There were some interesting and perhaps suroprising discussions at The Standard on Andrew Little’s speech and the lack of a mention of 90 day trials given the Standard is a ‘labour left’ blog.
I suggest the 90 day trial is quite popular with small businesses. It will be interesting if Labour drops their objection to it.
Why would they?
The 90-day trial is only popular with incompetent employers. How many small business owners are incompetent, do you think?
There is enough antidotal evidence that has been gathered which points to the ‘fire at will legislation’ is not being used as prescribed (spun) or a cynic would say used to an advantage by a scumbag employer.
Expected responses, albeit with nothing provided to back up claims like “enough antidotal evidence “.
But another thread was less anti.
Interesting he mentioned removing the zero hour contracts which is a safe announcement but nothing about the 90 day bill
Even though most will not use it, small/medium business owners generally like the 90 day right to fire, a lot.
I guess the question is does the positives of the 90 day bill outweigh the negatives
All I know is there are too many people out there who can’t be bothered turning up to work on time, every day, day after day, in a fit to work state.
I know alot of small business owners with the same story workers not turning up turning up late turning up stoned or hung over not willing to do a fair days work with the minimum fuss.
It is possible to give reasons for not keeping people on in those cases. The problem is not so much the 90 day trial period per se, but that no reason need be given for firing someone during that period. If no reason needs to be given, there is no room for dispute, which is what the employers like about it. However, it does leave room for bad faith employment practices.
There’s always ‘room for bad faith employment practices’ no matter what the legislation is. The key is whether there is a case that bad practices have significantly oncreased under 90 day trials, and whether that overweighs the benefit of encouiragung employers to take on more staff.
Exactly Olwyn. The big problem with the 90 day rule is that it is open to abuse by employers. If someone is late, comes in stoned , doesn’t do their job properly then give them a warning. If the unacceptable behaviour continues in spite of warnings then the employer is perfectly entitled to sack them.
The “no reason required” 90 day rule means some employers who have no intention of providing a longterm job are able to mislead prospective employees taking on what are actually temporary positions..
This ‘no intention of providing a long term job’ is often brought up. That can be achieved easily without using the 90 day trial.
No evidence provided of how prevalent this might be (or if it happens at all), just a statement that it could happen.
Again this is all very mild discussion about 90 day trials.
Then ‘nadis’ joined the discussion:
As a small business owner, the 90 day rule is very beneficial. I’ve never used it, but I can see the attraction. Whats not recognised by many commentators is the risky nature of most small businesses which run on a week by week basis where meeting the payroll is often a close run thing, and so many small business owners have provided the family home as security.
When viewed through that prism – you can see the attractiveness of the 90 day policy. I’d love to see any stats on how many employees don’t get kept on – does anyone know a number?
If an employer has form in churning, then bring in a rule that takes away their 90 day right for a 2 year period. Define churn as something like more than 10% of employee hours over a financial year or something similar.
Also bring in a rule that says 90 day let go employees get cash compensation – 3 weeks pay or similar.
A couple of rules like that would retain the good for thee employer aspects of the 90 day rule while penalising bad behaviour.
I’d like to see what Little proposes in actuality for boosting SME’s. Some quick ideas:
– retain a 90 day rule though with some protections
– change the provisional tax system to a pay as you go based on monthly cashflow
– streamline the provisions around firing and redundancy, too many confusing areas. A clearer process would be good for both employers and employees
– don’t tax retained earnings for the first 3 years of a business’ life – just tax distributions.
– give businesses (say) 50% of the dole for 2 years when they take on an unemployed worker.
– incentivise businesses to invest in third party provided training
Forget subsidies and funding initiatives – they aren’t necessary and will get siphoned off by unproductive businesses who know how to play the system. A well executed business with proper governance and sound practices can get funding already.
A couple of mild responses only to that.
I am actually thinking that Little will probably keep it.
If he keeps to the center and sticks with popular National policies then he’ll probably be the next pm of NZ
Party member and unionist Te Reo Putake:
Current LP policy is for removing the 90 day provision. I don’t see that changing, though I doubt Little is likely to promote the policy when talking to or about small business.
btw, the LP Policy Council has a few vacancies to be filled. I know of some very progressive candidates who are wanting to take the spots to help move the party in a better policy direction.
Hoping for a policiy move to the left.
RNZ are reporting Little confirming that the 90 day rule will be gone under a Labour government. Must have covered it in the Q&A session after the speech.
If Little said that it’s a bit odd as he has said that all party policies are up for review. There’s likely to be a lot of discussion within the party on the 90 day trial.
The result for then 90 day trial may depend on what sort of people are attracted to getting involved in Labour’s rebuilding and policy development.
It was surprising to see on a ‘labour left’ blog more support for the 90 day trial asnd only mild opposition.