Twitter seems to want to scream at Labour a lot at the moment. Some of it justified, some of it ill judged.
The yapping began in the usual places…
Claiming Labour are going to keep the 90 Day right to sack law is disingenuous in the extreme.
Firstly the right to sack anyone before 90 days is costing thousands jobs and leaving workers in weak positions.
Thousands lose jobs in 90-day-trial
Tens of thousands of workers have been sacked under the 90-day-trial period, with many let go because they “did not fit in”.
Figures published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment show about 69,000 employers took on at least one new staff member in 2012 under the legislation.
It is not known how many workers were dismissed during the 90-day-trial period, but the figures revealed 27 per cent of employers said they had fired at least one new employee during or at the end of their trial.
This means at least 18,000 people lost their jobs in the first three months of employment last year, with the actual figure likely to be much higher.
…when bosses say they want ‘flexibility’ what they mean is they want to break the Unions backs.
Andrew Little doesn’t support the 90 Day right to sack law, here is what Labour actually want…
· Labour has not, and does not, support the 90 day law as it stands. It is unfair and needs to change.· Labour is not opposed to probationary periods where they provide opportunities for those who might not otherwise get them and where they are applied fairly. That kind of probationary period has been provided for in our law for many decades.· Many employers are using probationary periods fairly and we don’t want to prevent them doing that.· As part of our overall policy review we are working with businesses, workers and their unions about how fair probation laws will work.
really..?..nothing to see with that u-turn from little/labour..?
you don’t see it as yet further evidence that little/labour aren’t sanders-people – that they are really/deep-down clinton-people..?
..and that all they are promising is more of the same historical neoliberal shite from both labour and national that has so plagued us..?
(new chant..?..’lay-bour – right to fire!’ – lay-bour – right to fire!’..?..)
No I don’t see it in the shrill way Giovanni Tiso sees it.
not so much ‘shrill’ from me – more a deep dark cynicism..
..i dunno about anyone else – but little falling over himself to expand the powers of the surveillance state over us pretty much told me all i needed to know..
..and i gave up on him around about then..(i was ‘shrill’ 4 awhile..)
..and anyone thinking/expecting anything else from him is to my mind exhibiting irrational optimism..
..and others seem to be painting him as something he clearly is not..but what they desire?…(and that’s always a trap..)
..we need our very own bernie sanders..to get us to where we need to be going..and little ain’t ‘bernie’..eh..?..that much is crystal-clear..
..he is more clinton in drag..
..and is a milquetoast of a political leader..
..and we need more than that..much more than that..
..where are you..?…kiwi-bernie..?
Well my strategy of using MMP tactically last election so progressives could win an out right majority fell to pieces because Labour refused to implement it – the missing million aren’t coming back so Labour are left with trying to woo Helen Clark voters who have voted John Key – it’s obvious they are middle way with tinges of progression – the hope will be the Greens can provide that and not get shut out by NZ First – the Left were crucified in the last election and NZ gets the leaders they deserve I’m afraid
Martyn i had a little vision there of Labour being happy for us all to marry our goats if there was enough votes in it for them, And, the cost was near enough to zero for the Government budget when i read your comment,
If anyone got crucified last election i would suggest that it was Labour, the Green Party having held its contingent of MP’s and i for one have stopped considering the Labour Party as ‘the left’
The Middle class party with a bit of a social conscience when in Opposition would be, at this point in time, my kindest description of that particular entity…
The only two parties to increase their seats in Parliament in the 2014 election were NZF and National. The left (if you include Labour) went back almost 3% in the party vote. Labour are now barely even centre left. The economic policy platform differences between Labour and National are barely discernible, and the reason is simple. NZ’ers are centrists at heart. We tend to reject extremes of either colour, which is why the Greens have been spectacularly unsuccessful in their electoral history.
That’s just not true – are you new to NZ or something?
Universal suffrage. Nuclear Free. Welfare state. 40 hour week. Rogernomics. Ruthanasis. NZ has lurched right and left far more than you are claiming with ‘NZers are centrist at heart’
You are aware of our history right?
During my life the only probationary period i have experienced was when i was ”working” as a Criminal,
Andrew Little’s ”there have been probationary rules in place for decades” would seem to be alluding to the decades since the introduction by his Labour Party of the neo-liberal capitalist economic paradigm into New Zealand and such an attitude from him over the abhorrent 90 day dismissal provisions of employment law would suggest to at least me that a Government lead by Labour in its present configuration will be strictly Business As Usual,
Essentially what Little proposes is that a Probationary period is needed because the Bosses are running their businesses as some form of social welfare exercise where people who would not otherwise be employed are taken on for a trial period out of the goodness of the Bosses heart,
Do i hear fucking violins playing, spare me please,
Little cannot or wilfully will not propose anything that upsets the neo-liberal economic framework,
During my working life which began in the 1970s i have worked as a labourer in all facets of employment that such a term would describe, from factory to constuction site, from walloping pots in kitchen restaurants to constructing roads to pruning and thinning pine forests, once even finding myself in a tailing gang on a corporate run sheep farm,
Not once, Not Fucking Once was i ever confronted with either a 90 day dismissal period or a Probationary Period as a condition of my being employed and would have SPAT in the face of any employer who dared suggest such a course of action,
Its weasle words to suggest the Bosses hire people that otherwise might not be employed,if the Bosses entertained this behavior they would all be falling all over each other to hire the 6% of us that have remained unemployed for how long now since the Bosses along with Labour and National decided to rip up the social contract of full employment wouldn’t they…
+100 Great post Martyn…and this is the crux
“Andrew Little doesn’t support the 90 Day right to sack law, here is what Labour actually want…
· Labour has not, and does not, support the 90 day law as it stands. It is unfair and needs to change.
· Labour is not opposed to probationary periods where they provide opportunities for those who might not otherwise get them and where they are applied fairly. That kind of probationary period has been provided for in our law for many decades.
· Many employers are using probationary periods fairly and we don’t want to prevent them doing that.
· As part of our overall policy review we are working with businesses, workers and their unions about how fair probation laws will work.”
This seems fair enough to me..my son has been employed under this 90 day probation period….and it was good because he had a fair employer….From tentative beginnings , for both him and the employer….each was not sure whether it was the right job for him…he grew into the job and now after a couple of years both are very satisfied and are good friends….he has also learned very good skills, so we are very, very grateful to his employer
(….but of course luckily he has a great employer!… some employees are not so lucky and are sacked on whim or for very unfair reasons)
…with safeguards put in by Labour for the employees to take cases for unfair dismissal and grievance for abuse…this should work
The CTU view is : ““If Labour introduced “just cause” provisions to the trials to allow personal grievances, the CTU could accept that, as this returned to the earlier rules in existing laws covering probationary periods.”
There are ‘Just Cause’ provisions in existing employment laws now so take away Little’s weasel words ‘probationary period’ and the Boss can just as easily sack a ‘new’ worker IF there is just cause without the need for either 90 day provisions or probationary periods…
Comments are closed.