National - "reverting to type"?

Interesting to see their two big policy announcements recently:
- 90 day probationary/"no right to an unjustified dimissal hearing" period for employees
- Privatising ACC

I don't necessarily disagree with these (although much more uneasy about the second one), but they really are pushing the same policies they've tried in the past huh? Not to mention they really run the risk of being portrayed as "the party for business owners, at the expense of the other 95% of us"...


I don't intend for this to be National bashing - I agree with the first policy if not the second - but is interesting that it's the same policy stuff coming round again.

a party can't change its spots by simply employing a new leader

don't agree with either of those two policies at all

1 could do with some debate IMO as its a interesting notion but why only small businesses?

Yeah this seems to be what it boils down to for me - talk of change and a new approach but policy is at odds with that? Maybe I'm expecting too much (likely actually).

Re the probationary period thing - I was a little uneasy about this at first, removing rights to due process for a single group of people is theoretically pretty off. But in practice, I beleive it will turn out well.
Small firms are genuinely put off hiring people because once you have them it is an extraordinarily expensive/time consuming process to let them go. If they're hiring then they genuinely need staff and they won't use this process to hire "temps" because the recruitment of a full-time position is much more involved than casual worker anyway.

National and change don't sit well together

I can see some merit in the probationary thang but if its that hard to get rid of useless employees etc perhaps an overhaul or at least look into current legislation would be better than applying a series of band aids to address areas that are not quite right

Probationary employment is horrific. BD I can't believe you can support it.

Workers first, workers second, workers third. Parasitic bosses come last.

I don't support it Vads, just open to some debate on the topic from our representives and am open to the notion that perhaps some of our employment laws need looking at - to protect the worker but also take into account the needs/desires of employers

shame biggie is such a pig to search as I'm sure we all debated this last time national proposed it

Lol

It is already the case in collective contracts in many many industries.

In fact engineering contracts have up to a week to fire someone without *any* reason.

Re the main issue... not sure why national would say these things - idiotic really even if they are actually planning to youd think they would keep quiet about things that only people who will probably already vote for them will support. Unless theyre trying to keep act out all together. Which is a distinct possibility.

This is, quite simply, illegal.

It may happen, but it doesn't make it legitimate.

erm

its a union contract

Seems I'm wrong actually.

http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/factsheets/guide-to-probation-periods.html

So either these existing probation periods aren't truly probation periods, or this new legislation won't change anything?

Personally I think companies should put more effort into the hiring/selection process than worrying about sacking someone later

Dont be a moron. Not every business/industry has collective contracts.

This is mostly aimed at small businesses which traditionally have huge problems with funding new staff and the side issues/risks. In NZ small businesses account for the largest proportion of employment.

I know from talking to many small and medium business owners what a difficult decision it is to employ new staff. People do not represent themselves honestly at interviews and many references are either false or are afraid of telling the full truth.

Its a good policy but one that will lead to a lot of flak.

While I have some sympathy, the fact is that the amount of time put into selection compared to the amount of time they'll work is disproportionate.

IF companies imposed more tests during interviews, as is common in some IT/science jobs, if they were more rigorous in their questioning, and if they used referees properly, not just as the last step, they wouldn't have the problems

BTW if someone lies in an interview they can be sacked immediately anyway, without a need for this probation period.

It's completely open to abuse, i.e. sexual harassment

I've spent most of my working life working for small companies - never once has the job description matched the job, not once has the promises offered up at interview come about, not once has the salary/wages risen to the levels suggested/promised in the timeframes given.....

I've never lied in an interview nor padded my CV

I am used to having potential employers not check references, not check that which I tell them is true and do fuck all to protect themselves

I have generally worked for people I like, believe in and trust but very rarely has that trust been repaid

why when discussing policies like the proposed national one is it ALWAYS the employee made to look like a bunch of halfwits whose sole aim is to bring these small businesses down?

employers are a long long long way from perfect or often even remotely professional in small business NZ

FUCK NATIONAL!!! FREE MARKET MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

BD: apparently you are in a minority.

Vadz: how much does it cost to do it properly?

It costs less than hiring the wrong person and then having to fire them, surely?

National announce some policy, Labour up six points in the polls....

Good question (not moronic as bob suggests) - probationary periods are currently legal regardless of collective or individual contract. However, businesses still need to follow the full process and risk personal grievance claims if they don't - National is removing the right of an employee to this personal grievance claim. Basically they're making it much easier to fire an employee within 90 days than beyond that.

At a general level this law would even it out. It is already the case (to various degrees) in some industries.

Generally speaking the law as it is means current 3 month probationary periods are almost unenforceable. If an employee says that they thought the job would continue then the court more often than not rules in their favour.

The collective contracts that i have seen offer a staged process, the closer to 3 months the person works the less reasons, more explanation is required.

If this law allows small businesses to take a chance on hiring someone to see if they can make it work within that 3 month period then i think it will help both small business and the unemployed at the same time.

Yes there will be cases where it is abused but we get that already under the current system (on both sides) and the courts are weighted heavily in the favour of the workers so i am confident most unfair practices can be caught.

Like anything there should be some intelligence applied but i support making it easier to trial someone within some bounds.

We have employed some particularly hopeless people who interviewed well (its hard to apply psychometrics to a yard job).

So on the other one - privitisation of ACC.
Personally I see no real upside to the people of NZ - National's argument has always been that competition would see lower premiums, but when they did it in the late 90's, it was the opposite. The PwC review of ACC said it was the most efficient way of running the system and that privatision would so increase compliance costs that cost to the taxpayer would be the same, but with an added profit layer to the insurance companies.
ACC specifically works in the interests of the injured - privatised insurance would HAVE to work in the interest of their client, business. There is therefore direct incentive to pay out less to claimants, and if you were to heavily regulate and police this behaviour to ensure no change in payout, then your efficiency argument disappears.

I agree though i would like to add that when we switched to a private insurer we got fantastic service from them, particularly in terms of proactive health and safety help.

The ACC audit system is a bit of a joke tbh.

I've used ACC probably half a dozen times since 2000, and never had a single complaint.

The question seems to be whether it is an efficient method of delivering care.

And can the private sector deliver better service/ lower costs (after making a profit).

I think its a bit of a stretch to say that it will but by the same token there's no reason not to investigate the possibility even if it is to rule it out for the foreseeable future.

where's the harm unless they run down the public system eh bob?

National will see it as a fait accompli however.

Why do you fuckwits all support the free market?! You have shit brains or something?!

Yeah i cant say i trust national or labours 'investigations' but IF such an investigation were undertaken in a proper manner then it would be a good thing.

The result may be that it identifies problems but determines that privatisation is not the best method to correct.

I have some personal experience with this. I had back problems and the physio just kept me coming back for revisits. There was no need for number of visits i had and they werent doing me any good but the ACC was paying for them. I raised the issue and the physio was *almost* unapologetic about ripping off the system. My experience under the private accident system was that i had a case manager who was actually interested in what treatment i was getting.

(an isolated analogy, yes)

looking around the globe is there a country that privitised health care works well for the betterment of all?

I can't seem to find any

With the proviso that privitised health care is of course vastly different to privatised workplace accident insurance, check out this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/internationalaidanddevelopment.usa

That said America has a large proportion of the best health professionals and research in the world.

(not that its accessible to many)

That's what's so crazy! They spend far and away the most money on health, yet their national outcomes are so terrible...

its not crazy, if you can afford it you're well looked after... if not you're fucked - this is the American way

I hope their way doesn't become our way

with a 30 year life expectancy diff between Conn and Miss

It is based on a truth but over applied. I think we go too far the other way personally.

If you reward something it will continue/grow.

But there has to be the belief that something can be changed for someone to do something to help themselves, this is where America falls down hard.

I heard a very interesting interview about what ausie is doing with youth 'at risk' a 12 month supervisory period which is about building them up/out of crime without turning them into a victim of society/ the system.

I'll see if i can find a link somewhere.

*back to ACC and othe rnational policies.

opinion piece on the probationary thang




www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10524438

all man legends are lefties

Very neatly summed up by Prof Haworth right there.
If any politician fronted up and said that was the problem and gave rational policy responses to it, I'd be all there's...
National was my hope for that - instead they want to fix it through personal tax cuts ( ) and tilting employment strength back to organisations. Labour seem to focus too much on forced improvement of wages for work, without the corresponding improvement in outputs to go with it...