Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Nah Lets Just Ban Them.

I started my working life as a casual farm worker in a zero hour contract sans paper.
With a couple of dogs one saved from a .22 bullet and the other a reject, Lou was undershot a serious defect in selecting a pup. Any way some days I had no work but never had nothing to do, the next day could well have a conundrum from multiple choices on offer.

Where zero hour contracts have overstepped comes with requirements that to gain this opportunity for entry to the workforce where those signing up were required to be on call with the contract at risk for not accepting an offer of hours.
That is beyond what flexibility in employment changes to employment law did  not intend  it is clear that some employers I would never work for or more probably a half arsed HR person with little or zero understanding of the law of unintended consequences would add a requirement that the employee "Must be available".
That is what needs addressing.

There is a group of workers in the pool who for any number of reasons do not want to go to work every day, and a zero hour contract without penalty for non availability might be a best buy.

There will always be scumbag employers who through inexperience, desperation or sheer avarice will take advantage of vulnerable employees and the very best practise for dealing with them is publicity or not giving them  opportunity.
It appears the publicity angle has worked on several of the franchises with BK about to fold leaving only McDonalds holding out.

Of course there are increasing numbers of scumbag workers who under the protection of current employment law will just not turn up and expect zero repercussions and it is their attitude that contributes to some of the demand for casual workers to be available.

Tweak it yes ban it no.

Oh and all those bleeding hearts who want to reduce further opportunities for gaining access to work via casualization, will be the very same ignoramus who decried the 90 day law that has successfully gained permanent employment for many.
Both these modern employment structures can be beneficial for young people trying to get an opening entry on their CV so to ban either or both will impede unnecessarily, an increase in opportunity so badly needed with the entirely natural progress to casualization of the work force.

Anyone leaving school in the middle of last century would have had employment in hand, any thought of "a gap year", tertiary study with no idea of what they will do or having several career starts by age thirty unheard of but that is the modern world.
Who were the more fortunate those of us who from social pressure accepted we had to have a job or those c2015 who can drift for years and may quite possibly never settle on any permanent employment, largely made possible through the pretty generous welfare availability.

Wont stop Angry Andy and his pug lapdog Woody from calling for another ban without actually saying what it might be they will ban, great sound bite though.


Chris said...

"Anyone leaving school in the middle of last century would have had employment in hand, any thought of "a gap year", tertiary study with no idea of what they will do or having several career starts by age thirty unheard of but that is the modern world."

A very interesting comment here GD.
I am in my 60s and a couple of years ago was doing some casual work on a Landcorp farm on the West Coast.
There was a young(well 30) bloke employed there during the University holidays, as his partner worked there.
The boss(in his mid 60s) said to this guy, do you realise that you have wasted the 10 most productive years of your life in study and you still haven't finished and you still don't know what to do when you have. He was a bit put out by this comment but I totally agreed.
He couldn't get it through his head that by the time WE got to 30 we had our careers worked out and were mostly in stable employment, and worked hard to get where we are today. In my case, sold the farm and semi retired, or changed direction anyway in my late 50s, well set up financially.

Anonymous said...

You are right GD, if there is no commitment from an employer to provide some work, there should not be any requirements able to be made on a worker. Otherwise, I suggest these contracts seem close to slavery which I thought we outlawed last century or earlier. No employer should own a worker ever.


gravedodger said...

@ MarcW you are clearly an expert (the drip under pressure variety) on what an employee and an employer might wish to initiate as a mutually satisfactory arrangement in a compliant work place contract that could be banned under the one size fits all proposed by the head of the trade union and currently temporary leader of the NZLP parliamentary wing.

You clearly have zero comprehension as to what slavery actually encompassed and your views on employment c2015 are straight out of the 19th century.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if you misunderstood my comment GD, my suggestion was that if there was no commitment from an employer to provide ANY hours of work, there should be no corresponding commitment from an employee to be constantly available for work at the whim of a TXT or phone call from said employer. My definitions of slavery includes one of a person who is required to be constantly at the beck and call to provide for someone who has no intention of giving reward if they don't feel like it. You shouldn't be able to compel someone to be on constant hold for employment if there is no actual likelihood of some hours of paid work.

If you and your friends want to agree to help each other out in times of need, that is not an employment contract, it is just an arrangement.