Login
Lost job
| More


(69 opinions)

Do you want the 90-day dismissal law extended?

Should the Government extend the 90-day law to cover all businesses? In its currently form, the law allows businesses with fewer than 20 staff to dismiss new workers within the first three months, without the right to take a personal grievance. The Government were considering increasing the employee threshold to 50, but they are now considering removing the limit. Should there be a size-limit placed on companies who can use the 90-day dismissal law?

Post your opinion

Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Opinion:
By Great work by the best Union in the country ...

Great work by the best Union in the country, Unite Union!! Sad this useless Tory government can't see that they should butt out and stop trying to regulate the employment market; employers and unions can work constructively together!! Get rid of these Tory control freaks/regulators!!Unite is pleased to advise that those discussions have progressed positively and that to date BurgerFuel have demonstrated a willingness to improve their probationary period processes and to cease using the current 90 day trial period provisions. To this end, both parties are currently working on a revised Individual Employment Agreement that will allow fairer processes for the employees. It is BurgerFuel's intention to provide this new Employment Agreement to their franchisees for use in all stores across the nation. Unite Union is pleased with the commitment from BurgerFuel CEO, Josef Roberts who said "Now that these matters have been brought to my attention in full detail, we believe that Unite Union's requests are fair and reasonable and in fact, will help our Franchisees improve their employment culture and work environment"

(27)   (0)
By Real Commonsense

The ERA already allows for all workers to be employed for a trial period. What the 90 Day Act did was allow those employers with less than 20 workers to fire them without giving a reason and with no comeback. The ERA is very fair - it requires employers to TALK to their workers if they are not happy with what they are doing and to TRY and resolve the issue within the trial period.

What employers were getting upset about was that they would go through this process and then an organisation that only gets paid when they get money out of the employer (and this is NOT unions) threatens to take the to court for unfair dismissal so it becomes cheaper to just pay the money. What National should be doing is not extending the 90 Days Act to all employers, but dealing with those shonkey organisations/lawyers that have created a gravy train for themselves based on people feeling hurt/angry that they have lost their job no matter who is at fault.

(1)   (0)
By Back on my Bike

Having just been a victim of the new law I think its awful. No matter which way you turn it up you end up feeling demoralised. My employer admitted she got it wrong. She didn't read my CV, did two verbal reference checks and still didn't ask the questions she should have been asking. She made a pile of assumptions that were completely wrong. Who pays for her errors? I do. I'm left to feel inadequate, embaressed and completely demoralised. I'm the one who pays the price because they don't have a clue about how to recruit employees.

(2)   (0)
By Commonsense

The unions leeches have to get in there and stir things up all the time to justify the levies they get paid. These union fatcats live the good life off the workers sweat. Workers don't realise they are pawns in the the game to get Labour (Unions) back in power.

(1)   (11)
By For a referendum to be enacted you need at less 325000 signatures!!

For a referendum to be enacted you need at less 325000 signatures!! To change this law they've got only 279 employers evidence to implement A LAW CHANGE!! THIS IS CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST - SACK THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!! So now we have idiot employers getting a bit carried away with their new "Rights" to do what they like, to whomever they like, whenever they like! Fortunately, over time this type of employer struggles to survive and eventually goes under!! Best for everybody that they do and fast!! Then their market share would be taken up by a more realistic employer who'd have better understanding of there business and the needs of their business. Also an understanding of recruitment and retention which adds value & profit. Get rid of the "Squeaky Wheel" employers (Act Party employers) who'll continually complain and blame their employees for all of their bad decision making!! They never take responsiblity!!

(15)   (1)
By Dave

I can't imagine a genuine reason why anybody on a job would not be happy to be tried out for three months before being confirmed if s/he is a good match with the company / employer. An employer would not hire somebody to later fire them as s/he would need to go through the process of employing a replacement. Unfortunately, many young people and Maori are work shy - they have been given too much by the welfare state and treaty grievance industry in the past with a resulting sense of entitlement that does not include working for it.

(2)   (2)
By Commonsense

This 90 day trial period is pretty mild stuff. But trust the unions to get all fired up and get workers all fired up at the some time. Workers are just their puppets, the unions have them out there with placards to try and drum up support for the Labour muppets. Labour are the parliamentary arm of the Union movement. This is all about trying to get the Union / Labour cabal back in government.

(2)   (7)
By THIS IS CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST - SACK THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!!

All this talk about how employers wanted this 90 day hire & fire policy, bullshit!! The only evidence the Tories gave was from the survey of employers the government did between Oct 09 to May 2010. 3500 employers were invited to participate, of that number only 989 opted into the survey, 462 started the survey.As of March 2009 only 279 employers continued in the survey with the "intention to hire people. 61 employers employed 1 employees, 33 employed 2 employees, 20 employed 3 employees, 18 employed 3 or more people. 251 people offered short term employment. Of the 279 employers left in the survey however 150 employers no longer wanted to continue this survey leaving only 129 employers in the survey. 50 employers no longer had any of the "90 Hire & Fire" employees, 51 employers had only 1 employee, 22 employers had 2 employees, 6 employers had a total of 19 employees. 114 employees left; of those 29 got sacked before the 90 days, 78 gained employment beyond 90 days and at the time of the end of the survey 7 were still in the trial. What a failed Policy. This is the only evidence they have provided. The rest is ancedotal,here-say. For a referendum to be enacted you need at less 325000 signatures!! To change this law they've got only 279 employers evidence to implement A LAW CHANGE!! THIS IS CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST - SACK THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT!!

(23)   (1)
By Commonsense

The communists need to take responsibility for what they did in 9 years in power. Their tax and spend mindset drove many productive taxpayers to Australia. They missed the chance to spend on infrastructure, instead the money was squandered.

(0)   (3)
By NO COMMONSENSE I'M A TORY ....

I'm a paid up Tory. I flew all the back from Sweden to attend the nat's conferrence recently and John Key said he'll look after me!!

(2)   (0)

Send us your pictures and videos

Latest Audio

Latest Video

Watermelon in the face
Amazing Race contestant gets watermelon right in the face. Has to hurt!
Jackie Evancho in Top 10 of America's Got Talent
She wowed us in the heats, now she does it again and she gets into the top 10.
Dancing taggers
Watch the full video of two men, accused of tagging a couple's property, held against their will and forced to dance until the police arrived. What do you make of this behaviour?
RSS feeds
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our Top Features Email