by frog
Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson introduced to Parliament yesterday a Bill that will take away employees’ rights to meal breaks and rest breaks.
This is an appalling Bill. Its Explanatory Note even states:
Officials have advised they have concerns about developing the proposed amendments to the rest breaks and meal breaks provisions of the principal Act at speed and without adequate consultation. This may result in policy being designed and implemented with unintended consequences, including unforeseen regulatory compliance impacts and administrative costs.
But the Minister blunders on and introduces it anyway.
And the Bill is intended to receive its Royal assent no later than 30 December, so of course we will see urgency misused yet again, and either inadequate Select Committee scrutiny or none at all.
The Explanatory Note to the Bill identifies only one employment area where there is supposedly a problem with the current law – that of sole-operated air traffic control towers. On the basis of that, Kate Wilkinson proposes to legislate to permit all employers to “buy back” workers’ meal and rest breaks.
Surely, if there is a problem with the current law for a very small number of industries, the law could be amended to provide for industry-specific exemptions, rather than declaring open season on meal and rest breaks.
The Minister needs to take a break herself. Then she should go out and consult with stakeholders and come up with some sensible legislation to address any problems that are identified.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Wed, October 28th, 2009
Tags: employment relations, industrial relations, Kate Wilkinson, meal breaks, Minister of Labour, rest breaks
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The air traffic controllers offered the flexibility to take their breaks when no planes are scheduled, and their employment agreement provides that they can be called back from breaks if this is necessary for safety purposes.
But for some inexplicable reason, the CAA has said they have to have their breaks at the same time every day. It’s just one stupid employer that has created this problem. The current law has all the flexibility necessary already.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
The National Party then proceeds to grossly overstate it’s intention to “Take the sharp edges off the recession.” How many sharp edges (aka job losses) have there been since National took over the economy? And how many how many sharp edges have been removed (jobs created) as a result of it’s policies?
Following it’s deliberate lack of action, National senses that workers feel vulnerable, and therefore, more agreeable to less favourable terms and conditions for fear of job losses, so it legislates to satisfy the demands of it’s financier, you guessed it, big business!
National has always been this way, and is not likely to change any time soon.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
When you read the explanatory note to the Bill you see it’s full of vague phrases like “…appear to be overly prescriptive…”, “…appears to be limiting the capacity of workplaces in some sectors…”, “…are indications the current provisions are creating difficulties…” – but no actual evidence.
My guess is that the Bill is motivated purely by ideology. And to go down this path with no consultation with Business NZ, the NZCTU or, apparently anyone else, and then ram it through without the opportunity for Select Committee submissions is a legislative abomination.
National’s excuse for ramming the fire@will bill through under urgency and without Select Committee hearings was that a Bill that was substantially the same was subject to Select Committee process when they were in opposition.
They don’t have that excuse this time around.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)