Josh, the thing that puzzles me is that there is no evidence big business has any problems with the current law.

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.

National has always been, and will always be, in the hands of big business. You see, the problem for big business is that it cannot vote, and because it cannot vote, it simply purchases the services of the National Party.

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.

And it’s not as if National has any problem with bosses having a new way to bully employees. Certainly people being harrassed about having any breaks during working hours can be forced out of jobs. Once having breaks is a reward rather than a right, a new power is held over empoyees to manage their docility on other matters, whatever they might be.

Even the one example Wilkinson did come up with to justify this attack on workers’ rights is flawed.

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.