In a recessionary, low-growth environment, we’re seeing well-paid government servants, people earning more than $100,000 per year, protesting and striking for higher pay and better conditions.
Then there’s those who don’t like being told that they actually have to go to work, and who would rather continue to work from home for as many days as they feel appropriate. As a result, they’re pushing back on demands to return to the office, a move which in many cases would see them with the same terms and conditions they signed up to when they were first employed and, I assume, were grateful for the job.
This week, we heard that the average employee takes 6.5 days of sick leave per year. But government workers take 8.4 days. Why the difference?
We used to say that having a job was a privilege. But at a time when we need everyone contributing, we’re seeing too many people failing to treat it that way.
It’s not just government workers either.
With the proliferation of privately owned businesses in New Zealand, we would do well to remind ourselves that there are plenty of employers out there at the moment, paying their people in full despite depressed profits, while they themselves go without.
Those in government roles should be grateful too. While there was some talk of bringing government employee numbers back to 2017 levels, it didn’t happen. As a result, there are 20,000 or so people in work who otherwise might not be. And let’s not forget that, just like middle New Zealand, the Government has its affordability issues too.
So why are we so disillusioned with work? It’s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that we just don’t want to work any more.
Following that public service strike action over the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking about all things employment. I must admit to usually being supportive of the case for teachers and nurses in particular. But this time, their protests didn’t ring quite as true with me.
So, I’ve been thinking about recruitment, remuneration, training and retention as it relates to the current job market. And I’ve been applying my perceptions to the real-world situations I encounter each day.
While all this was going on, I was asked to look over a new employment contract. Over the years, I must have reviewed hundreds of employment contracts. But I don’t do so as often these days and so I read much of it with a fresh outlook. This one needed my attention because it was a critical hire in an important role and we wanted an additional set of eyes across it.
The overwhelming outcome of my review was the amount of space taken up by leave entitlements, termination provisions and working from home protocols. In fact, there were more pages dedicated to these topics than there were to the really important stuff, like the job description.
The leave provisions now include annual leave, parental leave, bereavement leave, sick leave, and if all that’s not enough, public holidays and special leave. Then there’s a couple of pages of termination provisions, catering for both the voluntary and involuntary departures. Finally, the clear expectations around what’s in and out when it comes to working from home. The various provisions are so soft on the employee and tough on the employer, that you’d be forgiven for wondering whether the employer wanted to take it on.
A couple of days later, I was asked by a different organisation to assist with an employment dispute which had resulted from the forced redundancy of a number of people within a struggling business.
The employer was forced with the tough decision as a result of the deteriorating trading conditions we’ve all experienced during the last year or so. In working their way through the redundancy process, they behaved immaculately, with good legal advice from a reputable firm at every step, and very fair treatment of the unfortunate workers.
Most of those being made redundant recognised this and were understanding and respectful of the employer’s position. They also appreciated the fact that the employer offered more for them by way of redundancy entitlements than was required under their respective employment agreements.
This week, we heard that the average employee takes 6.5 days of sick leave per year. But government workers take 8.4 days. Why the difference?
We used to say that having a job was a privilege. But at a time when we need everyone contributing, we’re seeing too many people failing to treat it that way.
It’s not just government workers either.
With the proliferation of privately owned businesses in New Zealand, we would do well to remind ourselves that there are plenty of employers out there at the moment, paying their people in full despite depressed profits, while they themselves go without.
Those in government roles should be grateful too. While there was some talk of bringing government employee numbers back to 2017 levels, it didn’t happen. As a result, there are 20,000 or so people in work who otherwise might not be. And let’s not forget that, just like middle New Zealand, the Government has its affordability issues too.
So why are we so disillusioned with work? It’s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that we just don’t want to work any more.
Following that public service strike action over the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking about all things employment. I must admit to usually being supportive of the case for teachers and nurses in particular. But this time, their protests didn’t ring quite as true with me.
So, I’ve been thinking about recruitment, remuneration, training and retention as it relates to the current job market. And I’ve been applying my perceptions to the real-world situations I encounter each day.
While all this was going on, I was asked to look over a new employment contract. Over the years, I must have reviewed hundreds of employment contracts. But I don’t do so as often these days and so I read much of it with a fresh outlook. This one needed my attention because it was a critical hire in an important role and we wanted an additional set of eyes across it.
The overwhelming outcome of my review was the amount of space taken up by leave entitlements, termination provisions and working from home protocols. In fact, there were more pages dedicated to these topics than there were to the really important stuff, like the job description.
The leave provisions now include annual leave, parental leave, bereavement leave, sick leave, and if all that’s not enough, public holidays and special leave. Then there’s a couple of pages of termination provisions, catering for both the voluntary and involuntary departures. Finally, the clear expectations around what’s in and out when it comes to working from home. The various provisions are so soft on the employee and tough on the employer, that you’d be forgiven for wondering whether the employer wanted to take it on.
A couple of days later, I was asked by a different organisation to assist with an employment dispute which had resulted from the forced redundancy of a number of people within a struggling business.
The employer was forced with the tough decision as a result of the deteriorating trading conditions we’ve all experienced during the last year or so. In working their way through the redundancy process, they behaved immaculately, with good legal advice from a reputable firm at every step, and very fair treatment of the unfortunate workers.
Most of those being made redundant recognised this and were understanding and respectful of the employer’s position. They also appreciated the fact that the employer offered more for them by way of redundancy entitlements than was required under their respective employment agreements.
Leave entitlements, termination provisions and working from home protocols seem to dominate employment contracts, says Bruce Cotterill. Photo / 123rf
But there were two people who did not. Ironically, they were underperforming and the easiest to decide to let go. They engaged an employment adviser who came to the employer with a range of falsehoods, claims of improper process and stated expectations of an additional three months’ pay for each of his charges.
He then proceeded to tell the employer that they’d settle quickly for six weeks’ pay, of which he would no doubt take a chunk for his fees, and that it would cost the employer more than that to fight it!
I told the employer he was right. It would cost a bundle to dispute. But we know what happens if you roll over. The next disgruntled leaver turns up with the same legal adviser and you go through it all over again. “Once they get a win they won’t leave you alone” I offered. You’d be better to fight it and win than roll over and lose, I recommended.
I hear countless examples of this happening. Employers, already burdened by the need to dance very carefully through the employment law landscape, do everything right and still get pinged for “another five or six grand” because someone turns up with a lawyer and has a go, and it’s cheaper and less time-consuming to settle rather than fight the claims. This of course is the modus operandi of the low-level employment adviser.
To his credit, my employer stood their ground. The adviser, realising that a win was getting harder, and that his hourly rate was about to be driven downwards, drifted away, stopped replying to emails and of course, was never heard from again.
The threat of legal action is an easy one to throw around and it seems employment law is where the low-hanging fruit is. I’m not saying that every employer is perfect. I’ve seen plenty of bad employers too. But where those employers are in the right, putting them through hocus pocus allegations and the time and cost that goes with doing so should be avoided. It’s something the Law Society should jump on.
Of course, on many occasions where this sort of nonsense plays out, the affected employee is a reluctant member of the team, usually underperforming and negatively impacting the business and the culture. They have a very detailed, and as noted above, generous, employment contract. The prospect of paying more than they are entitled to is a bitter pill for employers to swallow.
Employment is a two-way street. Employers and employees need each other. We can argue about the power imbalance if you wish, but as noted above, our generous employment agreements go some way to restoring that.
But here’s the point. If we are going to get this country off its collective knees, we need both business and government being great employers. And we need people to come to work, ready to work and wanting to work. If they don’t want to be part of it, that’s up to them. But they shouldn’t expect a worthy employer to provide additional incentives to celebrate their departure.
We need to get back to work. Real work with real hours. At the coalface, in the office, in front of the customer. Our customer service experiences are only as good as the desire of those serving us to do a great job. Based on my experience as a customer, those on the front line aren’t trying hard enough.
We have a government that is pushing hard for economic growth and that growth will come. Tourism is coming back. The farmers are booming and will start spending with local businesses. Housing affordability is coming right and that means we’ll need tradies; builders, plumbers, electricians, roofers and landscapers.
So we will need more good people working, not less. If the employers do their part, it is not unreasonable to expect our people to bring passion and work ethic, and as they do, all Kiwis will benefit from a growing economy.
Our nation’s labour productivity has grown by a cumulative total of just 4% over the past 10 years. When you consider the money spent by businesses and government on technology, training and talent in that same 10-year period, that’s a pitiful return.
So we need to do better. If we want all New Zealanders to be wealthier, we need to create a working environment where employers set up employees to succeed, and employees return the favour with a fair day’s effort.
I saw a commentator who said that unemployment has peaked. Let’s hope it drops quickly. And perhaps, we can put the bottom-feeding employment advisers out of business.
But there were two people who did not. Ironically, they were underperforming and the easiest to decide to let go. They engaged an employment adviser who came to the employer with a range of falsehoods, claims of improper process and stated expectations of an additional three months’ pay for each of his charges.
He then proceeded to tell the employer that they’d settle quickly for six weeks’ pay, of which he would no doubt take a chunk for his fees, and that it would cost the employer more than that to fight it!
I told the employer he was right. It would cost a bundle to dispute. But we know what happens if you roll over. The next disgruntled leaver turns up with the same legal adviser and you go through it all over again. “Once they get a win they won’t leave you alone” I offered. You’d be better to fight it and win than roll over and lose, I recommended.
I hear countless examples of this happening. Employers, already burdened by the need to dance very carefully through the employment law landscape, do everything right and still get pinged for “another five or six grand” because someone turns up with a lawyer and has a go, and it’s cheaper and less time-consuming to settle rather than fight the claims. This of course is the modus operandi of the low-level employment adviser.
To his credit, my employer stood their ground. The adviser, realising that a win was getting harder, and that his hourly rate was about to be driven downwards, drifted away, stopped replying to emails and of course, was never heard from again.
The threat of legal action is an easy one to throw around and it seems employment law is where the low-hanging fruit is. I’m not saying that every employer is perfect. I’ve seen plenty of bad employers too. But where those employers are in the right, putting them through hocus pocus allegations and the time and cost that goes with doing so should be avoided. It’s something the Law Society should jump on.
Of course, on many occasions where this sort of nonsense plays out, the affected employee is a reluctant member of the team, usually underperforming and negatively impacting the business and the culture. They have a very detailed, and as noted above, generous, employment contract. The prospect of paying more than they are entitled to is a bitter pill for employers to swallow.
Employment is a two-way street. Employers and employees need each other. We can argue about the power imbalance if you wish, but as noted above, our generous employment agreements go some way to restoring that.
But here’s the point. If we are going to get this country off its collective knees, we need both business and government being great employers. And we need people to come to work, ready to work and wanting to work. If they don’t want to be part of it, that’s up to them. But they shouldn’t expect a worthy employer to provide additional incentives to celebrate their departure.
We need to get back to work. Real work with real hours. At the coalface, in the office, in front of the customer. Our customer service experiences are only as good as the desire of those serving us to do a great job. Based on my experience as a customer, those on the front line aren’t trying hard enough.
We have a government that is pushing hard for economic growth and that growth will come. Tourism is coming back. The farmers are booming and will start spending with local businesses. Housing affordability is coming right and that means we’ll need tradies; builders, plumbers, electricians, roofers and landscapers.
So we will need more good people working, not less. If the employers do their part, it is not unreasonable to expect our people to bring passion and work ethic, and as they do, all Kiwis will benefit from a growing economy.
Our nation’s labour productivity has grown by a cumulative total of just 4% over the past 10 years. When you consider the money spent by businesses and government on technology, training and talent in that same 10-year period, that’s a pitiful return.
So we need to do better. If we want all New Zealanders to be wealthier, we need to create a working environment where employers set up employees to succeed, and employees return the favour with a fair day’s effort.
I saw a commentator who said that unemployment has peaked. Let’s hope it drops quickly. And perhaps, we can put the bottom-feeding employment advisers out of business.
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
10 comments:
Most of this generation of young people haven’t learnt how to work hard, do not have respect for their elders, nor discipline. We have created an entitled society, none more so than Māori.
Much of the incentive to work has gone out the window because working for so many people does not result in being better off any more.
For the older generations, work meant getting on the property ladder and raising a family in your own home - this applied to manual workers as much as it did to professionals. The 3br or 4br house on a quarter acre section was not the prerogative of the rich - it was achievable by all, and work was the way to do so.
Now, work increasingly means toiling for the landlord who takes a third or more (sometimes over half) of the income thus generated, and having barely enough left to pay the bills and get by from day to day. Why put oneself out?
Couples with two decent middle incomes are struggling to achieve what their grandparents could just about take for granted - as long as they remain on two decent incomes; starting a family may well be out of question for financial reasons.
We like to think that the work ethic arises from a sense of obligation to look after oneself and one's dependents, but remove the incentive provided by material betterment and that becomes a mere platitude.
Absolutely right, Barend.
There’s another aspect as well. I don’t know how widespread it is, but at one of the nation’s universities, management became so thoroughly corrupt that it turned away from its research and teaching and turned instead towards management for its own sake, with the taxpayer funding a well-paid country-club lifestyle for managers. Scholar/teachers were shifted out, while unproductive managers were retained. (Before we all got PC, we used to call these managers ‘failed academics’.) Today, if you’re not a woke fruitloop but you’re anywhere close to retirement age, you would probably be happier unemployed than working in the fruitloop university. That’s specific. But what might be widespread is that employment in what used to be honoured, respected businesses/institutions have been corrupted beyond recognition, and people might be less interested in working for them now than even a few years ago.
“Our youth now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders, and they love to chatter instead of exercise. Children are now tyrants not servants of their household. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannise their teachers.”
Never has a truer observation been made. Our times in a nutshell.
I agree with all the above contributors but will add my educational slant as usual
Work ethic is a very protestant /biblical concept - if you don't work honestly you don't eat, says scripture .
Now consider our education system where traditional values are trashed including work ethic which is actively discouraged. "If you don't feel like doing it don't do it , '" my children were directed by their teacher. School work is neither well done , completed , marked nor corrected. This idiocy is largely the result of 'child -centered 'education from progressivism based on indoctrinating into socialism. School has to be fun and even entertaining . Hence the disrespect for authority and elders who may promote hard work.
The idea of public servants on modest incomes , finding satisfaction in doing an honest days work not just for the pay but also contributing in building up society for themselves and the rest of society has sadly vanished.
Entitlement , slovenliness, disrespect are all products of a rotten education system and disdain for traditional values and crazy 'gentle' child raising fads in which the child knows best.
I don't know how housing became so prohibitively expensive but I suspect it is greed . I am waiting for someone to write on this issue to enlighten me.
Agree totally Gaynor
Rather than celebrate riding the crest of the wave of technology and marvel at how it has improved efficiency, this article prefers to rant on some illogical tirade about remote working and how it seems to reflect "a poor work ethic".
The world is changing at a pace faster than some old dinosaur can seem to handle.
News Flash - The technology that is used is the same whether it is in "the office" or remotely. Workers will communicate and use the same tools no matter their location.
And not all remote workers are irresponsible children that need a manager breathing down their neck to produce results. Most of them are grown-ups.
Cry and whimper as much as you want but I suspect this is just as much a display of self-loathing at the realization of one's own inability to keep pace with an ever-changing world.
Thanks Anon @ 9:13, you just clarified what’s going wrong with our society and the failed work ethic that now blights us. Cheers.
Nicola Willis failed to fire 16,000 public servants. DUH
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.