Slave Labour in New Zealand
The owner of several Auckland liquor stores has been accused by his employees of threatening behaviour and paying as little as four dollars per hour.
Max Whitehead of the Whitehead Group said today that he has been engaged by eight of the man’s employees, all terrified new immigrants from India and the Philippines. They claim to being underpaid, threatened physically and refused holiday pay. One claims to have worked for three months straight with only two days off.
“Treating people like this in New Zealand is slave labour,” says Mr Whitehead. “These people are working every possible hour just to live, but have no time to get other work.”
Mr Whitehead says that one worker alleges that the man threatened to kill him twice. A complaint has subsequently been laid with the police.
“What’s happening to our society when an employer will flout the law and exploit desperate employees with such contempt and lack of respect? We don’t need those sorts of people here,” he says.
Another four employees have recently stepped forward upon seeing their co-workers receiving justice and protection from New Zealand laws.
Mr Key and Mr Goff: Stop Tinkering with Employment Law
This morning an article in the NZ herald says that ‘industrial relations has emerged as an important political battlefield this election.’
“When will the political parties stop tinkering with employment law for political gain?” says Max Whitehead of Whitehead Group.
In NZ, 95% of employers employ less than 10 staff — they are typically mum and dad businesses. “They blunder ahead with employment decisions hoping they are right. Then make mistakes that cost them a fortune in consultancy fees to correct. Business people are sick of being toyed with,” Whitehead says. “If the government stopped interfering, employment relationships could become more stable and productive,” he says.
Mr Whitehead says that law changes generally start with Unions, who fund the Labour Party’s campaigns, asking for changes to make their life easier and National feeling they need to make changes to appease employers. For example, Labour is pushing for the minimum wage to be raised to $15 per hour and National is planning to review the rules around constructive dismissal allowing employers to dock the pay of staff who participate in partial strikes.
“For Pete’s sake, leave it alone,” says Whitehead.
Andrew Little’s Demands May Lose Him Votes
The Engineers’s Union ex boss Andrew Little is demanding that union officials be allowed to wonder into employers’ propertys at will.
The unions want to have this power so they can sign up workers in order to increase their revenues. The way they attract workers to sign is by promising to cause problems for their employers when things get difficult.
Having unions coming into a workplace to disrupt things is going to upset many employers – including mum and dad business owners who are struggling to cope.
Mr Little, who is standing for parliament in Taranaki, is trying to win votes with this statement; however, may I suggest, it will probably cost him votes as many workers and their bosses don’t want disruption.
Just What Constitutes a Casual Employee?
With the turbulent global economy and businesses
growing need to tighten their belt buckles, more employers are turning to the
use of casual employees in order to reduce wage costs and liability; but just
what is a casual employee?
It is a common mistake that employees be called casual
when in the eyes of the law they are in fact part-time employees, something
that employers need to become aware of.
Determining who is a casual employee and who is not
can often be difficult as the law does not provide a clear definition.
We see many employment contracts that label employees
as casual and state that their employment can be terminated at the end of each
engagement. Often, if an employer acted on this, it could be deemed unjustified
if that employee has an established and regular pattern of hours.
However the Courts have outlined the meaning of a
casual employee in Lee v Minor
Developments Ltd as shown below:
- engagement for short periods of time for specific
purposes - a lack of regular work pattern or expectation of
ongoing employment - employment is dependent on the availability of work
demands - no guarantee of work from one week to the next
- employment as and when needed
- the lack of an obligation on the employer to offer
employment or on the employee to accept any other engagement - employees are only engaged for the specific term of
each period of employment.
So before employers go and employ their next casual employee, they should ask
themselves the questions above to ensure they do not find themselves on the
wrong side of the law.
Could the Rugby World Cup Cost Jobs?
The RWC kicks off on Friday and is shaping up to be a wonderful festival. But could the festivities lead to conflict between employers and employees that will ultimately cost jobs?
Max Whitehead of the Whitehead Group says employers, to avoid problems, need to be prepared for some of the issues that could arise.
Traffic Congestion
“It’s inevitable,” says Whitehead, “that traffic congestion will occur making it difficult for some employees to get to work on time. This isn’t the employer’s fault … but it’s not the employee’s fault either.” Mr Whitehead says that employers should be flexible and there are a number of arrangements that can be made like employees taking annual leave or adjusting working hours to avoid the rush.
Employees pulling sickies
Mr Whitehead says that people who are not entitled to any holiday pay because they have used it up or haven’t been in the job long enough will undoubtedly pull “sickies.” “Expect a number of people to come down with some mysterious ailments during the Cup,” says Whitehead. “Where employees are not entitled to sick leave, allowing them to take advanced holidays might be a good compromise,” he says.
Whitehead: “I can’t wait for the RWC to start. But to ensure that it’s a time to remember and not forget, I recommend employers make preparations now, not when the problems start to arise. Also, they should talk to their employees and let them know exactly where they stand.”
Negotiating a Job Offer
You are one of the lucky ones. Despite the recession; despite the current pessimism being espoused by economic commentators, you have applied and been accepted for a new job. This is fantastic news, of course; but how do you go about negotiating the best package?
There are several things to consider before signing that employment contract.
What remuneration do you need?
There is a big difference between what you need and what you would like. For example, you would probably like a flash company car, but a car won’t pay your mortgage. Establishing this simple fact clarifies what you require to make this job ecomomically viable.
What are the job requirements?
Where will you be working? Will you need a new wardrobe? Do you require special equipment? What are the hours of work? These things can add to your personal expenses. If you are aware of them, you can ask to be remunerated during negotiation.
Identify sources of compensation
There is more to compensation than just salary. There are other components like expense accounts, mileage allowances, company cars, air points, phones and computers, holidays or childcare facilities. If the company you are joining has an HR department, they should be able to tell you what sources of compensation are available.
How much do you need this job?
How much you need the job determines how aggressively you can negotiate. If you’ve been made redundant and you fear financial ruin, then you can’t afford to play ‘hard ball’ and risk having the offer withdrawn. However, if you are happy where you are, then you have nothing to lose by pushing the boundaries to get a great deal.
The most important thing in negotiation is to BE PREPARED, so if you consider these points, you will be in a strong position to negotiate a satisfactory deal.
Sacked Over a 75 Cent DVD
The Employment Relations Authority has upheld the Waikato District Health Board’s dismissal of an employee who took home a blank DVD.
The information technology technician, who also teaches martial arts, intended to make a self-defense DVD for his colleagues. Even though he offered to pay back what the DVD was worth, he was sacked regardless.
“It is ridiculous for a man to lose his job, reputation and livelihood for 75 cents — the equivalent to the cost of a pen, says Max Whitehead of the Whitehead Group. “I believe this basically comes down to one thing: his manager didn’t like him.”
“Decisions like this can have far-reaching consequences. An employee that accidentally takes home an item from work like a pen or, in this case, a DVD could find themselves down the road.”
Whitehead: “The Employment Relations Authority is losing sight of reality and I just hope that the Employment Court will overturn this decision. At most, this man should have only received a formal caution.”
Employer Redundancy Errors
In a report issued on Wednesday 24 th August, the EMA claims employers are discouraged from expansion because of complicated procedures in our employment law. “All employers have to do is talk over the changes with their employees before making them redundant. It’s not complicated; it’s about common courtesy and treating people with courtesy ,” says Max Whitehead of the Whitehead Group.
For over 11 years the Employment Relations Act has stipulated that employers are required to let employees coment on potential redundancies before imposing them.
EMA says Employers lost three quarters of the personal grievance claims brought against them when they restructured last year because their processes were inadequate and the average cost to employers is $34,411.
“From my experience, employees usually receive only $3,000 to $4,000, when the employer has failed to chat over the redundancy before imposing it because, in most cases, the redundancy is genuine and an employee is not able to claim lost wages. This means employers are using a lot of over-charging lawyers who are making approximately $30,000 per case,”says Whitehead.
Mr Whitehead suggests that if the law was changed so that inconsiderate employers were fined $3,000 to $4,000, like a speeding fine, then lawyers wouldn’t be able to fleece employers and reduce productivity.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
