by frog
This family not only lost their jobs under the fire at will legislation but have been, hopefully only temporarily, split up by it:
Their “crime”, apparently, was to stick up for another worker who was a recent immigrant, and was being victimised in a racist manner by the employer.
This family is now off off to Oz. Goodo, Kate Wilkinson and John Key! Does “closing the gap” with Australia really have to mean sending our families there because they fear they have no future in New Zealand?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Justice & Democracy by frog on Sat, November 13th, 2010
Tags: fire at will, helen kelly, NZ Council of Trade Unions, unlafwul dismissal
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
But here we have someone standing up for someone else who appears to have been unlawfully discriminated against, and gets the sack for doing it. That gets a bit murkier – legally, but not morally.
Which is another good reason why this abomination of a law that deprives employees of their legal right to challenge wrongful action should be repealed.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
We’re all just expendable pieces of meat under the 90 day legislation.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
I would like to know more about this like who is the b@stard employer and who is the immigrant victim?
I think that it stinks and I would like to see these jerks exposed and justice done.
so if anyone has any links; they are welcome
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
For every ‘bastard employer’ story you gleefully drag out there will be many ‘bastard employee’ stories as well. That’s human nature. The fact is that for most normal employers this legislation is a godsend. I can now give someone a go and see how they pan-out without living in fear of being stuck with an idiot or tripping up in the minefield of the former dismissal regime.
Hire at will. It’s a winner
Like or Dislike:
9 
8 (+1)
Even though Toad is quite correct about other legal avenues wronged employees could use most don’t because they haven’t the confidence or the knowledge. If honest and good people are knocked through this dodgy act it could easily have long term consequences for them through a damaged work history and loss of confidence. Just how many people need to suffer before it is deemed a problem, ten, twenty, hundreds?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
The 90 day legislation is opening up a useful avenue for lazy and bad employees to take a hike.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
samiam..have you met shunda yet..?
..brothers-in-trolling..as it were..?
..and like shunda..what you write just induces yawns…
(‘ooohh!!!..’inflammatory!’…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
The problem with the greens phil, is that there seems to be an occasional curious parallel with some fundamentalist Christians, especially in regard to legislating morality.
‘Oh the employer might take advantage, we have to stop them!’
Guess what?, most employers are actually quite keen on looking after their staff, WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO.
For a small business like mine, a poorly performing employee could seriously damage my livelihood. The 90 day thing will give me the confidence to give someone a go, especially a younger person with not a lot of prior work experience.
For the record, the above story was typical before the law change in the dairy industry, they have a shocking record and always have.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
“…Guess what?, most employers are actually quite keen on looking after their staff, WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO…”
hilarious..!..(they have such a history of that too….eh..?..)
and almost up there with the spokesperson for the pig concentration camp owners…
..who said on the telly..(‘sunday’..last week..)…repeatedly…
…that pig concentration camp owners only do it ‘cos they…
… (quote) ‘care for pigs’…
..and..in a striking aspect … that pig-concentration-camp-spokesperson closely resembled the highly-intelligent animals he brutalises/exploits/cages…
..his eyes also..were full of fear…
(if you don’t believe me…go to tvnz-on-demand…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
It always interest me to see the personalization of issues. Shunda is clearly pro the 90 day bill because it gives her more control over her workers. She is incorrect in assuming that most employers have the well-being of the workers at heart. Most employers have the bottom line in mind and that is it. It’s the epitomy of the throw away society we live in. Workers are expendable and replaceable. It’s dog eat dog. If employers can hang the fire at will policy over an employees head to make them work harder they will. The feudal system is fully in effect and the 90 day bill will breach human rights.
Yeah! I care about pigs as well. I don’t put them into small crates where they bleed from their wounds, pump them full of antibiotics and steroids, feed them pieces of other pigs and then chop them up and sell them for money. These people care about money and that’s it. A holes!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Young or inexperienced workers can be set up to fail in a new job if they don’t receive reasonable support and guidance or are given jobs well outside their level of competence or experience. They will also make mistakes at times and there must be some allowances for that (within reason). I have been involved with numerous cases where potentially competent people have been destroyed through lack of mentoring and support and paid a heavy price for incompetent management covering their own backs by passing the buck to those beneath them. In many cases poorly performing workers are victims of the circumstances they find themselves in not the that they are essentially hopeless.
In the few cases where workers are a real liability and there is no possibility of them improving there are clear and effective processes to follow to exit them, even within the relatively strong collective agreements teachers have. If it is gross incompetence, and there is a real health and safety issue, immediate dismissal can occur. If general poor performance is an issue then a period of support is put in place which can often turn things around and remove the concern. If the support (advice and guidance) provided does not effect change or the worker refuses to engage then they can be dismissed.
Sound process is important to follow because few employment situations are black and white and the loss of employment for a worker generally has far more devastating consequences for a worker than an employer. To have an act that can allow for hotheaded and reactionary management to do what they like without reason or accountability is just plain wrong. Why should we provide support to those well known rogue employers in the dairy industry?
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
Sprout is right. I’ve been on both sides as employer, manager and employee.
I can give several examples of employees who became very good workers after discussing a lack of performance. One we identified an undiagnosed medical condition which once treated worked to the advantage of all concerned. If you want a trial period there is nothing to stop you writing a fair trail into the employment contract. I’ve had no problems with dismissing the, rare, non-performing employee after fair process. If you get stung as an employer in the employment court it is your own fault because you haven’t been fair and reasonable and followed the clearly defined process..
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
For the record I am neutral on the 90 days thing, I can see the positives and the negatives.
I responded mainly due to Phil dragging me into this with his attack on Samiam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As someone who does some work in employment advocacy within the education sector I know that there are multiple reasons for for poor performance of a worker and if a poorly performing worker continues to work in that role in an incompetent manner it is mainly due to ineffective or incompetent management.
Incompetent management? Fire them perhaps? oh right we can’t can we!
You just identified a poorly performing employee Sprout, what should be done about it?.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Training and discussion concerning limited performance. Identification of limitations because of ailment etc. Ensuring workers are not unwell. A performance based time frame. Not putting unrealistic expectations on employees. Retaining smoko and lunch breaks that allow recuperation. Remuneration packages and bonuses that encourage hard work and a safe and good workplace environment to name a few.
Or just fire them before lunchtime. I didn’t like them because they were coloured, female, short, Hindu, Muslim, gay, lesbian, walked funny, spoke with a lisp, not a National voter or chewed with their mouths open.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Or just fire them before lunchtime. I didn’t like them because they were coloured, female, short, Hindu, Muslim, gay, lesbian, walked funny, spoke with a lisp, not a National voter or chewed with their mouths open.
Ok, so you have managed to identify the situation in the United States of America, have you a NZ example?
(p.s., you misspelled Republican)
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Please refer to the video above troll.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Ha ha!!
Nobody is arguing about the dairy industry, see my 11:06,
Henny penny.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
So if you don’t want to debate the issues shunda, what are you doing here?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Phil u make my day!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Todd, the sky is not falling, this post (and Helen Kelly especially) are trying to tell us it is.
Don’t try and tell me this is only about the dairy industry now!
And quite frankly, someone that says they are “done with NZ” over one bad experience seems a wee bit irrational to me, if moving the family from the countryside was stressful, moving flippin country is not the solution.
These people had an ar$ehole for an employer, and not an uncommon occurrence in the dairy industry, it is sad these people learnt the hard way but hardly the smoking gun against the 90 day trial that you suppose.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I’m pretty sure that I was not arguing that the sky was falling on our heads because of some stupid legislation or that it was only about the dairy industry. Do you always make things up to try and win a debate Shunda? That’s a bit like your straw man argument.
Oh so now they are irrational! Perhaps these people have had other bad experiences to make them want to leave New Zealand. Who are you to say they haven’t? Clearly you have lost that argument, if NZ is such a great country to live and work in, we would be retaining more people. Moving country is sometimes the only solution.
You’re correct, these employees did have an A hole of an employer. Bad employers are not just limited to the dairy industry and we’re not just talking about a single occurrence of abuse. It’s endemic.
Phil, u make my day as well
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Bill English claims surprise that after restricting the average workers spending power and creating an employment environment full of uncertainty workers aren’t spending enough to keep the local economy on track, there is a limited amount of groceries that our favoured, wealthy elite can buy!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
And how the hell is that attitude comparable with a green sustainable society?
Quite frankly I think wage parity with Australia is immoral from an environmental perspective.
And I believe the reasons people jump the ditch to make money are part of the problem.
This is a classic case of social progressives vs more genuine environmentally sustainable policy, and the two are not compatible.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Todd you need to re-read my post and reassess your position, you do realise you just conceded exactly the point I was making?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
What point is that shunda, that nobody is arguing about employment conditions in the dairying industry? Well actually we are arguing about exactly that, because they are inclusive of the employee/employer relationship under the 90 day bill.
Dork! I have not conceded anything and don’t need to re-read your worthless posts. I am not ignorant of what you have written. I find your posts rather boring though and they definitely have not put forward any argument that has made me reassess my position. You need to stop telling me what to do. Again shunda, you’re making things up as you go along. Just another subverter of important issues eh!
[frog: Todd, I think you could better make the same point without the abuse.]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
You need to stop telling me what to do. Again shunda, you’re making things up as you go along. Just another subverter of important issues eh!
I’m sorry I’m giggling….
Ok Todd, ok, here is how I see it.
The Dairy industry has always had a pretty bad record in NZ as an employer, well before the 90 deal came in.
The implication of the video (and what Helen K says on the video) is suggesting that this is evidence of the law failing.
I am saying it is simply evidence of an industry that has always had employment problems and has nothing to do with the 90 day deal.
An A-hole farmer can get rid of staff he doesn’t like by simply being an A-hole, this was happening long before this law came along.
So cherry picking a case from an industry that has historically had a shocking record is not really the smoking gun. It also seems that this particular case is unusual in the fact that farm managers were on this trial, who shifts there entire family to the country without some sort of firm contract?, especially when you are working in a management position.
This case is just exposing a sad reality in NZ; many dairy farmers are jerks that never accept anyone else is as hard working as them.
No law will ever change that reality.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Is ‘lisa’ another one frog?
[frog: Appears so, Shunda, and now deleted. It seems they are getting cleverer by posting a comment that is marginally relevant to the thread, but with the main purpose being to link to their site.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sprout and Todd have my vote of confidence!!!
Out with the 90 day law!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)