Employee Minimum Rights, ALL GONE, overnight
It’s ALL gone!
-
GONE – Relevant minimum wage must be paid
GONE – Overtime paid at minimum wage per hour
GONE – Four weeks’ paid annual holiday per year
GONE – Eleven public holidays per year
GONE – Payment of time and a half for working on public holidays
GONE – Rest and meal breaks must be provided – Rest break must be paid
GONE – Five days’ paid sick leave per annum after first 6 months, and 15 days can be carried over to a maximum of 20 days
GONE – Three days’ paid bereavement leave for certain family members, one day for other people
GONE – Up to 52 weeks’ parental leave
GONE – KiwiSaver Employer Contribution (contracts don’t include KiwiSaver)
GONE – ACC employment claims are different for contractors.
GONE – Employment protection (you have to take the employee to court yourself)
…………
But WAIT, THERE’S MORE
In the process of it all vanishing, many, many, many New Zealanders, especially the younger and newer members to the workforce, landed in huge income tax, penalty and interest debt. Inland Revenue is encouraging employees on contract and owing to apply for bank loans to pay for the interest is much higher for tax.
- GST Penalty Interest – rate 9.21%
Income tax underpayment rate: 8.22%
…………
RETURN OF PAYE – pay (tax) as you earn
As of 1st April 2017, PAYE – ‘pay as you earn’ is back but re-branded as ‘Schedular Payments‘ – ‘scheduled pay as you earn’.
Many, many, many New Zealanders will have an added amount of tax to pay for they owe income tax, provisional tax, penalties and interest. Many of the many will not take a break during the year and many haven’t over the years of their employment redressed as contracts. Many are screwed when they get sick.
It’s a men’s site Julie – we only have two rights:
1. the right to work
2. the right to die
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 2:12 pm
I’m not sure if we are reading the same thing Julie.
You have said they are gone but they are not gone?
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 4:03 pm
#1. Thank U 4 your comment.
U have the right to complain and if the admin wants me to take it down, I will without fuss.
But I would like to let U know this is an important men’s issue and ask (please) that you allow it to do what posts do. (inform, educate, bring to light, etc)
Comment by Julie — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 6:20 pm
#2 Really?
Hehe, I welcome the challenge.
This issue, re: contracts replacing employment (all is gone under contract) affects the most vulnerable.
I will add New Zealand articles when I find them but in the meantime, please accept an overseas articles on the subject.
………
Also, of particular [New Zealand] concern is male youth youth aged 17-24 (highest group for suicide) who are easily exploited and attacked as beneficiaries.
I don’t know how much of this is known but WINZ offices now have 3 security guards checking everyone at the door before they can even enter. Things are bad and sad.
Comment by Julie — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 6:47 pm
Dear Men, especially menz regulars,
Please, can u allow me the opportunity to expose a few issues (for men) while pre-election?
If yes, I will make this as painless as possibly and return to reading asap.
Comment by Julie — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 7:14 pm
Your welcome to say what you want Julie.
What you have mentioned applies to men and could affect some male demographics.
Ok I see what you are getting at now.
Yes we can assume the trend towards contracts with variable hours etc was inevitable.
My son is on one and they suck. Unfortunately some workplaces have very unpredictable hours, day to day and week to week etc. A small airline baggage handler may have 4 planes today but only 2 tomorrow. Niegther day needs the worker for 8 hours.
Your correct in assuming that the unemployed and solo mothers will find themselves in positions where they will be forced to take on jobs that are no better than the benifit.
That what’s happened throughout human history.
The basic rights are not removed.
Except those, as mentioned, forced into work, you don’t need to sign it.
Get a better contract at a different job.
It’s an open market with rules.
Yes some employers will exploit workers but they will only attract a bad reputation and a high staff turnover rate.
It could be that we are so efficient at making, growing, managing, things that we have reached employment saturation. It could be that to employ everybody we need to reduce average hours worked per person.
That is not such a bad idea as NZ has high working hours.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 7:56 pm
It’s not a political party problem. We have seen this emerge in various forms, in my perspective as far as 20 years back.
For youth in male dominated industry, boys were incapable of real life participation in the workforce.
By 2004, in my position then, we had developed an unwritten policy not to employ 13 week wonders, as we called them, male under 25.
Yes, it’s a big problem in that the transition from school to the workforce is a total shock to, I guess to the feminized brain.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 8:33 pm
#3 you will probably never have that uh ha moment. You’re female, and while you’re not blonde, sometimes you think like one.
Concern is an admirable quality, and it’s nice that after all these years, you still have it. It’s not that those taringa don’t work, they just don’t translate.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 8:57 pm
They put me automatically into Kiwisaver three times, and everytime I withdrew from it. Kiwisaver is a trap, and not safe if you pay child support. IRD is known for miscalculations, and it is particularly hard for men to get any miscalculation corrected. IRD can access you Kiwisaver at whim in these situations.
If Kiwisaver is gone, it doesn’t really, unless you’re a woman. But for men, they are better to save themselves.
Comment by ashish — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 9:26 pm
http://menz.org.nz/2007/kiwi-saver-and-child-support/
Comment by ashish — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 9:26 pm
#6 employment saturation?
In a political economy, that would be an excuse, not a good reason.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 9:32 pm
Yes it’s a political excuse if the economy has the potential to grow employment but they resign to it distribution instead.
IE work scemes like build this road, or canal, or plant these trees on that hill.
We could increase employement by banning tractors requiring manual planting and harvesting, or banning the milking machine requiring manual milking. Both would increase employement capacity but the products would be priced out by imports then there would be no jobs. That’s the dilemma of technology advancement. Interconectivity, data management, digital currency, artificial intelligence could all lower office jobs too.
It is hypothetical that there is maximum employment with technology being a big driver of the debate.
In theory robots could one day do vertually all jobs while we are always on holiday.
How money and distribution of wealth works in that scenario, I don’t know.
Think Star Trek or Communism?
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 9:58 pm
I am a senior accountant and can tell you that this post is absolute bullshit. Sounds like Labour Party propaganda. I would list all the inaccuracies, but it would be quicker to list the factual bits if I could find any! Example? PAYE has been constant, Withholding TAx was renamed Schedular payments with no change in procedure or rates. The ignorance in this post is astounding!
Comment by Brian Rodger — Sun 13th August 2017 @ 10:30 pm
@13 thanks Brian, would be great to here more about that.
@12 I would call your economic perspective, backward thinking – a little bit short of Pennsylvania, but getting there.
I think we are a way off the Star Trek/Communism scenario – especially the one where they hunt for the whale, but I’m hearing you.
The economic problem I see is first the modern self-interest of politics and secondly the conflicted parliament.
That said, it’s our problem, not isolated from international problems, which are bigger kids, playing sillier games.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 6:24 am
#9 #10 that’s been the problem for us for three decades.
First they came for our children, but
then they came for our back accounts, but
then they came for our assets, but
then they came for our estates, but …
Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 6:28 am
Is this the idea of nobody-discovery?
I assume this is the same Julie that was offended by the Ombudsman (telling her she was a nobody). Surprised the media didn’t have that as breaking news.
A nobody, is a man who dies with assets under $15,000.00 not required to have a will, but entitled to the minimum cost of waste disposal, should No One claim his body.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 8:09 am
I don’t think minimum rights have gone at all.
At least for women, employee rights are very well protected.
Summary.
She said she was qualified but wasn’t.
She was useless at her job.
She couldn’t work out how to charge properly.
She fraudulently used another persons signature.
She was unstable, resigning twice then begging for her job back.
She was an emotional manipulator by doing that.
She was not motivated to learn.
She refused to follow reasonable instructions.
She threatened her boss with a sexual assault and harassment allegation after he gave her notice.
“The ERA ordered the HFL to pay Deng $5115 for wages and $4000 for humiliation.”
What? He could have fired her on the spot for the dodgy signature.
What’s the consequence of the false sexual assault cliam?
I think the ruling is obscene considering what happened.
The ERA did reduce this by 80% due to her behaviour.
I think employement protections are water tight. As for dishonesty it’s leaking like a sieve.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/95872570/law-firm-unjustifiably-dismisses-unqualified-worker
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 5:40 pm
I grew up in a country which I believed was the first to enshrine in law an 8 hr day 40 hr week.
I have been in dispute with employers who have expected me to sign contracts with minimum 11 hr days 55 hr weeks. I have also lost many jobs when I have told employers at the end of an 8 hr day I was finishing for the day.
The 3 hrs overtime was never seen as something to be asked of me but as obligation to the employer, nor have they ever offered time time & 1/2 for my time.
I have seen one employer chastise an employee in a tool box meeting who after a 12 hr shift left the site. The employer told him he had no right to make that decision and could only leave when he was told.
So much for workers rights.
Comment by John — Mon 21st August 2017 @ 9:45 pm
#18 John
There’s definately good employers and bad employers.
The bullying of employees especially in front of others is not looked at with kindness by our employement courts.
Unfortunately compared to females most men just suck it up rather than going down that path.
We do have workers rights but are we exercising them?
I’m pretty sure that if you have agreed hours and get sacked for not working more hours the employement court would screw the employer to the wall and flog them with a fine so big you could take a half a year off. It is not serous misconduct and working tired is a safety risk. If you took on the job informed and in the contract that occasionally overtime is required then that’s an agreement.
At the end of the day we don’t have to sign anything unless we are desperate with no other employement option. You can if that’s the case do that job while looking for what you want.
Time and a half is also a measure of a good employer and a bad one.
The good employer will also attract and keep the best staff.
The bad employer will get high staff turnover, employee theft, bad reputation, higher mistake rates, and if people used the courts to protect themselves from abusive behaviour they would eighter go out of business or grow up and change their ways.
We are also directly competing with foreign employement conditions. $2 an hour with no rights makes our demands look unsustainable and many companies have closed because it’s not. I worked for a company that bit by bit, year after year, was slowly dismantled outsourcing to foreign manufacturers because we simply could not put our products up for sale vs the Chinese, or Mexican, or Indian competitors.
Things have clearly not been that great for you and I’m sure that after being sacked an employement lawyer if you went to one would be grinning ear to ear. I’ve been made redundant in a dodgy way without payment myself once. It’s not nice.
In the past I’ve worked 16 hour days 7 days a week for nearly two months. It was asked of me and I accepted as an employee does have an interest in the company they work for being successful. I have also taken on employment specifically due to it being a fixed 40 hours because that’s all I wanted.
Agian there is workers rights. We need to know what they are. We need to use those protections when there is a defined abuse of those rules. I suspect there is thousands of cases every year were bad employers get away with bad behaviours because we don’t use the system, leaving the next guy to be treated the same way.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 21st August 2017 @ 11:33 pm
@18, Hi John,
Im happy to reccomend an employment lawyer that helped me last year. He took my case against an employer on a no win-no fee basis. I ended up with a substantial payout settlement prior to the matter going to court.
Unlike criminal court,and family Caught$ there is efficiency, common sence still applies.
So dont get mad, get even.
He’s a good guy too.
His details are:
Steve 021 777 007 [email protected]
Comment by voices back from the bush — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 4:49 am
I was contracted to a company/staff contract standoff.
One read of the contract, and not a cheap one, and you could see why.
I’m not lawyer, or qualified in that area, but I rewrote the contract. The law firm spat the dummy when they saw it, but everyone signed it without argument or exception.
It was only a 20 person company, no biggy, but they never had a dispute, in the life of the company.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 6:45 am
21 , great, now can you just pop down to the law society and do the same for the DV act.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 7:20 am
Did I answer the question before you asked?
7.20 – 7.21 not quite but I was typing it.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 7:37 am
The problem is I live and work in Christchurch.
Over the last seven years we’ve had a huge influx of foreign workers. These guys will accept any working conditions.
Hard to compete with a Filipino who will work 60 hrs a week for $15/hr.
It has come to the point where one job I had which was the largest government civil construction project in NZ was run by an Australian project management company, of the 18 carpenters employed 1 was kiwi (me) the other 17 were English, Irish, Filipino or other nationalities.
It was made very clear to me we were contractually obligated to the project company to work 6.30 – 5.30 and no variation would be accepted, the undertone was if you don’t like it we can get someone who will.
Most of the work someone like me can get is through temp agencies. This makes it impossible to take any employer to court as they have no requirement to give a reason for dismissing you.
Comment by John — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 11:04 am
Thanks John, it’s great to see a new voice in the room, men talking about how it is for them, in their patch.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 22nd August 2017 @ 11:21 am