Tag Archives: Employment

Auckland Councillor fails to understand meaning of ‘Public Holidays’

Posted on by Brad Heap

Yesterday Auckland Councillor Cameron Brewer tweeted:

What’s with cafes charging a surcharge today when the statutory public holidays are not till Mon and Tues. Unimpressed.

Yesterday was a public holiday and this tweet shows that Brewer is completely ignorant of the law which is rather surprising given he is the former head of the Newmarket Business Association.

This afternoon Brewer tweeted again:

I had a whack at the 2003 Holidays Act – http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/brewer-holidays039-legislation-clearly-not-working-any-more/5/77547

Before even opening the link it is obvious that Brewer is going to have a whine over surcharges. Surcharges that are illegal in other countries. One would hope that he would be campaigning for the banning of surcharges but as others have pointed out companies are entitled to charge what they like when they like.

The opening paragraph of the press release shows Brewer does not understand the point of a Public Holiday

The 2003 Holidays Act is failing those it was meant to protect. It was meant to boost the pay packets of those working on public holidays but instead it’s forcing most businesses to shut and leaving employees with less pay not more this holiday season.

The intentions of the 2003 legislation were honourable, but now we’re seeing one big unintended consequence – that is it’s actually forcing businesses shut and workers to cut back their hours when they probably need extra money the most.

I don’t know how Brewer could spin this any more. The purpose of the Holidays act is to set out the minimum legal amount of leave an employee is entitled to. It includes provisions for payments for working Public Holidays which are time and a half plus a day in lieu.

The purpose is not to boost the pay packets or force companies to close. It is designed to set out the national days of significant where everyone should be entitled to the choice of marking them. If companies do not want to observe the public holiday then they are allowed to open (excluding Christmas, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, ANZAC Day morning), but if they do open on these days then it is to be expected that staff required to work be treated above and beyond their normal conditions, because they are going above and beyond their normal duties.

The legislation is actually forcing holidays on staff and cutting their pay packets, not boosting them. What’s more the surcharge seems to be upsetting people more than ever. The Government now needs to assess just how counterproductive the legislation is becoming, and look to repeal it.

“It’s tragic that young cafe workers keen to earn a buck are being told by their bosses that there’s no work for them over Christmas and New Year. It’s becoming abundantly clear that what was actually designed to protect workers is now seeing them lose work opportunities.

Again Brewer is completing wrong here. If a business is not open on a public holiday on which an employee would otherwise work they are required to be paid their normal daily pay for this day. This includes casuals if they have worked two out of the previous four weeks.

What Brewer is actually arguing for in his press release is a return to a two class system. Where those who ‘have’ are able to take a holiday and put their feet up, or shop. While those who ‘have not’ work for slave wages and not getting to enjoy the Public Holidays that other people take for granted.

I for one would rather pay a small surcharge as a mark of respect to those who do not get the benefit of a day off.

UNSW vs NTEU dispute becomes ugly as students turned into political prawns

Posted on by Brad Heap

Yesterday morning I found out that members of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) would be refusing to release student end of semester course marks as part of their ongoing dispute over pay and conditions with the University of New South Wales. Yesterday afternoon UNSW responded by issuing a refusal to pay any staff member who takes part it the ban on exam results. The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the issue here.

The biggest problem with refusing to release marks is that the main impact of this action will affect students far more than it effects the university. This step has seen students become political prawns in a petty dispute. While I support the right for members of the union to strike, and I certainly believe in their cause I do not see how bringing students into the crossfire is going to get the staff onside with anyone. However, I believe the actions in response by University management will only seek to inflame the situation further. Tit for tat is never a good way to resolve conflict.

If the staff really wanted to force the university’s hand they would place a ban on submitting papers and attending conferences. This would see a far bigger impact on the university’s reputation, standing and income. I do not believe that the NTEU would even consider this course of action because more than any lost income the action would directly affect the standing of its own members within the global academic community. But surely that is what industrial action is about, standing up for what you believe in, putting your reputation and standing on the line? Rather than using students as cheap political ammo the NTEU should focus on where it hurts, research output.

Workers rights. Yeah Right.

Posted on by Brad Heap

Today’s HoS has an excellent piece on workers rights by Matt McCarten

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10546860

They want the Government to immediately allow small businesses to have unfettered right to dismiss any new worker in the first three months of their employment. That means that at any one time, 100,000 New Zealanders would have no legal rights if they are dismissed, no matter the reason.

This is outrageous and would allow exploitation and intimidation for those workers, particularly at the low end of the market.

They say employers are reluctant to take on new employees if they can’t terminate them if it doesn’t work out. Nonsense. The current law has a 90-day trial period for workers.

…

That’s just the first step. Here are some of their juicer demands: remove the union’s right to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of its members; restrict a union’s ability to educate members on their rights; restrict their workers’ representatives from coming on to worksites; allow employers to refuse a worker’s request to have their union fees deducted from their pay.

Despite all of this, if employees do join a union, the employers want the right to pass on all union terms and conditions negotiated to non-union workers.

If there’s a strike or lockout of the union members by an employer they want the right to bring in scabs to break their employees’ resolve.

If the workers still don’t bend, it’s proposed that the employer can just divide up the union wage agreement and pass it on to each worker separately. This action would effectively end a dispute on an employer’s terms.

The power in any employment relationship is always with the employer and that’s why every civilised country has laws to protect workers from exploitation. Business NZ is demanding the unbridled right to control their workers. We used to call this relationship slavery.

It is really worthwhile reading the full article an insightful but also scary piece of potential reality