Business to pay extra leave to Victims…
Jan Logies’ Bill has passed, 10 days leave for domestic violence victims,,, as a previous employer in small business, I would baulk at the possibility of taking on a lady of that age for fear of becoming embroiled in her domestic problems, no one is ever going to see the other side of the story , maybe the woman has got serious mental issues, juggling babies and relationships is no mean task, but to constantly be told that as a woman you can simply blame the man in your life for all your problems, that is wrong, so wrong … A BIG and scary problem is the growing grey area of what “violence” is said to include, it may soon include text bullying etc, etc…. still snow balling in a dire direction for more men, I am supposing that small business owners are mainly men …
MAGGIE BARRY,, North Shore, National says…
We support the spirit of the bill, absolutely, but look at what it seeks to do. The bill proposes to make changes to five Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. When we look at the Employment Relations Act, to allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to request a variation of their working arrangements and then, under the Holidays Act, to have those 10 days’ paid leave, we are starting to see building up a situation that is very difficult, and very difficult to sustain long term for a small business in terms of there being any of the opportunities that might exist to support somebody who has been a victim of domestic violence. When we were in the committee, and in reading the papers and the advice from officials, we were provided with many examples of employers who are doing the right thing, who are recognising and providing appropriate support, flexibility, and leave for employees who are affected by domestic violence and who need to suddenly go and see a lawyer, go and take their children from school to medical appointments, and so forth. Any of us who have raised a family know very well how quickly we need to be able to respond as parents to the needs of our family, particularly if we are also in a situation where there is a domestic violence overlay.
The bill is pretty neutral about who can access the leave. When we submitted on it there was no suggestion that both sides may have right to access leave. As a small employer myself I do see there is risk but for people involved in separation and court proceedings it can be a reassurance.
Comment by allan harvey — Wed 12th September 2018 @ 5:03 pm
For those employers in male dominated industry we’ve been covering guys arses for a long time now, just in case you didn’t realize.
This is nothing more than some bullshit leave for the girls in the likes of the PSA.
Comment by Evan Myers — Wed 12th September 2018 @ 5:12 pm
You being the pussy that helped bowl UOF, Harvey, is one thing, but when you start rabbitting on about industry relationships that have kept thousands of men getting out of bed the next morning, which you wouldn’t have a fucking clue about, then we’re back to the same old line in the sand.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 12th September 2018 @ 5:32 pm
I know for sure that though my Son took copious days off work, and that his Boss was gracious , it would have been too much ask for his Boss to cover ten days of his time off.
Men stick together, what do you know, they care, it can also be described as common sense, to protect the hand that feeds.
I believe firmly that a woman already playing the welfare game will readily take what she is apparantly due, there is no brotherhood of man for her, not even a womanhood for that matter…and yes we all know what hand feeds her at the beginning of her own private version of the circle of life!
I am starting to see an amazing heirachial difference between man and women in charge. You can see this starting to unfold when comparing Jacinda and her misbehaving caucaus and the strength and solidarity of National. Men stick together.
Business is Business and you cant start to pull the business tax payers/employers into ‘apparant social justices’ runaway train.
The gross effect of the court process on a man is far different than for his ex.
Talk about inequality, this one stands out like MANS BALLS.
Comment by mama — Wed 12th September 2018 @ 6:37 pm
One of the many problems of this legislation is the further incentive it will provide for people to make false allegations or to exaggerate and misrepresent average arguments into ‘violence’ in order to get the leave etc. This will destabilize more marriages and families as partners become resentful at being labelled perpetrators of violence when they weren’t really or when both parties were violent during conflict, as is most often the case.
Note a few things about this legislation:
It provides not only for 10 days leave every year but separately enables ‘victims’ to ask for changes to their hours of work, days of work, place of work (e.g. to work from home), and/or ANY OTHER TERMS OF THE EMPLOYEE’S EMPLOYMENT.
It also requires employers to ensure that no employee is ‘treated adversely’ because the employee is or is thought to be a person affected by domestic violence. So as an employer don’t imagine that you can dismiss or discipline anyone who blames their shoddy performance, hangovers, poor punctuality etc on domestic violence, or who repeatedly asks for changes to working conditions under this legislation.
If the employer refuses an employee’s request, the employee can take the matter to a Labour Inspector, then to mediation, then to the Employment Relations Authority. If the employer is seen to have made, without limitation, a wrong determination regarding an employee’s request for changes to terms of employment and/or or the special leave, the employer will have to pay a penalty (amount unspecified) to the employee. These provisions will mean that few employers will take the risk of denying employees the changes and/or extra leave they might request.
72B Meaning of person affected by domestic violence
(1) In this subpart, a person affected by domestic violence means a person who is 1 or both of the following:
(a) a person against whom any other person is inflicting, or has inflicted, domestic violence:
(b) a person with whom there ordinarily or periodically resides a child against whom any other person is inflicting, or has inflicted, domestic violence.
This means that anyone who or whose child is accepted as ever having been a victim of domestic violence will be eligible for 10 days additional leave every year, and will be able to make requests with reasonably good chance of success to change their terms of employment whenever this suits them.
The employer can request ‘proof’ that the employee has been a victim of domestic violence. We recall that previous versions of the Bill specified what might be proof, such as evidence that the employee went to a Women’s Refuge or counsellor, or of a police call-out to a domestic ‘incident’, or having a Protection Order. However, the Act now provides no guidance on what might amount to proof. None of these examples of course provides anything close to ‘proof’ of domestic violence unless the Family Court’s policy is applied treating almost any unsubstantiated allegation by a woman as sufficient proof, which will probably be the standard used for this legislation.
Given the absurd expansion of definitions of domestic violence under our family law, there will be few people in New Zealand who haven’t been victims of it. However, even that won’t need to be established. Just attend a domestic violence service or counsellor, get a receipt and there’s your proof. While it’s not necessary (as your employer won’t be allowed to obtain details of your case from the counsellor), you might choose to talk a bit about how traumatized you were when you were smacked on the bottom that time as a child, or about how upset you were when your partner raised his voice during an argument. Then go through the simple steps of applying and, presto!, you’ve just got yourself two weeks more leave and can continue to do so each year.
Of course the law won’t turn out to be gender neutral at all. For a start there are numerous Women’s Refuges and other women’s support groups that don’t see men whereas there are few that will help men (except as perpetrators) so it will be much easier for any woman to get her ‘proof’. Police call-outs most often result in a ‘Safety’ Order against the male regardless of what happened and what police know happened, so there’s another easy proof. Ladies, just phone the police, tell them some male in the home made threatening comments and you will have your ‘Safety’ Order. Or raise your arm as if to attack some male in the house and whatever he does to try to stop you will result in him getting the Police ‘Safety’ Order, then ten days free leave and possible changes in your conditions to suit you.
Further, men will face the same discrimination in trying to use this law as they do through family law. They will have to go to much greater lengths than women to convince employers they were victims and this will apply throughout the processes of inspection, mediation and Employment Court. Women on the other hand will receive essentially a free pass to get the privileges offered under this law, as long as they follow the process. Just like Protection Orders.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 12th September 2018 @ 9:52 pm
Thanks MOMA for the laying bare of them facts..
Oh yeah, I can see it all now,,, I recently had the displeasure of working alongside such a woman as these who know they have the law on their side,, she once said to me , ‘but you have to use all of your sick leave don’t you?’…she will definitely be taking the government up on this one.
I can not think of a worse corner for an employer to be backed into, having recently been through three years of dealing with one of these types that hide behind the skirts of government and government funded social services I feel a sense of doom, when will this nonsense be halted, and how do you change such ingrained behaviour once it’s there.
Avoidance of these people the only way forward, do not even look at them, for if your eyes meet it could be trouble.
Comment by mama — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 7:32 am
And when police safety orders change from 5 days to 10 leave will become effective for the same period.
It’s now legislation after a week knee lame debate by National who didn’t want to be seen as anti women.
We support the bill but …
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 8:15 am
Or is it domestic violence to say anything about women in Parliament?
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 8:17 am
8,,, well it definitely won’t go un noted…’we’ll get you later’…his name is now on the LIST…a marked man in parliament might translate to a hundred in society
Comment by mama — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 8:28 am
What is not going to change is that it is male workers that are in shock …
Out of their home
Separted from their children
Reeling from a court case
Struggling to do their job
Struggling with the financial issues
This results in men having emotional breakdowns
On work sites
In factories
Around heavy machinery
Owners, managers, other employers are the ones that have to deal with this because it’s happening right there in front of them.
Yes it happens, more often than most people realise.
Some cope well enough to remain in that employment. Others who are perhaps stood down from their position for safety reasons, don’t cope with the loss of face – they earned that position and suddenly the can’t perform that task.
They leave and their life goes on in some other way.
This has been going in the background for decades.
It was a shock for me to see this in the workplace as far back as the 1990s, although I had no idea of the cause.
It like old soldiers say, “Until you go to war you have no idea what it’s like.”
This is the unacknowledged reality of the workplace.
Each employer has to deal with this as best he can.
All I see happening here is more of the same.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 6:04 pm
The difference here that may not be so obvious is that as employers we have to work to keep these guys together and help them through it.
This is paying the problem.
Not only will there be degrees of abuse, extended reasons to grant the leave, this is not simply a financial cost.
Many men work in dedicated teams, or in chargeable hour jobs. The additional disruption will cost the economy millions.
The opposition to this was pathetic.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 6:15 pm
Absolutely… the disruption to the mans life in these cases is undeniable.
After initial embattlement his friends go back to their normal lives, he feels he can no longer talk to them about his problems and will lose some of these friends as a result.
It is the same at work, so isolation starts to come aboard.
As an employer you have to care, want to care, but it gets harder and harder when the length of time keeps on extending and as an employer you have to concern yourself with the whole crew and the social aspect of the workplace.
Comment by mama — Thu 13th September 2018 @ 7:02 pm