As a CEO he had a gift for feigning ignorance of what's going on around him, he's pretty convincing.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
I see police left Luxon’s itinerary on the dashboard of a police car in plain view last week too. They’re not having a good runRunning into the back of Luxon's limo may not help this officer's future career prospects....
PM 'fine' after cop car crashed into Crown vehicle
Finance Minister Nicola Willis was also in the car.www.nzherald.co.nz
He wasn’t feigning ignorance - most of the time he genuinely didn’t know what was going on.
NZWarriors.com
Do you think he knew about the Saudi military deal. Do you think he's compromised. Do you think the Pope is Catholic.
Last edited:
He’s a ‘big picture’ guy, not a details or numbers guy. I’ve got no idea if he knew about the Saudi deal.
He'd be as useful as an egg on a wall if he did.
NZWarriors.com
Is he really even a big picture guy? What's his strategy for the country?
Maybe he has the strategy but he is a shit communicator?
By the rich, for the rich!!!! Why is it the rich will not be able to claim unjustified dismissal but the rest of us can?
www.nzherald.co.nz
Workers on $180k won't be able to claim for unjustified dismissal under new policy
High earners to lose unjustified dismissal rights after the Government's rule change.
Nah I’m all for this. Beyond a certain threshold of income you begin to get into risk-pay where you either perform at or above expectations or you lose your job. For me the question would be where that threshold begins. These days I reckon it should be above $180k, probably closer to $250-300k.By the rich, for the rich!!!! Why is it the rich will not be able to claim unjustified dismissal but the rest of us can?
Workers on $180k won't be able to claim for unjustified dismissal under new policy
High earners to lose unjustified dismissal rights after the Government's rule change.
NZWarriors.com
Not a fan of that. A scheme to allow business owners to make bad decisions, fix the decisions, and the employee loses out.By the rich, for the rich!!!! Why is it the rich will not be able to claim unjustified dismissal but the rest of us can?
Workers on $180k won't be able to claim for unjustified dismissal under new policy
High earners to lose unjustified dismissal rights after the Government's rule change.
A better way would be to have some sort of probation period, like new hires have.
(I haven’t read the detail), but I assume someone could be in a role for 50 years and get fired for no reason, without any legal recourse
A lot of those “high paying” leadership roles take a long time to find - a guy I know lost his job and it took a year to find a new one. He would have been better off being overqualified in a lesser role!
What I find interesting is that one of the advocates of this is the NZ Initiative.
Research Note: Nothing costs nothing - Why unjustified dismissal laws should not apply to the highly paid
The personal grievance provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause. Instead, dismissals must be justified. Employers must both show cause and act in a procedurally fair way.<br /> <br /> Personal grievance procedures were...
My concern would be, how many senior managers will be dismissed before a restructure.... saving a business tens of thousands in redundancy payouts?
It truly is an odd carveout
I get you should perform at higher pay levels. But the onus is on the employer as well, to ensure they do their maths when employing someone (or giving them a promotion / raise)
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #12,893
Respect the thoughts but disagree.
Markets can change making those high paying employees no longer obsolete. And employees already wear bad business owner decisions when they are made redundant or the firm goes into liquidation.
If you have a big influence over the success or failure of the business, you should share some of the risk/reward that such a salary entails. Ultimately in most cases employees that add value will be retained and make their position viable.
Someone in that pay bracket would still get an exit/ redundancy payout?
- Thread starter
- #12,894
Devils advocate - Isn’t the onus also on the employee at that level to chose a decent employer with business smarts?
With the best will in the world, when you do a business plan based on projections and growth, things out of your control can wreck the plans.
Isn’t there a case that more employers will take on those riskier business plans if there is this new flexibility and there would be more high paying roles and more economic success stories?
Yep, that’s true
But if there is a relationship breakdown between a manager and a staff member, this just puts all the power into the manager’s hand to resolve that breakdown (regardless of who was at fault).
Or say, someone’s in a role and they get a new manager that ends up being a psychopath. That manager can just wield the axe
NZWarriors.com
if the manager is a psychopath?? Who the hell would want to work for one of them! Anyway, just like a lot of things in life, it’s all about risk-reward - if employees are happy to take home the decent pay then be prepared to earn it.
- Thread starter
- #12,897
I would assume at that pay level the employee skills would be very rare, very hard to replace and highly sought after. They should be adding significant value to the business.
I think there would be very few cases where this is used and in most cases as a last resort due to the cost and inconvenience to the business to replace the person?
Where are all the lefties on this? Come on comrades, the government is stealing our worker rights. An attack on workers is an attack on all of us!
Might start a hikoi on this. But a 5-star one. Stopping off at the best vineyards and restaurants on the way down
Might start a hikoi on this. But a 5-star one. Stopping off at the best vineyards and restaurants on the way down
NZWarriors.com
Seems like a strange thing to bring in?By the rich, for the rich!!!! Why is it the rich will not be able to claim unjustified dismissal but the rest of us can?
Workers on $180k won't be able to claim for unjustified dismissal under new policy
High earners to lose unjustified dismissal rights after the Government's rule change.
Don't like that a worker on any kind of money cannot pursue unjustifiable dismissal, seems like a terrible precedent to set.
This person would have 100 offers the next day
Similar threads
Politics
🤡 Donald Trump
