Hard News: Ideology for Evidence
215 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
@ Sacha some time back:
Mr Key said this issue had been raised with him, and it affected the meat industry.
Talley's?
-
Oh and the Greens at least ran a quick survey of 40 GPs.
This is so much sharper and more useful than whatever it was I heard Phil Goff say on the radio today.
-
...then summary sacking might be just the incentive you need to get on and find something more suitable.
He'd probably just been won over by Up in the Air.
-
Whoops - should have read right through before I wrote that.
-
who one day will learn not to take Danielle and others seriously all the time
I am vaguely horrified at the prospect of being taken seriously even a bare majority of the time.
-
When Kate Wilkinson said
“Ultimately, the employer must make arrangements to pay for the doctor’s visit. "
I took that to mean the employer paid for a doctor to visit you at home and examine you and issue a certificate (if appropriate). I.e. I took "the doctor's visit" to mean "visit of the doctor".
Did she not mean that?
-
This is so much sharper and more useful than whatever it was I heard Phil Goff say on the radio today.
Quelle surprise. A semi-competent Opposition would quickly highlight 4-5 key reasons why these changes are a bad idea, and relentless highlight them in ways people can easily relate to (as with the Frog Blog survey of physician unavailability).
Unfortunately, our Opposition is semi-comatose.
-
I think my quote of Wilkinson, together with the statistics that most of us know from experience about availability of GPs and well-explored above, point to the fact that MPs seem to be used to GPs visiting them, not the other, usual, way around.
Any MPs on here care to confirm or deny?
-
I took that to mean the employer paid for a doctor to visit you at home and examine you and issue a certificate (if appropriate). I.e. I took "the doctor's visit" to mean "visit of the doctor".
Did she not mean that?
If she did, she is so grossly out of touch with the medical experiences of most of the population that....no, it doesn't surprise me.
-
PASers be ribbin'
Surely a contender for a top 10 placing in Word of the Year 2010.
Credit to Danielle, really. I just took her comment and made it closer to the meme she was paraphrasing. Not exactly original thought.
-
I have worked in the UK with a 90 day probationary period, but my understanding is that it was never able to be used by the employer to summarily dismiss an employee without reason or explanation. I'm sure it has been exploited by employers to rid themselves of employees they are fairly sure will never have the resources to fight the dismissal, but in theory there are checks and restraints on their powers to dismiss.
I have been out of NZ for a few years now, but can someone explain to me - if an employee is really completely rubbish, demonstrably so, and has been formally warned about their crapness (no, I know that isn't a real word), can they not be fired legitimately? Really, I'm curious.
-
Oh, and I may have missed it, but nobody yet seems to have mentioned the impact this may have on attracting talent (both immigrant and expat) to the country - what can happen to someone coming to NZ, and then finding themselves without job and income, and possibly dependent on these for even their right to remain?
-
3410,
And what's with Key's reasoning for the implementation of the one-day medical certificate thing?
Because some meatworkers took three Mondays in a row off?!
It's so ridiculously minor and specific that it really just sounds, to me, like one of the large donors calling in a favour.
-
@3410: Do they seriously think every sick-leave taker is a would-be Kyle Doyle? Ironically the guy's a member of the Aussie Liberals. And I think you're right about someone in high office being wined and dined.
@Tamsin: it seems to be happening in Dubai on a more extreme scale, where it's a borderline criminal offence to be unemployed or bankrupt.
-
One aspect of National's changes that's getting no real coverage, being instead overshadowed by the trial period stuff, is that they're re-balancing the ERA process to make it more neutral. This will include allowing the Authority to decide if a claim is frivolous or vexatious early on, before it gets very far, and to decide whether a procedural lapse by the employer is sufficiently minor to overlook or actually affects the validity of the outcome.
Even acknowledging that the devil is in the details, assuming that the select committee process gets good feedback from the wider community we could well end up with an employment disputes process that negates many of the reasons for bringing in the 90-day trial in the first place: having to see through to completion expensive litigation brought by vengeful employees; the ERA's absolute adherence to form over substance in the process leading to termination, even where the justifications were valid.The opposition should be pointing to this as an admission that the 90-day trial isn't actually necessary, because it addresses many of the current concerns (and I think they're valid ones) that employers have with the ERA process.
-
one of the large donors calling in a favour.
Indeed - $1m donation offer
-
DPF on KB has just posted a list of 35 countries including France, Germany, Spain and Sweden that have some form of trial period employment laws.
Assuming DPF is correct, it is a bit hard to describe NZ's new law as extreme isn't it?
Over the years I have had several conversations with friends and relatives in management positions in NZ who have told me that as it is difficult and expensive to dismiss a worker, they are told to do what they can to avoid employing additional workers, to contract out work or to be very careful and take no chances if they do hire workers.As I understand it the stated reason for the new law is to allow employers to take a chance on employee that has some concerns in their employment history (i.e. prior convictions, just out of jail etc.) in order to improve the employment chances of such people. Just the kind of people who will really benefit from employment.
Does the PAS community accept that trying strike a balance between an employer taking a risk and an employee with some red flags is an issue of concern in NZ or is the justification outlined above false and an excuse for more malignant intentions? Neither Russell's post or any of the previous comments seem to address this issue (while many were long on malignant intentions).
-
if an employee is really completely rubbish, demonstrably so, and has been formally warned about their crapness (no, I know that isn't a real word), can they not be fired legitimately? Really, I'm curious.
Yes they can. We used to give 3 warnings(all could be issued at 48 hour intervals if behaviour continued to warrant warning. then we could dismiss with the weeks wages (they were paid weekly) + 6% annual leave. as it was casual/ part time employment or some managers just weaned them out of work by not giving them any shifts. (Oz company getting around their own oz practices) but would also stress there was other areas of addressing issues before warning, like we actually made sure the person was stable, first and training was paramount to ensure staff were willing and able to work.My biggest regret was getting uni student staff to work late, long shifts around Xmas when we knew exams were being done.
We worked hard and long but wouldn't say anyone had a miserable time at our shop. Hell, I stayed with that company for 14 years.Even though it was Australian! -
Credit to Danielle, really. I just took her comment and made it closer to the meme she was paraphrasing. Not exactly original thought.
Oh, goodness, what have I started?
I saw Russell use it the other day and did a double take. Fun fact: the original version (not mine) was "Women be shoppin'". My girlfriend and I have used it as a kind of shorthand to mock boneheaded stereotypes ever since, modifying as appropriate.
FYI It's originally a quote from The Nutty Professor.
-
Oh, goodness, what have I started?
Ah! Got it!
I tried to attribute it, but I was looking on PAS for the quote when it was actually you over on the Dim-Post.
-
DPF on KB has just posted a list of 35 countries including France, Germany, Spain and Sweden that have some form of trial period employment laws.
Assuming DPF is correct, it is a bit hard to describe NZ's new law as extreme isn't it?Three things: some of those places (Australia is one) have due process -- you can appeal your dismissal. In others (France) it's incredibly difficult to even make people redundant once they're in, so they need a trial period. And in others (Sweden) the social safety net is very robust.
I think someone noted upthread that the staggering growth in unemployment in Spain and Ireland's recessions may say something about the side-effects of those laws.
-
As usual Farrar is telling much less than half the story, and just enough to suit his spin
-
-
On the sick leave thing, has anyone pointed National to section 68 of the Holidays Act 2003? More precisely the bit that allows employers to demand proof that a sick leave claim is legitimate if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe otherwise, even if it's less than three consecutive days of illness. The section even requires the employer to pay the employee's costs.
What this looks like is an attack on the use of sick leave. "If you're not dying, you'd better be at work." This is directly contrary to evidence that it's better not to have unwell people at work, in order to get them back to peak-productivity faster and reduce the risk of cross-infection.
How does this improve productivity, exactly? Appears pretty counter-productive to me. -
Evidence is for sissies
Post your response…
This topic is closed.