Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Birth of the Nasty

187 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Newer→ Last

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    And there you have it. Goff thanks Key for New Zealander's Xmas presents. 90 day fire at will.(For those without telly)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    "Last week, the Maori Party caucus decided we would not support the 90-Day Employment Probation Bill introduced by National MP, Wayne Mapp, and that we would vote against it when it comes back to the House. ...'

    I seem to remember hearing a report that the Bill is a softened down version of Mapp's Bill. This, no doubt, will allow the Maori Party wiggle room to change their previously held position on it.

    And there could be baubles at stake too, yanno.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 187 posts Report Reply

  • James Liddell,

    James: I really think busting a blood vessel about a "secret agenda" being pushed by wannabe Rommels is absurd.

    Craig, nowhere in my posts have I accused anyone of a secret agenda. That was Idiot Savant. I have questioned why it needs to be passed under urgency and why this wasn't previously signalled when Mr Key had plenty of opportunities to do so. If circumstances have changed and it's necessary to do it urgently now, then Mr Key (and Ms Wilkinson) should tell us why. I'm all ears.

    Oh, James, given that I'm listening to Goff's incandescence at the "consitutional outrage" of legislation being passed under urgency, I'd love some senior political reporter to tote up how much legislation was passed on his watch -- and with his support -- without select committee scrutiny and public submission. How about retrospectively sanitising MP's unlawful electioneering with public money?

    I share your concerns about the overuse of urgency. Just because I used to work for them doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they did in Government. I don't.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2007 • 102 posts Report Reply

  • Caleb D'Anvers,

    Um... Caleb, the nice thing about being in Government is... well, you tend to get a wee bit more attention.

    Although that didn't seem to apply much during the last parliamentary term, though, did it? :) I think that what's noticeable is that the Nats are not (so far) having the kind of scepticism and critique aimed at them that the news-media directed at every little thing the last Labour government did. The Tracey Watkins story is a case in point: it just parrots all of Key's talking points, spin and all, like a press-release or a nice glossy blue brochure.

    Perhaps this is just the much-vaunted honeymoon period. But what it reminds me of more is the US political scene in about 2000-1. JK -- like GWB was -- is so much a media creation that I think journalists are a little mesmerised by him, and, by implication, their own power to anoint and un-anoint ....

    Or that political parties stack these polls for their own advantage, in the same way they flood "letters to the editor" with proxy spam.

    Yeah, good point.

    London SE16 • Since Mar 2008 • 482 posts Report Reply

  • Blake Monkley,

    90 day fire at will

    Surely this does not affect the application of the law relating to unjustifiable dismissal even in a probationary period?

    Auckland • Since Jul 2008 • 215 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Surely this does not affect the application of the law relating to unjustifiable dismissal even in a probationary period?

    It's difficult because we haven't seen the bill yet.

    It will be limited to enteprises of a certain size and somebody (Collins?) said it would be volunary on both sides, which would make it a not unlike the status quo, I'd have thought.

    With Mapp's bill I think they reckoned you still weren't allowed to sack people of bad reasons (eg discrimination) but you could if you just didn't like them.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    That's how you know about it. It's not up to journalists to critique the government - that's the role of the opposition. Journalists are then meant to report both the government and opposition viewpoints and if you read the story I've linked to you'll see that's exactly what's happened.

    I'd be in favour of journalists running a healthy critique over everything. Otherwise no one's going to raise an issue when both sides of the house agree on it.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Jan Farr,

    CTU press release today: CTU president Helen Kelly said the organisation was assured the law change would not be part of the Government's first 100 days of action.

    A trustworthy beginning! At least Labour managed to forge good relations with both business and labour organisations.

    Carterton • Since Apr 2008 • 395 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    If that's true (what the CTU said) then that is a bad start by National on the trust front.

    I do think the amendments have made the bill somewhat less objectionable. I'm especially happy to see:

    * removing the benefit stand down period for those "let go" after the 90-day period;

    (Though I assume they mean during the 90 day period?...)

    But regardless, this type of legislation should not be put under urgency. That's just silly.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    CTU press release today: CTU president Helen Kelly said the organisation was assured the law change would not be part of the Government's first 100 days of action.

    Surely the politic thing to do would be to wait until unemployment increases a bit, as it is bound to do in the coming year. This 90 Day Trial can then be introduced as a solution and if it is timed right - in step with a bottoming out of the worldwide economy - unemployment will soon reduce and the Bill can be proclaimed a success.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Blake Monkley,

    <quote>This 90 Day Trial can then be introduced as a solution and if it is timed right - in step with a bottoming out of the worldwide economy - unemployment will soon reduce and the Bill can be proclaimed a success.<quote>

    Do you mean as a solution to cutting wages and employing more people?

    Auckland • Since Jul 2008 • 215 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    The money quote is here, from Nov 25

    National's spokesperson for labour and industrial relations Kate Wilkinson told the Herald on Sunday the new government has not set a time-frame for rolling out the policy as it is not part of Key's 100-day plan, but she hopes businesses will get some indication once the parliamentary roles have been announced.

    And three weeks later:

    Prime Minister John Key today confirmed his plans to pass the controversial legislation - which will give businesses with fewer than 20 employees the right to instantly sack new staff - through all its stages before Christmas.

    The surprise move to pass the law under urgency will mean the public and groups such as unions won't have an opportunity to make submissions on the bill.

    The first broken promise was shelving the ERA, but at least they could blame Act for that. This is very poor.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22839 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    and somebody (Collins?) said it would be volunary on both sides

    yeah right. A prospective employee determines not to 'voluntarily agree' and is still going to be hired?

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 187 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Martin,

    The first broken promise was shelving the ERA, but at least they could blame Act for that. This is very poor.

    Seems if it was at all mentioned prior to the election...National claims it has a mandate.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 187 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Here's a pre-election release on the 90 day thing.

    I find the "either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance, without a personal grievance claim being brought" thing hilarious. Employees win the right to quit!

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Surely the politic thing to do would be to wait until unemployment increases a bit, as it is bound to do in the coming year. This 90 Day Trial can then be introduced as a solution and if it is timed right - in step with a bottoming out of the worldwide economy - unemployment will soon reduce and the Bill can be proclaimed a success.

    I understood this meant to stimulate the demand for labour by reducing the risks. If so, I agree that its an approach and agree that it would seem less mercenary if deferred somewhat.

    It's worth noting however, that similar provisions exist in many (most) OECD countries.

    My problem is still that the policy shifts the risk of employment entirely on to the individual. This might be defensable in some instances, but all? All without review? I understand that SMEs are far less able to ride-out lean times and may need some assistance, but total relief in all circumstances?

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    __The Stuff poll on the matter is currently running 66% in favour, which suggests either that two-thirds of the Stuff website's visitors are small-business owners, or a lot of people have absolutely no clue about what's in their economic best interests.__

    Or that political parties stack these polls for their own advantage, in the same way they flood "letters to the editor" with proxy spam.

    A Stuff poll prior to the 2005 election had Destiny picking up a couple of seats. For the duration of their limited attention spans, the terminally credulous could barely contain themselves.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Jan Farr,

    A Stuff poll prior to the 2005 election had Destiny picking up a couple of seats. For the duration of their limited attention spans, the terminally credulous could barely contain themselves.

    Teehee.

    Carterton • Since Apr 2008 • 395 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    From the Herald:

    But Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson said the public had already had a chance to give its views when the legislation went before a select committee in the last Parliament in the form of a private member's bill introduced by National MP Wayne Mapp.

    Don't you see? We have already had our say. There is no point in going over the same issues all over again.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Gareth Ward commented earlier:

    Have just had a look through the Order Paper and the motion to establish the ETS select committee is in there with the suggested terms of reference - nothing about reviewing the science of climate change so that's a good thing at least.

    But Rodney has a rather different view of the terms of reference:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-inquiry-will-look-science-theory-hide-38806

    So what is the review really all about? Who knows. As usual with John Key, we are looking for the Brighter Future in a Rorschach inkblot.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Leigh Kennaway,

    Or better, if you can combine it all into one sensational story: "Britney murdered over drunk kitten escapade!"

    You'll never get that in the Herald on Sunday. Where's the property angle?

    "Britney murdered in Parnell mansion by secret lesbian lover over drunk kitten escapade!"

    sunny Pt Chevalier • Since Mar 2008 • 40 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    That's alright simon, the chair of the select commitee will stick religiously to the terms of reference and dissuade any rogue politicking through his or her steely determination and political backbone of... sorry, what? Dunne? Really? Crap...

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Oh, James, given that I'm listening to Goff's incandescence at the "consitutional outrage" of legislation being passed under urgency, I'd love some senior political reporter to tote up how much legislation was passed on his watch -- and with his support -- without select committee scrutiny and public submission. How about retrospectively sanitising MP's unlawful electioneering with public money?

    been there, done that, and the answer for Labour is "very little". People's milage will vary on specific cases, but the urgency was only used in that way for patchup legislation such as Duynhoven's. Every piece of actual policy got a full SC process, as is required in our democracy.

    That's where national is different: they're using urgency not just to get things off to SC before everyone goes on holiday, and not just to pass emergency legal patches (which reliably happen a couple of times a year) or budget stuff, but to enacy policy without public scrutiny. It's authoritarian and undemocratic, and speaks of a party still stuck in the mindset of FPP's elected dictatorship. And I am hoping that the people of New Zealand will not put up with it.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1716 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    All of a sudden, working for a large corporation becomes more attractive.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    All of a sudden, working for a large corporation becomes more attractive.

    You mean someone who will care what happens to their reputation if they start imposing probationary periods?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1716 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.