Erosion Of Workers' Rights?

The Prime Minister has announced a range of new employment law measures, a move that will please as many as it enrages.

It's almost impossible to have a discussion about labour law without ending up in a screaming match. But it's worth a try, nevertheless. Let's take a look at the main measures and see how many of them can be justified.

Extending the 90 day trial period

The evidence cited by Key for extending the 90-day trial period to cover all workplaces is flimsy. He says that a recent Labour Department survey showed that employers were happy with the 90 day trial period. Well of course they would be. It lets them fire someone at will. What kind of employer (however well-intentioned) wouldn't want that power up their sleeve?

But other countries have trial periods of 90 days or more, and tey don't seem to have repoted massive problems. There may be something in the argument that trial periods encourage employers to take a chance with someone they would otherwise not employ.

On the other hand, workers could be getting royally screwed and we wouldn't probably be hearing many stories. The mad rush to extend the scheme is unseemly. It would be better to wait a couple more years before changing the scheme. And perhaps we could also ask workers how the trial period laws are working for them.

This issue has the unions excited, but it's hard to know whether that excitement is justified. Unfortunately for the unions, I suspect most people either won't care about the change or will think it's a good move.

Cashing up fourth week of holiday

New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the OECD. That isn't good for our health or our families. So letting people cash up part of their holidays will only add to that problem.

And a proposed law change like this one assumes that workers will have genuine choice about whether to cash up. Many won't, due to financial pressures, or because their bosses will pressure them to take the cash.

Giving workers choice is a nonsense, because it assumes equality exists in the employment relationship. If you're highly skilled and readily employable that might be the case. But for those at the bottom with few work skills, choice is a meaningless phrase. Their jobs are always the first to go in a recession or during a restructuring, so they can hardly tell the boss to get stuffed if they're leaned on to do an extra week's work.

But it's only one week, proponents of the move will say. Sure. And maybe at next year's National Party conference Key will be announcing how successful the move was (because employers will just love it), so let's just let employees cash in all of their holidays.

Enabling Authority members to throw out frivolous or vexatious cases 

Well I'm no employment lawyer, but I'd have thought there weren't that many frivolous or vexatious cases being heard. I'm not sure whether this move would affect more than a handful of cases. So I will suspend judgment until I know exactly what new rules are to be put in place. But any raising of the bar for personal grievance cases cannot be good for workers.

Change the way the Employment Relations Authority operates

The plan to make the ERA more like a traditional court sounds like it is designed to make life more difficult for employees taking personal grievance cases. Bringing more procedure and formality into legal processes will only make it more baffling and difficult for litigants who are either self-represented, or represented on the cheap. In other words, employees. 

Tightening rules around union access to workplace

Unions representatives will now need employer consent to enter workplaces, and employers can communicate directly with union members while bargaining is underway.

This is a deliberate and cynical attempt to further kneecap the union movement. It is as simple as that.

So , in summary, there is almost nothing in the package for workers. It could at least be argued that the 90 day policy may encourage employers to hire people they otherwise wouldn't, but the other changes seem deliberately designed to weaken workers' rights.

That won't bother the core of National's support base. And I suspect the howls of outrage by unions will be portrayed in the media as the last desperate flailings of a tired and irrelevant labour movement.

On the other hand, these moves enable Labour to differentiate itself more clearly with the Nats. I expect most of these proposed changes would be repealed under a Labour-led government.