Oh (90 Day) Law-die!

"15,000 rally against workplace changes"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10681884

It seems strange that so many people I talk to about this issue seem to not get why unions, workers and anyone with a heart feel so strongly against the Government's proposed workplace changes. As per usual, the media has failed to put across the core facts of the issue, instead focusing on the emotive protests and snappy press releases.

In case you've had your head under a rock, the changes are:
- Extending the 90-day "trial period" (during which an employee can be dismissed without explanation)
- Allowing employers to demand a medical certificate for one day's absence
- Requiring unions to get permission before entering workplace (I'd love to know more about what EXACTLY this means - are union representatives physically disallowed from coming onto company premises without permission? And, if so, how is that any different to our Trespassing laws?)
- Allowing workers to trade one week's holiday for a cash payment.

Last things first, that's fine with me. Taking cash rather than a holiday is a great choice to have available - as long as it IS a choice.

"Union" is such a dirty word in NZ that I wouldn't join a union for fear of rocking the boat with my employer, so I don't much care about the union rule. Certain industries need unions - teachers, medical professionals, laborers, fast food workers, miners etc - but not all of them, not by a long shot. Industries dominated by large employers, such as those mentioned above, need a union. But not me - I'm fine. So, sorry unionists, but I can't say I care terribly much about this one either.

Needing a medical certificate for even a single day's absence is a bit bloody rough though guys. I'm about to change doctors because I found one near my house which only charges $15 per appointment for registered patients, a big improvement on the $40-45 fee I have always encountered and assumed was standard. A quick survey of 4 of my workmates shows they pay $40-60 when visiting their own doctors. Not only is it unfair to ask a sick person who only needs a single day off - someone with the flu or a stomach virus or a minor injury - to get themselves to the doctor, many kiwis simply do not have $40 in disposable cash to drop on a doctors visit with no notice. Also, will this impact the provision for employees to take their sick leave to take care of their partner or dependents? Anyway, it's pretty rough. If an employee is obviously pulling sickies there are already provisions within existing law for them to be reprimanded.

It's the extension of the 90-day trial that is the kick in the teeth as far as I'm concerned. It was a mistake to give this option to any companies, but to extend it to large multi-national corporations is just plain wrong. You see, the problem isn't that I'm worried companies will hire workers then fire them after 89 days to avoid giving them the benefits associated with a full time position (more on the erosion of the full time job in another post). The problem lies within the fact that NO REASON HAS TO BE GIVEN. Perhaps the person with firing power discovers something about the employee, like their sexuality, politics, culture, religious views or family situation, which they dislike. This law gives them the power to fire the trial employee with impunity, opening the door to all sorts of discrimination.

The reason why employees deserve a reason for their dismissal is not to make it difficult to fire unfit workers, it is to ensure that discrimination cannot flourish in our workplaces. Anecdotal evidence from close friends of my family agrees with the prevailing view that NZ employers are unreasonably shackled to unsuitable employees - one business owner I know was taken to court over the firing of an employee whom he caught smoking P on the job. However, the 90 day trial is NOT the answer. It doesn't even really address the problem.

So, ladies and gentlemen, for those who don't see what all the fuss is about, here it is. The most vulnerable people in our society - those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and those who differ in any way from the norm - are the ones most in need of legal protection. A $40 doctors bill for a day off work can literally break the budget of a large number of families and workers. Being fired without any sort of reason given allows huge scope for discriminatory practices and also leaves the worker telling their next prospective employer that they were fired from their last job but have no idea why - not exactly a compelling selling point for the jobseeker.

Aren't we trying to get MORE people working? Supposedly companies are happier to hire employees knowing they can fire them at will within the first 3 months. I really don't know if I believe that, however. Companies of course want the changes to become law and are DEFINITELY likely to claim to researchers that they hired employees when the system was trialled which they wouldn't have otherwise. But how are we to know?