model was only ever going to end with the installers getting screwed, if not losing money on the more complex jobs.

What ever impact Chorus's pricing has .. their contractors and subcontractor have an obligation to obey the law.  It's not defensible to agree to a pricing schedule and then break the law to achieve it.

Chorus should (from business ethics standpoint) have had procedures in place to make sure their contractors and sub-contractors were adhering to the law.

Any sanction imposed on Chorus will simply be paid by consumers in the end.  It's a bit like councils fining each other.

sbiddle:

 

With people expecting everything for free in this world - including a fibre install that can have a true value of several thousand dollars, I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is going forward.

 

It sounds very much like you're trying to blame consumers for taking advantage of free installs which were... offered for free by Chorus? "Don't buy from them, it'll be your fault when they choose to break employment law!".

There are big cans of worms out there. Legit subcons are usually the few old companies left. That is based from my experience.

New/smaller subcons are most suspect. Even then, some old subcons have higher than minimum salaries but still lower than what it should be at - in terms of the work done. Not so long ago I had experienced a trial of some kind in order to be hired - no papers no nothing. We were only told to come and meet the manager that day but when we arrived we're told to go straight into trenching. Did some bits and then left, they called right after but I never picked up the call.

The worst part happened during fibre blowing, the site manager spend an hour and more disassembling the ABF installation tool; after an hour, Youtube was involved.

Oh and forget about the minimum trench depth requirements, a folded tape measure was involved for "documentation purposes".

I left feeling bad for myself but felt worse for the customers.

Explains why I hear they do such lazy jobs. Personally I live in a flat that was pretty easy to install in, though they wouldn't put it further along the wall like I wanted. My brother had to hire an electrician to install ethernet ports around his property because contractors would only install to a particular spot that wasn't good for wifi coverage. My parents chose not to get fibre because the contractors would only install to their garage. Same family members also tell me they have friends who had worse problems.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/11/05/306076/chorus-speaks-out-on-migrant-exploitation