It was like turning back the clock 20 or 30 years.
One of the lead stories on the Sunday night network news had a union protest, but the fascinating thing was the protesters were a “Who’s Who” of New Zealand’s protest movement over the last three decades.
Right in the frontline was former Green MP Sue Bradford, and also there with megaphone in hand, Anti Springbok Tour veteran John Minto. And providing the sound bite? Political commentator Matt McCarten.
No doubt you’re familiar with the protest and the reasons behind it.
The Government’s sweeping labour law reforms have the unions crying foul and fearing personal grievance claims, sick pay and holiday pay changes will leave workers vulnerable to bad bosses.
I had to wonder just looking at the images, and especially the main protesters, whether that played right into the Government’s hands.
Middle New Zealand would take a look at the presence of Sue Bradford and John Minto and immediately dismiss their protest as coming from a bunch of lefty professional agitators and not worth bothering about.
Don’t get me wrong. I have a lot of time for Sue Bradford, who had the reputation of being one of the hardest working and honest of all the MPs before she resigned her seat last year. I was in favour of her Section 59 legislation and believe anything that protects children has to be supported.
I don’t always agree with her politics but I can’t help but admire her work ethic. At a time of life when she could be forgiven for thinking it’s time for someone younger to take up the placard and protest, here she is, for the umpteenth time, in the middle of another battle.
So what of the issue? Employment lawyer Peter Cullen reckons good employees need not worry. "Employers don't just sack people for the hell of it so I think a lot of people have nothing to worry about," he said.
A trial provision must be written into an employment contract and it must state that there will be a trial for a specified period of up to 90 days.
And the Labour Department evaluation has found that about one in four workers hired under the 90-day trial provisions were dismissed. That does sound like a lot but apparently the biggest issue is that not enough employees know how the law works.
To my mind, any employer who gives someone a 90-day trial wants them to succeed. Why put time and money into some person and then cut them adrift after 90 days? I suggest that that sort of employer wouldn’t be in business for long. This law makes sense to me and gives any employee ample time to prove they deserve the job.
