National reveals its anti-worker colours

John Key’s Government has won a lot of plaudits for being “Labour-lite”, and that has probably helped sustain its consistently high opinion poll ratings. 

But today the Government revealed its true colours:

Prime Minister John Key today announced the National government is looking to extend the 90 Day Trial Period scheme, put in effect last year.

The government intends to broaden the use of the scheme, which allows a new worker to be fired within the first three months of employment without the right to take a personal grievance.

Currently the scheme is only available to businesses with fewer than 20 staff.

The government considered extending that to businesses with up to 50 staff, but soon all companies will be able to use the scheme regardless of their size.

Yep, no right to challenge a dismissal – however unfairly or oppressively an employer has behaved!  Even an employee who has refused an employer’s unwanted sexual advances could be dismissed under this law, and will have no comeback in law, because the employer is not required to provide reasons for the dismissal.

But it gets worse:

The government also wants to change employment laws so bosses can refuse unions access to the workplace.

“The employer should be in charge of his workplace, but we still want good faith to remain and we still want the employer to have reasonable grounds to withhold consent – we doubt that will happen very often,” says Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson.

So, not only are workers in their first 90 days of employment denied the opportunity to challenge a dismissal, but unions whose responsibility is to represent workers are denied the ability to go into the workplace to meet with their members to discuss their industrial relations issues.

No more “Labour-lite” – this National-led government has now revealed itself as hard right wing and anti-worker.  I wonder how long it will be before the privatisation plans emerge. 

Oops, Roger and Richard didn’t talk about that at all, did they?  At least until it was too late for anyone to mount effective opposition!

61 thoughts on “National reveals its anti-worker colours

  1. What percentage of workers are in companies with 50 or less staff?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  2. Our Public Services have @ 50% deadwood – Jon needs to start there

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 (-9)

  3. It is only National’s first term and they are already pushing the boundaries. I’m sure they are looking to repeat what Howard’s government did in Australia. New Zealand’s underclass will continue to grow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 (+10)

  4. ‘LABOUR LITE’? MORE LIKE LABOUR ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

    Zero human rights!!!!!

    Zero rights to mount a legal defence!!!!!!!!!!

    Zero right to mount a personal grievence within 90 days!!!!!!!!

    Zero rights for union representation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Is the New Zealand working public tolerant or just plain apathetic? This is hard-right politics by anyone’s language.

    Solution: NATIONAL STRIKE!!!! SLEEP IN TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 (+5)

  5. More green disease simplistic thinking.

    Anybody with half a brain can see that this sort of policy has some minor drawbacks and major benefits.

    As a very small employer, I would never ever take on an employee without a trial period – that would be insanity. One wrong employee and I’ve lost my income, business, everyone elses jobs, and maybe my house.

    While larger companies are better able to cover huge costs of a bad / incompetent / unsuitable / lazy employee, the costs are still huge.

    And when surveys show over 50% of applicants lie or exagerate on their cv, you never really know what you’ve got with a new employee until they’re several weeks into the job, or more.

    And in a recesion it’s interesting to note that businesses say 40% of all new employees were unlikely to have been taken on without the current 90 day trial period law.

    So while there may be a small number of issues, there also huge advantages for workers – especially those that may not be so qualified / experienced / have dissabilities / criminal records / not so good english etc. They will get far more chances to prove themselves.

    Taking on even a single employee is a msssive commitment, and the process alone costs thousands.

    The very last thing any employer wants to do is get rid of good workers.

    Surely even the most financially illiterate person can see that if employing people is made easy and low risk, busineses are far more likely to employ some one, than if it is difficult with a very high financial risk.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 (-1)

  6. Why are messages disappearing – censorship?

    [frog: No, for some reason your 11:29 PM comment got caught by the spam filter. I've cleared it.]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  7. As a worker I agree with photonz. Workers vary in quality and some are just not suitable (eg don’t keep to the rules and loose contracts). Not that I don’t like these particular workmates but I can see that they have issues.
    You can’t always make perfect rules there is a trade off: take on and train versus exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  8. @photonz1 July 15, 2010 at 11:29 PM

    The very last thing any employer wants to do is get rid of good workers.

    In a perfect world maybe, photonz1, but you seem to forget that employers are human, and with that comes making mistakes and holding prejudices. Have a browse around here and read about some of the mistakes employers make.

    What this legislation will do is deny an employee any redress if an employer makes a mistake that results in the employee’s dismissal during the first 90 days of employment.

    That is simply not fair.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  9. The NZCTU are organising a protest against these attacks on workers rights – outside the National Party Conference this weekend:

    Sky City Hotel, Main entrance 72 Victoria Street West, Auckland City
    Sunday 18th July, 10.30am.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 (+6)

  10. Toad – This is head in the sand stuff. 40% of new workers would not have been employed during the recession without the trial period law.

    Exrending this law to all businesses has massive benefits for workers.

    But because of some narrow blinkered politics, some people are prepared to throw away massive benefits to protect against a small number of problems.

    Effectively you are prepared to keep hundreds of people from getting a job, to make sure one doesn’t lose a job (which they probably wouldn’t have got anyway without the trial perod law).

    That sounds like you aren’t really interested in workers wellbeing – in fact just the oppposite.

    It sounds like you’d rather keep hundreds of people out of work so you can push a political ideal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  11. NZ should adopt NY States concept of at will employment, where the employer can fire someone anytime they like.

    Why should the state determine hiring practices for a privately owned business. I mean the state doesn’t put up any capital to start the company yet it feels it has a right to have a seat on the board and have a say in how the company is run.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  12. turnip28 – that’s way too extreme.

    Good workers deserve the right to know that if they work well they have some long term security in their employment. Otherwise how can they safely plan for their future in applying for a mortgage etc?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  13. “40% of new workers would not have been employed during the recession without the trial period law.” – source please!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 (+5)

  14. Good workers deserve the right to know that if they work well they have some long term security in their employment.

    So why not in the first 90 days then?

    40% of new workers would not have been employed during the recession without the trial period law.

    Where did you get that “statistic” from? I suspect it is employers’ organisation spin, not empirical evidence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  15. photonz1 – you continue to accuse the commenters here of having ‘diseased’ thinking.
    You are being offensive.
    Would you like some back?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  16. I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing as job security, you should probably understand that fact before taking out a mortgage.

    I suppose next you will be telling me that the State has the power to pass laws which command the sky to rain or snow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  17. Toad@9:45
    ..outside the National Party Conference..
    Couldn’t think of a better venue!
    Think the noise from the protesters will penetrate the sound of Natty back-slapping from inside the conference room?
    Here’s hoping!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  18. Just listening to the Green Party makes me wonder what it would be like in NZ if they ever attained power.

    I can’t decide if we would end up with a failed state like the USSR or maybe something worse like Pol Pots killing fields.

    [frog: Too far. Godwining the thread while putting up no argument reflects only on you. You are warned.]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 (-7)

  19. rimu – 40% reported on TV news last night, and radio NZ this morning, with mention that full report coming out soon.

    Sorry I don’t have an internet source, though if you go to Radio NZ I’m sure you’ll get it from the sound files from between 9 and 10 am this morning.

    For my business and other small businesses I know, that figure is 100%.

    toad says “So why not in the first 90 days then?”

    Because if you have the 90 day trial law then far more employers will employ new workers, and take chances on workers who may on the surface seem like a bigger risk (i.e. unqualified, criminal record, language problems, mental health issues, disabilities etc).

    It’s a no brainer.

    Do you think employers are more likely to take on new workers if there is a large risk of taking on someone who is unsuitable and being stuck with them, or a low risk?

    It’s pretty obvious that there is a big risk in taking on a new employee, and that risk stops a lot of new jobs, and a lot of people getting work.

    Can you not see the obvious – that removing that risk results in far more people getting jobs?

    And that the opposite – making it a very high risk for an employer to take on a new worker, especially those on the fringes – will result in far fewer people being employed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  20. The National Government dislikes due process and regulation, they see the econmoic benefits of China’s situation and are working towards replicating them. What they are aiming for is a large and compliant workforce that have limited rights and can be employed on minimal wages. They have even managed to ensure the costs of the ETS are largely subsidised by the same workforce. Brilliant!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  21. How ironic, photonz. I see you doing all that you accuse ‘greens’ of doing, in exactly the same breath.

    It’s so circular my head is spinning :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  22. It has always been possible to have a “trial” period. Just it has always been regulated. If I hire some one with a trial period, and they turned out not to be suitable, I would have to let them know why.

    What the new bill does is excuse lazy and bad employers from having to give those reasons.

    It is a long time since I have heard so much BS!

    As for access, the system now allows unions and employers to negotiate access, and bad employers cannot deny it, and there is some protection against bad unions but in reality bad unions have not been the problem. Bad employers have been. And now they are getting legal protection!

    peace
    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  23. “And when surveys show over 50% of applicants lie or exagerate on their cv, you never really know what you’ve got with a new employee until they’re several weeks into the job, or more.”

    Seem to remember a few people have been sacked for lying on their CV, regardless of the length of time they’ve been in the workplace. Likewise if somebody is lazy or incompetent, you can sack them so long as you follow a simple process. The extension of the 90-day rule just allows more employers to sack without process for no good reason.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  24. Quite right, Bliss & Sam! It is claimed that this trial system will support maginalized unemployed but you can imagine how a CV could look when a position has been terminated with no explanation. Perfectly innocent people will be tarred as unemployable with no right of comeback.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  25. bliss- wrong.

    It has been illegal in the past to have trial periods. They have had to have been done in other ways – hire a temp, then pay the agency to buy them out, take on someone on a short term contract, then make it permanent, or just have a trial period illegally.

    Sam – a family memeber sacked someone for stealing thousands of dollars, who after being sacked, extorted a further $10,000 under threat of taking an employment case.

    As most employers know, it is cheaper to pay $10,000 than it is to WIN a case in the employment court.

    The “simple process” you talk about, is in reality is often a nightmare.

    It’s astonishing that Greens are against a policy that has led to a large number of new jobs for those who find it hardest to get work.

    When squewed ideals become more important than the peoples lives you’re claiming to be working for, there’s something very very wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 (-1)

  26. @photonz1 1:28 PM
    You really are getting quite a reputation for stating things as fact that are demonstrably untrue.

    In this case, bliss is correct and you are wrong.

    Check out section 67 of the Employment Relations Act.

    Note the legislative history. Where it now refers to a “probationary” period, it used to refer to a “probationary or trial” period before the 2008 amendment.

    So there always has been a trial period – just that until the 2008 amendment, the employer had to give reasons for dismissal during the trial period and the employee could take a personal grievance if he or she considered the dismissal was unjustifiable.

    I don’t have a problem with trial periods. What I do have a very big problem with is legislation that permits one party to act completely irresponsibly or even vindictively, while depriving the aggrieved party of any opportunity to seek redress through judicial proceses.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 (+8)

  27. Well stated, Toad. It is not trials that are being debated it is fair process!

    As someone who often works with people involved in employment issues (and am an employer myself) I have found that if an employer keeps good records and follows clear employment processes they will have few difficulties in dealing with troublesome employees. It is important for a business to keep good financial records and show sound financial management, but many neglect looking after and managing their staff in the same robust way and pay the price.

    The story you tell, Photonz1, sounds horrendous but it seems as if there is more to the story than you say.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  28. Oh, and another point, photonz1:

    It’s astonishing that Greens are against a policy that has led to a large number of new jobs for those who find it hardest to get work.

    If you are so supportive of creating new jobs for those who find it hardest to get work, how about paying employers a subsidy to take them on. That would target policy to those who genuinely need assistance, rather than deprive all workers in the first 90 days of a new job their employment rights, regardless of whether they find it hard to get work or not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 (+7)

  29. toad – I think you are confusing a probationary period witrh a trial period.

    Effectively a probationary period is little different to permanent employment. Any sacking has to be for a justified reason, just the same as long term employees. Being not very good is not a justifiable reason.

    Fot this reason a probabtionary period really meant nothing. It’s certainly completely different to a trial period – and it’s misleading to try to pretend it’s the same thing.

    Sprout – the story is simple. The same person has extorted other employers as well. It’s legal under current law to do that.

    And it’s big business. So lucrative that even small law firms can afford tv adverts to tout for business. It doesn’t matter to them if the dismissal is justified or not. They know they can legally extort at least $10,000 of employers in virtually every case, usually without having to go to court and just with a couple of letters.

    It’s big business.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 (0)

  30. Although the info I received this morning re the protest at the Natty conference on Sunday said 10:30am, I’ve just seen a post at The Standard with a NZCTU poster advertising a 10:00am start (and pots, pans and vuvuzelas welcome).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  31. Sorry Photonz1-I would like to believe what you say unreseveredly but you often make flamboyant claims that don’t have a factual basis and when I have attempted to discuss things with you in the past you don’t appear to read any of the evidence provided to you. If this issue is as wide spread as you say, how about some proof? I do know there are dishonest employees and lawyers out there but a racket on the scale you describe must leave evidence. I think your credibility within this blog is diminishing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  32. @robertguyton 10:30 AM

    …outside the National Party Conference..
    Couldn’t think of a better venue!

    I can – inside the National Party Conference!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  33. Sprout – interesting you claim a case deosn’t have a factual basis despite you having zero knowledge of if.

    And you say my claims are “flamboyant”.

    There is an employment case in court on average about every couple of days. These are handled by at least 360 NZ law firms who specialize in Employment Law.

    That’s way over 100 companies for each single case, every week.

    I haven’t actually made a claim on how wide spread it is – I have no idea how big it is, like you have no idea how small it is.

    But I do know that it is a problem, and it’s a significant problem, and is a big reason in there being a reluctance to take on new employees.

    The Green attitude seems to be to make it as risky and difficult as posible to take on new employees. – who does this benefit?

    Certainly not workers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  34. It just shows how misguided you are when you want to protest the expansion of a highly successful scheme that’s led to a large number of new jobs that wouldn’t have been created otherwise.

    If you had your way, a large number of people would not be in the jobs they now have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  35. photonz1 @ 5:02 PM

    Completely wrong. This is the Green attitude you (perhaps deliberately) misrepresent – all policies designed to encourage employers to create employment and take on employees who are disadvantaged in the labour market:

    Foster new employment by supporting active employment programmes, including:

    Financial support for the appropriate retraining of long-term unemployed.

    Ensure appropriate funding /training subsidies for staff training focused on low-income workers and small businesses.

    Support for the work of employment resource centres, small business support groups and similar organisations that work to train and support people going into self employment, small business, co-operative and community-owned enterprise.

    Assist motivated people with entrepreneurial talent on income support to set up their own small business by:

    Increasing access to the Enterprise Allowance at adequate levels and in all geographic localities.

    Supporting and expanding the availability of employment resource centres, small business support groups and similar organisations which work to train, mentor and support people going into self-employment, small business, co-operative and community-owned enterprise.

    Promote life long training and apprenticeships among employers and (potential) employees.

    Raise the current cap on age and numbers of apprentices, particularly those that are spread across several small business employers instead of just one.

    Investigating a mechanism, possibly similar to the artist’s model, for income support during the later stages of developing production models, software etc. This would have an agreed time limit.

    Resourcing the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income Service (Work and Income) to help workers find and retain appropriate employment, and to inform workers of relevant employment and human rights legislation.

    Expanding vocational guidance services so that unemployed people can be given proper, individually tailored assistance in finding appropriate employment and training opportunities from the time they first register as a jobseeker.

    Providing professional bodies with incentives and funding support to help migrants and refugees reach the standards needed to practise their professions.

    Ensuring greater availability of bridging courses for immigrants in professions for which Aotearoa/New Zealand has need, and of student loans for those seeking professional registration here.

    Encouraging the use of practical supervision of those with internationally recognised qualifications as an available route to registration in place of one-off pencil-and-paper tests.

    Supporting employment creation doesn’t have to involve taking away workers’ employment rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  36. So why so so anti a hugely succesful scheme that’s led to a lot of people getting jobs who wouldn’t otherwise have them.

    All the above Green policy is all well and good, but largely useless if employers don’t employ people because of the large risk.

    Would you honestly rather those thousands of people didn’t have jobs just so a small number didn’t have the “hassle” of being employed but just for a short time?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  37. “Sprout – interesting you claim a case deosn’t have a factual basis despite you having zero knowledge of if.”

    No I didn’t Photonz1! I was questioning the credibility of your claims when historically you have made statements that are factually incorrect and you don’t substantiate your claims when asked. If you want us to take you on your word you need to have the occasional link or reference to show that your views have a basis in fact and not just hearsay.

    To say it is legal to extort employers and that the practice is wide spread, with sums of $10,000 not uncommon, stretches credibilty. Where’s some evidence?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  38. Sprout says “To say it is legal to extort employers and that the practice is wide spread, with sums of $10,000 not uncommon, stretches credibilty. Where’s some evidence?”

    Sprout – I don’t really care if you beleive me or not. I know personally of the case I talked about.

    I know it happens enough, that lots, (if not most) employers take this into consideration and are more reluctant to employ people because of it.

    I know it’s lucrative enough for small law firms to spend thousands on tv adverts (and there’s over 360 employment law firms to handle just 3 employment court cases per week)

    If you choose to ignore the obvious, then that’s your choice. Effectivelty a choice to put blinkers on and follow an ideal instead of what’s really happening.

    Even if I could put a hundred factual cases in front of you, you’d probably still argue the point.

    The reality is what you think is not relevant.

    The reality is that this sort of thing, every day, gives companies second thoughts about taking on new employees.

    Unless you took a big gamble with everything you own – your income, your house, your car, your families future, all on if the employee you are taking on will really be good at what you want them to do (against not being able to do the job), then you’ll probably never understand the risk of giving someone a job, and the diffenrence a trial period makes.

    And Keith Locke shows he has no idea what hes talking about when he says trial periods make no differnece to businesses.

    He’s clearly totally out of his depth talking about this. Loopy comments like that just make the Green party look inept.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 (-5)

  39. Frog – the Green party employment policies you list are doomed to failure.

    Virtually evey one of them comes at a large cost – either taking more money form taxpayers, or from other spending.

    And none of them is guaranteed to make any difference.

    What does make a differen is making is easier to employ people.

    This is what the trial period law has done.

    What has it cost the taxpayer – nothing.

    How much has it taken from other spending – nothing.

    Has it made a large difference in new jobs – yes – 40%

    None of you policies would have anything like the effect of this one (even if they came without their huge costs).

    Yet Greens are happy to slag off a policy that is highly successful at geting jobs for new workers – that’s appalling.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  40. I see that almost all the comment is on the trial period scheme, but no one seems to be commenting on employers being able to refuse unions access to the work place.

    If Minister Kate Wilkinson really believes that employers will only rarely refuse unions access to the work place, she is living in cloud cuckoo land. I don’t believe she is so naive.

    The reality is that as soon as employers can refuse unions entry to the workplace, many (even the majority perhaps) do so. Even good employers refuse entry, and staff end up with having to talk to union organisers outside the work site at lunch time or after work. I can actually see why employers refuse unions entry to the work site … unionised staff tend to get higher pay and better working conditions than non-unionised staff (not always, but on average this is the case). Why would an employer do anything, such as let union workers onto the work site, which might end up in an increased wage bill?

    Kate Wilkinson should be honest and say she wants to keep unions out of the work place full stop. At least one can respect someone who is honest in their views, even if one doesn’t agree with the views.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  41. samuela – I was a little sceptical about this part of the policy, though the way some unions act it may be needed.

    Recently parents at our primary school were being harrassed and hassled by union members in front of their children to sign a petition against National Standards.

    Not only that, but a number of people dressed in union uniforms who were doing the hassling weren’t even in the union – they were Labour party members and MPs falsely acting as union members.

    If unions (and people falsely posing as uinions) can come onto school grounds and hassle parents in front of their own small children, and act in this way any time they want, then access should definitely be limited.

    We need more information about this part of the policy. What sort of problems are unions causing? How much productive time iis lost by unions taking up workers time? You talk of workers having to talk to unions in their own time as if it’s a bad thing.

    Curently companies pay for plenty of time for zero return – morning tea, afternoon tea, plus nearly two months a year in holidays, statutory days and sick days, family sick days, dentist visitsd, doctor visits, breavement days etc.

    Do you exepect the union to be able to come in at any time it wants and have a meeting even if it means a companies urgent production deadlines are missed?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  42. Photonz1,

    You write “Curently companies pay for plenty of time for zero return – morning tea, afternoon tea, plus nearly two months a year in holidays, statutory days and sick days, family sick days, dentist visitsd, doctor visits, breavement days etc.”

    Very few people manage to get two months of leave and statutory holidays; sure it might be possible in theory (four weeks annual leave, two weeks sick leave and around ten days of statutory holidays), but this would be the exception rather than the rule.

    In any case, annual leave is not pay for no return. Employers should be doing their budgets based on paying a years wage for someone working 40 hours (or whatever) for 46 weeks of the year (52 take away annual leave and statutory holidays). If annual leave and statutory holidays were gotten rid of, it is likely that more staff would burn out and work less efficiently. Even if this is not the case, annual leave is part of an employees remuneration package. To imply that it is somehow a perk given by benevolent employers which costs them plenty but gets no return is certainly an interesting way of viewing things. The same applies to morning and afternoon tea breaks.

    With regards Labour party members posing (falsely) as union members; I have as much sympathy for these people as you do (although I am surprised that there is a “union uniform”; no unions I have belonged to have a union uniform … are you sure these people weren’t teachers who were also Labour party members?) As you may have guessed from my previous posts, honesty is something I place a large value on. By all means protest as a Labour party member, but don’t try and mislead people into thinking you are someone else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  43. Theres no such things as “Workers rights” or the “right to a job” no matter how long the left keep insisting there is.There are only the rights to liberty and property in regard to employment matters.The job belongs to the employer…he created it.The prospective employee is leasing that job until it becomes redundant or he moves on for what ever reason.The only right the employee actually has or needs to protect himself is the right to liberty…the right to withdraw his labour and go elsewhere.What he doesn’t have is the right to dicate,with backing from the State, to the employer,the property owner of the job,what he must do with whats his.Thats fascism.

    Removing Govermnment from the equation will see everyone able to work things out amounst themselves and find a level that agrees with all.

    As to unions,What right do they have to come onto someone elses property unannounced and disturb the working enviroment?They should make appointments like normal people and adults do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  44. “Workers don’t have rights, you say, then what right have they got to work undisturbed?”

    Do pay attention.I said there’s no such thing as “workers rights”….and there isn’t.Just as theres no such things as “Employers rights”,”Golfers rights” or “Sushi chef rights”.There are only individual human rights held by everyone by virtue of being created human and thats all any worker needs to rely on when dealing with his employer.If the employers a jerk and nothings going to change then the worker can exercise his right to liberty and depart for better condictions elsewhere.The employer has the exact same right to not employ a person he doesn’t like for WHATEVER reason or to set the condictions of employment with HIS firm under his right to property…whatever they may be.Thanks to the rights to liberty and property no-one is forced to take a job or hire someone they don’t want.

    Thats how things work in a civil and just society that understands and supports genuine human rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  45. samuela – four weeks leave, plus 11 stats and an average of 5 sick days adds uo to over seven five day weeks.

    On my calendar, over seven weeks is “nearly two months” If you add a couple of 15 minute breaks per day, that’s another three weeks over a one year period. With many workers you have at least that again on chatting, twitter, facebook, or checking personal emails (often much more).

    So you can count that as 13 weeks per year for no return (equal to three hours work for four hours pay).

    The exact amount is not the point. The point is most employers probably pay for an additional hours pay for every three hours of actual work.

    So workers productivity needs to be based not on hours worked, but a fuigure of hours paid which is about 33% higher – it’s a huge difference.

    Union visits cut into productive time even more, and are just part of the problem of them wanting workers to do less and less work for more and more pay.

    Re unuion uniform – think bright orange safety vests with large union logos and mottos.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  46. James,

    There are also no such things as individual human rights simply by virtue of being “created” human.

    Silly religious Randites…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. RG,

    I don’t know if your right; but in my years here I’ve yet to see James make a coherent argument or use anything other than circular/religious bullsh!t inspired by the nut-bar that is Rand.

    We have rights, and very specific rights at that, simply by virtue of being human? Pfft! The same arguments he uses to refute the rights he opposes (on the rare occasion he almost approaches coherence) refute his rights too, likewise that which he uses to support his rights really support any construction of rights (actually none, cause its bollocks).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Ahh the see no evil,hear no evil monkey Sapient is back spouting his nonsense…

    RG,

    “I don’t know if your right; but in my years here I’ve yet to see James make a coherent argument or use anything other than circular/religious bullsh!t inspired by the nut-bar that is Rand.”

    What religious argument? I point to the objective reality all about us and that we are standing in as my evidence….no faith required.When two or more human beings interact the matter of rights becomes unavoidible if peace and coperation is to be maintained.Without a recognition and respect for each persons property in themselves and their phyiscal items then conflict and chaos are inevertible.Get it?

    “We have rights, and very specific rights at that, simply by virtue of being human? Pfft! The same arguments he uses to refute the rights he opposes (on the rare occasion he almost approaches coherence) refute his rights too, likewise that which he uses to support his rights really support any construction of rights (actually none, cause its bollocks).”

    The rights I support are non contradictory,unlike the nonsense lefty creations like “workers rights”.All of us are human,therefore we all must have the same natural rights as each other..how can it be otherwise?Please explain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Back from the dentist…

    The concept and need of rights in human affairs is indespensible.You simply can’t do without them and expect to have a just,peaceful and productive society.How do we resolve conflicts? By repairing to rights to determine who owns what and who doesn’t,who was consenting to actions and who wasn’t.Sapient has only previously ever offered a poor easily defeated case for some sort of privilages being created by society as a counter position but the trouble with privilages is they are just that…and can be revoked at any time.Rights by contrast are yours regardless of the views or whims of others and don’t require anyone elses permission for you to utilise.

    Robert..heres an essay on where Im coming from.Its based on reality and the facts of mans nature as man.

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights

    Quote…”A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men…..

    This next piece refutes Saps silly claim that Im basing my case on some sort of religious faith..

    ““The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.”

    See? No God required…just an honest look at the objective universe about us and our relationship to it…facts people, facts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>