Seriously though, the honchos here said "we want to give you a go. How about doing it for three months and then you’ll know if you really want it and we’ll know if you’re the person for the job.”
That was two-and-a-half years ago. I was in my early 50s, two of the kids were still living at home, we were still paying a mortgage, but I thought ‘sod it, I’m going to give it a go’.
In fact, I remember thinking that —at the age I was— the chance to take a risk like that doesn't come along as often as it did when I was younger. So I did it. And I knew I had 90 days to prove myself.
Which is why I find the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Government extending the 90-day trial to all new workers all a bit over the top. There was a protest yesterday outside David Seymour’s electorate office.
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson was there and she said the new government hates workers. That’s what she said.
She said: "National, ACT and New Zealand First are out there trying to make people believe that they are standing for workers. They do not."
Now, to be fair to Marama, the protest yesterday wasn’t just about the Government extending the 90-day trials. It was also about the Government getting rid of fair pay agreements.
Which were brought-in by the Labour government last year and they’re a little bit like the old awards system, because what they do is they set minimum employment terms for all people working in the same sector or industry. But they’re going to be gone-burger. And the 90-day trials are going to be in place for everyone.
But what all these people not happy about it aren’t admitting, is that someone would have to be pretty bad to be given the flick after 90 days.
Yes, I know in the past there have been shonky employers out there who might hire someone for 90 days with the full intention of getting rid of them after 90 days.
Maybe it was seen as easier to give someone a job and give them the flick three months down the track, instead of trying to find temporary workers. Who knows?
But I reckon most employers aren’t like that. And it’s not because they’re salt-of-the-earth do gooders. Not at all. The reason I’m confident most employers won’t go and abuse the 90-day thing is because of the hassle they have to go through just to get staff in the first place.
I’ve been there and done that. Hiring staff takes a lot of time. A lot of effort. And it can be pretty expensive too. You’ve got to advertise the job. Depending on the size of the business or the organisation, you might have to get a recruitment company involved. And then there’s the lost productivity because of job interviews, reference checks. All that stuff.
So the last thing an employer wants 90 days after all that, is doing it all over again. So you won’t find me weeping and wailing and gnashing my teeth over what the Government’s doing.
I saw Christopher Luxon on the news last night poo-pooing the claim made by those protesters yesterday that the Government hates workers. He was saying the 90-day trial will help people get jobs because employers will be more confident taking someone on, knowing that after 90 days they can move them on if they’re not up to it.
I don’t think that was the best response to that specific claim, because he seemed to be coming at it from the perspective of an employer. Even though he was trying to appear like he was talking about the workers.
But, either way, I have no problem at all with the what the Government is doing. Because I know from personal experience that, if you start a job knowing from day one that you’re on trial for the first three months, you really pull finger. Because you have to prove yourself. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing.
And I’m not convinced that employers will holus-bolus abuse the system and move people on after 90 days just because they can.
Finding staff and hiring staff is one of the biggest bugbears for employers. And they will only put themselves through that if they really have to. And if they really have to - because someone is a slacker, or is a troublemaker, and is the last person they want working for them - then why shouldn’t employers be allowed or able to give someone like that the flick?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
Which is why I find the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Government extending the 90-day trial to all new workers all a bit over the top. There was a protest yesterday outside David Seymour’s electorate office.
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson was there and she said the new government hates workers. That’s what she said.
She said: "National, ACT and New Zealand First are out there trying to make people believe that they are standing for workers. They do not."
Now, to be fair to Marama, the protest yesterday wasn’t just about the Government extending the 90-day trials. It was also about the Government getting rid of fair pay agreements.
Which were brought-in by the Labour government last year and they’re a little bit like the old awards system, because what they do is they set minimum employment terms for all people working in the same sector or industry. But they’re going to be gone-burger. And the 90-day trials are going to be in place for everyone.
But what all these people not happy about it aren’t admitting, is that someone would have to be pretty bad to be given the flick after 90 days.
Yes, I know in the past there have been shonky employers out there who might hire someone for 90 days with the full intention of getting rid of them after 90 days.
Maybe it was seen as easier to give someone a job and give them the flick three months down the track, instead of trying to find temporary workers. Who knows?
But I reckon most employers aren’t like that. And it’s not because they’re salt-of-the-earth do gooders. Not at all. The reason I’m confident most employers won’t go and abuse the 90-day thing is because of the hassle they have to go through just to get staff in the first place.
I’ve been there and done that. Hiring staff takes a lot of time. A lot of effort. And it can be pretty expensive too. You’ve got to advertise the job. Depending on the size of the business or the organisation, you might have to get a recruitment company involved. And then there’s the lost productivity because of job interviews, reference checks. All that stuff.
So the last thing an employer wants 90 days after all that, is doing it all over again. So you won’t find me weeping and wailing and gnashing my teeth over what the Government’s doing.
I saw Christopher Luxon on the news last night poo-pooing the claim made by those protesters yesterday that the Government hates workers. He was saying the 90-day trial will help people get jobs because employers will be more confident taking someone on, knowing that after 90 days they can move them on if they’re not up to it.
I don’t think that was the best response to that specific claim, because he seemed to be coming at it from the perspective of an employer. Even though he was trying to appear like he was talking about the workers.
But, either way, I have no problem at all with the what the Government is doing. Because I know from personal experience that, if you start a job knowing from day one that you’re on trial for the first three months, you really pull finger. Because you have to prove yourself. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing.
And I’m not convinced that employers will holus-bolus abuse the system and move people on after 90 days just because they can.
Finding staff and hiring staff is one of the biggest bugbears for employers. And they will only put themselves through that if they really have to. And if they really have to - because someone is a slacker, or is a troublemaker, and is the last person they want working for them - then why shouldn’t employers be allowed or able to give someone like that the flick?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
1 comment:
My father was a plumber. His firm took a gamnble on a distinctly maori youth who had poor school reports.In the practical real world he thrived.90 day trialas are a godsend to such persons (and the employers). With the difficultyof diengaging, employers are now more wary than ever. Employers are afraid of stereotypical work dodgers, slap dash approach, endless days off, tangis, deceipt, dishonesty and, nowadays, activism. The 90 day trial usually suffices to reveal the (colonised) exceptions.
Post a Comment