Nationals is promising to allow small employers with less than 20 employees to sack anyone without cause in the first 90 days.
The policy, which will apply to businesses with fewer than 20 workers, allows employers to dismiss staff in the first three months without risking a personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.The examples provided make it clear that low wage workers are being targeted. These are also the groups who already suffer from the predations of unscrupulous employers. They can already be fired more or less at will as few people will kick up a fuss over a $12 / hour job. Grievances are much more likely to be brought by employees in much higher paying jobs.
While probationary periods are already allowed under existing law, proper process must be followed before the worker is dismissed.
Workers can still take a personal grievance if they feel the decision not to keep them on is unfair.
Yesterday, National deputy leader Bill English said the policy would give small businesses some insurance so they could take a risk on workers they might otherwise be reluctant to employ, such as former prisoners or people with little work experience.
National's promised law change will effectively legalise the worst abuses of unscrupulous employers.
I can't wait to see what National plans to do next to stop workers fleeing to Australia. We already know they want to backpedal on employer contributions to Kiwisaver and get into union-busting in education and health by off-loading more to the private sector in those areas.
Why on earth would any employer hire somebody with the intention of sacking then within 90 days?
ReplyDeleteIf the employer is "bad", wouldn't that employee quickly find work elsewhere?
If this happened repeatedly to the same person, wouldn't someone (even a union someone) take the trouble to find out why?
Would any employee who was so dismissed really think they were employable in Australia?
Anyone that unemployable is likely to have an attitude problem rather than a lack of skills problem. And more likely to seek a benefit pretty early on in the piece, don't you think?
anon: You make some good points and they also apply today to the current law. We see now how people who speak English poorly and come from countries where they are used to be treated poorly are the most likely to be treated this way and also feel there is nothing they can do about it. What I want to ask you is: Why remove the right to pursue a personal grievance if the employer has no worries? Surely only the bad employers risk being held to account for their actions. This law chance removes any accountability from employers other than the brick through the window at 3am from a disgruntled former employer. This law change is inviting "vigilante" redress. There is no benefit in it to any party - employee or employer.
ReplyDeleteLOL! That should be "former employee"...and no, Freud had nothing to do with it. I just took the dog for a walk and the fingers are COLD! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe current law regarding dismissal requires following a number of steps which are not so much complex as tedious.
ReplyDeleteOpportunity to explain (whether truthfully or not), reinstruction, retraining, verbal warnings, written warnings - a series of things that the employer must follow that are full of pitfalls should the letter of the law not be followed in any of the steps to be addressed. For instance all these steps must be taken for each transgression, they are not cumulative. Every transgression must be addressed in each warning if dismissal is not warranted on individual misdemeanour but part of overall unsatisfactory performance. Employers that I know find this demeaning to themselves as well as the employee. But a clever lawyer can win handsome compensation from an exasperated employer on a minor point. So all employers, but more so small employers, get unnecessarily agitated. Most spend too much money seeking legal guidance through a difficult process. Some cut their losses and "lump sum" the employee off the premises. The gung-ho just kick them out saying "so sue me". Of the three approaches to the problem, the first is that of the most employee-friendly employer - the once bitten,twice shy employer who wants a happy workforce but is reluctant to take a chance on anybody without a premium reference. These are good employers with no appetite for the destructive, gut-gnawing procedural nighmare that does occur with employees who push the boundaries but have "rights".
National's policy will appeal particularly to the timid employer who is more trusting of employees upfront, but hurt the most when that trust is ill-placed.
Can this policy be all bad?
In small businesses one employee not doing what's required puts a huge load on the others so this policy also helps other workers
ReplyDeleteOpposition to this seems to come from the employer-bad-employee-good school of industrial relations.
The time energy and money expended in recruitment and training means employers do all they can to keep staff.
hp: Personally, I think the vast majority of employers are perfectly reasonable and the law won't make much difference to them. They know not to hire rubbish in the first place. At the other end of the scale there really ARE bad employers and the law change effectively makes their behaviour legal.
ReplyDeleteI've worked for a bad employer in the past. Jobs were tight in those days. My wife was 8 months pregnant and in hospital due to issues related to the pregnancy. I was the only source of income, so I couldn't walk out when the owner demanded I do things that were illegal. I refused and was threatened with dismissal. Instead I found another job, but this new law would have allowed him to sack me out of hand and then give me a shit reference forever. As it was, his company went under within 6 months.
The only people who win from this change are the bad employers....and I'm surprised National is putting this forward.
I enjoy reading a wide range of views, particularly regarding politics. There is always value in trying to see things from another's perspective. That is why I have started visiting your blog (homepaddock's, jafapete's, Lindsay Mitchell's amongst others).
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that your employment situation is used to dismiss National's policy out of hand.
Your predicament as an employee, as stated, would have drawn support from across the board. Homepaddock would have stood by you, as would I. This is where unions "should" be protecting employees.
Your last sentence - "The only people who win from this change are the bad employers.... " - has a "chip all dogs" myopia to it that questions you ability to see reason.
As with the "anti-smacking" legislation, shouldn't we wait to see whether people's fears are realised in practice?
I believe employment law does not permit an employer to give a reference which prevents an employee from getting another job. Nor can a prospective employer seek a reference from anyone not so authorised by the employee.
ReplyDelete