Now, I say high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people do earn a lot more than the average wage, I don't think that they earn so much that they can be considered, I don't know, rich pricks and treated so callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse.
Many of these people, I think, will probably be raising families - because you don't earn $180,000 plus if you're in your early 20s, do you?
These are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management, and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed and families to look after, so I imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden.
I think ACT is taking something of a political gamble here, because I would have thought that this is a case of ACT screwing over some of its own voters.
Because remember, ACT does well in well-heeled places like Epsom, which is where people earning more than $180,000 a year live.
Now, I'm not sure what's made ACT feel like they have to do this, because it's not as if there has been this huge public debate about how people on $180,000 plus have been terrible employees who need to have their employment rights stripped.
And if anything, this is just going to provide work for lawyers because people on this kind of money will have the means, and if they have families to feed, the motivation as well, to litigate, and I suspect that they will.
So I'm very keen to see if ACT actually goes through with this part of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Hefa the journo riting txt again. Can't take u seriously.
There is a poem that has the lines - " Four walls do not a prison make"- and I wonder if Ms.du Plesis-Allan resides is such a room?
Interesting that a "Bill" is going to be introduced (as per article) to The House for consideration already has a 'knocker' placing words before us, that indicate dislike of potential legislation' without allowing Political and/or Public input/discussion/dialogue on said [proposed] Legislation.
Here in NZ, we have had the recent Court Case of an 'individual' who took a Journalist to Court, under a specific law, and won a proceeding against said Journalist (since revoked) that
" curtailed that Journalist from speaking out on a specific Group/Individual/ and any topic from/or relating to these two".
Did not see Ms du Plessis-Allan cover that in this forum and I wonder what she would say /react if 'a person did a similar move via our Courts' using the same Legislation, that impacted upon her in publishing any story relating to ACT?
I assume you’re earning more than $180k Heather? So this piece is totally unbiased?
HduPA , thats unreasonable reporting , The changes in the Employment Bill make clear an employee whose behaviour amounts to serious misconduct will be ineligible for remedies and introduces that income over $180,000 personal grievances cannot be pursued because of the disruption to a company or organisation from a high level employment issue dragging through litigation .
Post a Comment