That percentage of employees stands at a low percentage because there are limited unions throughout occupations. Surely they aren’t going to negotiate negatively for the other 90% as it has a bearing on that 10%’s outcome also.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start Date
NZWarriors.com
No, not really. When you have millions invested in machines, they have to be working.
My mate has tried Fijian Indians and Filipinos. He became an approved immigration employer or whatever it is called.
He will not employ these people again, they are hopeless.
They tend to want to dollar and say they can do all sorts of stuff and they can't, like reading plans, setting out etc.
- Thread starter
- #4,723
Tell him to try the Pilipinos again! Great employees.
NZWarriors.com
Some of the insurance work I’ve had to do for alterations from workplace accidents fly completely in the face of what you’re saying. You can choose to advocate for employers all you want but there are shit ones out there just as there are shit employees. Difference is initiatives are being scrapped in employees favours and no mention of policing bad employers.
Were they hopeless, or he had to put too much of his own time in showing what’s expected? Like the guys asking for a bit more might not have needed that overseeing? You’re talking about an industry that has big investment from the employer, I can tell you that there are trades where what I mentioned is normal practice. If someone won’t do something required, it’s known in no uncertain terms that someone will if you won’t.
Not only limited unions but limited membership. I posted about this many moons ago and can't be buggered looking it back up.
Unions only have themselves to blame. If their product was more attractive, more people would avail themselves of membership. I also said I preferred to have the union (Engineers) in my business which made it easier to cover multiple employees at multiple locations, however, it was up to each individual whether they wanted to join.
Those old enough will remember National Awards back in the day which operated on a similar basis to the proposed Fair Pay Agreements. They generally applied to low wage and skill industries (predominately Govt employees) and most NZ employers had their own collective agreements. The National Award for a particular group like construction as an example, was always used as the starting point in bargaining for those industries which had collectives. The National Awards were always settled before Collectives so cherry picking was common.
I don't recall any FP agreements being registered and to me it was another talkfest without a proper plan or implementation strategy to make it attractive to anyone other than the local delegate and the boffins in Union House.
NZWarriors.com
Can only speak on the aspect of unions that I know. My wife being in the medical world is very much encouraged to be in a nurses union and pays a fee to do so. Any of her issues in the workplace has showed the union to be very effective and has certainly changed some outcomes for her, that before they were involved were showing to be going nowhere. Would say nurses, teachers and wharfies are about the only functioning unions today?
- Thread starter
- #4,728
Yes there are shit employers - but we have ways of keeping bad employers honest - impact on public image, H&S legislation (and fines), standards, auditing (fire, food, building WOF), industry membership bodies, regulatory bodies, etc.
What do we have to keep bad employees honest? I solidly believe in win/ win situations. Make it work for both. If an employee is ill suited it helps no one not being able to get rid of them within 3 months.
Teach a man to fish philosophy - overly protecting employees does help them (trial periods etc, not exploitation). A good employee can get a job anywhere tomorrow and the employer know it.
- Thread starter
- #4,729
I think big single industry employers where the employees are highly skilled and can’t easily go to another employer is the place for unions. Because the employer is like a monopoly and can act like it.
But that’s the exception not the rule. Quite a specific circumstance that doesn’t need to be pushed into more balanced employment industries.
The ultimate aim is employees leave bad employers forcing the company to change or shut down. But that doesn’t work if there’s no competition amongst employers. Stopping the free flow of employees and trying to artificially make them stay with bad employers is the opposite of all this!
NZWarriors.com
One situation I
Makes me think of about the worst situation I’ve come across around protecting an employer. Can recall a tree pruning business that had issues with their branch mulcher for years upon years and never fixed. All the guys had mentioned to the employer about the issue to which nothing ever was done and it held the employees up. All of the guys had to do what this particular guy did at some stage to keep things moving but for this particular guy it turned bad. He got into the mulcher to squash some debris that was caught and it started up. Half of his body was munched, to which he survived. Because it was all the employees word against the employer, nothing was ever reached to show his involvement in the whole situation. Terrible job to be apart of, where ramps and bathroom alterations were made for the guy but you could see the wife was never going to look at her husband the same way again. He was stupid to do what he did and an extreme case but had things have been sorted when the employer was alerted, none of it would have happened. Similar circumstances in the pike river mine.
Back in the day, during school holidays and part-time, I worked installing irrigation systems into Greenhouses which produced cut flowers for the export. One day, a union rep showed up to talk to the pickers and graders about joining a horticultural union. When she explained the agreements the union had negotiated elsewhere she was asked to leave. Why? Because the staff were earning more than the agreement and had better conditions. While joining wouldn't have reduced what they were already receiving, eventually the union agreement would catch up but, in the meantime, they would be paying union fees. And the employer would not be obligated to increase their pay until that agreement caught up.
My preference is for work based agreements for each business..... not a national agreement forced on everyone by 10% of union members.
A representative of both sides is the best outcome I think. The employer generally represents themselves as they hold the power as to whether they employ the person or not but an employee has to be able to talk themselves up in order to get the desired wage, which some people aren’t good at. A cv can only tell so much of the story in regards to a persons worth monetarily but someone to advocate for a person in knowing them better could work better in both the employee and employers favour.
NZWarriors.com
To expect all employers to do the right thing by employees is the stuff of in a perfect world.
Couldn't do what they said they could. If you hire someone to be able to read plans, set out etc and they say they can do these things, then you quickly realise they can't, they are not needed. Training on the job is not provided, not necessary. When you hire a tradesman you expect them to be able and capable.
Conspiracy theories are politically agnostic. It simply shows a lack of critical thinking.
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #4,736
How would it work if an employers offers pay at what they consider market value and the employee accepts it or leaves for a different employer? Everyone happy?
Again not monopolistic employers.
This issue for me seems to be when employer or employee thinks they are being ripped off and legislation/ strikes/ fair pay agreement/ etc forces an awkward fix but doesn’t address the underlying ripped off feeling.
People want the tradesmen but only willing to pay a rate for a bit of experience.
If the employer is happy with the employees work and wants to keep them, they should pay what’s required. Sometimes there’s more to it, like conditions. Like the tigers offering SJ a two year deal with more money. SJ has the option to leave for the extra money and extra year but might decide he’d rather stay in NZ and happy to take a bit less to do so if Warriors aren’t prepared to match or better what tigers are offering.
NZWarriors.com
Some employers (and managers) aren't that clever either. One of my wives former GM's was a local hire.... they usually bring in overseas people for that role as the NZ market isn't that large so if they stuff it up, it doesn't really matter to a Fortune 100 company.
Anyway, this guy thought he'd be clever when it came to negotiting his contract and didn't read fully what was being offered to him. So, he took what was going to be his starting salary and reduced it if they would do things like giving him a four week notice time instead of eight weeks, a monthly allowance instead of a company car and upgrades to business class for flights over a certain distance. The HR person representing the company quickly agreed to everything including the salary reduction.
It was only after he started, he compared his contract to the company's original offer and found those things were already in their offer when a staff member leaving only gave four weeks notice and the GM was informed that was the companies standard practice. Not that the reduction in salary mattered..... he was gone within three months anyway. Last we saw, he's a manager in NZTA.... heaven help us all!!!!
Sounds like an episode of all in the family I watched last night. Archie bunker thought he was clever too.
