Employers and Manufacturers Association fails to provide evidence for 90 day claims
The so called “evidence” provided today by the Northern EMA that the 90 day period is somehow creating employment or supporting marginalised workers into work actually shows the opposite, CTU President Helen Kelly said.
“The EMA provides five case studies,” said Kelly. “None of them include any examples of new jobs being created (the first example of a childcare centre job is misleading as centres are required by law to employ people to maintain ratios and can’t decide not to), and none of them indicate someone “marginalised” that might not otherwise have been found a position. Those appointed include an apprentice, a specialist machinist, two fabrication engineers and another person that passed a two hour interview including maths and computer tests.”
“What the examples simply show is that the law is being used to avoid fair process and remove worker rights.”
Even a survey of employers themselves released on 1 July (“The Mood of the Boardroom”, published by the New Zealand Herald) found nearly two thirds of companies said extending the 90 day provisions would have no effect on their productivity and less than half of them said reducing the complexity of personal grievance procedure would have any effect either. To justify such a serious move as removing natural justice rights from any group both business and government will have to do better than this.”