KEY POINTS:
The new law allowing a 90-day trial of new employees, dubbed the "fire-at-will" law by opponents, makes good sense to me. When the idea was mooted by National in Opposition, we discussed on talkback the ramifications of such a law.
What swayed me firmly in favour of
the proposed legislation was hearing the stories of several would-be workers who were desperate for the chance to prove themselves.
Men and women in their 50s, women returning to the workforce after an extended period at home looking after children, and ex-prisoners all rang in saying they would love to have an opportunity to show what they could do. They said they would be worthwhile additions to the business if they were just given the chance.
However, they accepted that employers were reluctant to take risks because it was so tricky and costly to let go of staff who didn't work out.
Employers, too, thought the idea a good one. People can present well in interviews then prove to be totally unsuitable once they're parked behind a desk or on the road selling. Their expectations of the role might be unrealistic or they might have oversold themselves and their abilities.
Plenty of employers told me they had interviewed individuals they had a gut feeling would be great workers but because their CVs were patchy the employers felt it simply wasn't worth their while taking a punt. Labour, the Maori Party and the unions are dead against this new law. They say it is a violation of the basic human right of natural justice and will let employers create a disposable workforce.
The PSA also claims that identifying groups of workers as "risky" - too old, too brown, too young - will encourage discriminatory attitudes towards sections of the workforce.
Well, hello. According to my callers those prejudices exist already and that's what's stopping people from being hired. At least this way, employers might give them a go, because they feel they have an escape clause if things don't work out.
Several bosses also pointed out that it simply wasn't in their best interests to have a revolving-door policy with their workers. It takes a fair bit of time and effort to ensure an employee is productive _ even if they're doing the most menial task. A biscuit packer, if indeed such a person exists, still has to know which way up to put the biscuits.
To be fair, I can see that employers looking for cheap labour to help cover the Christmas rush or the holiday season may well take advantage of this law - but there are provisions to allow for mediation and personal grievance cases, as well as the existing requirement to act in good faith. I was a little unsure what good faith meant - is my good faith the same as another person's definition? - but apparently that's why God made lawyers and we have Employment Court decisions to guide us.
Other key changes from the bill that was presented to Parliament by Wayne Mapp back in 2006 include the removal of the benefit stand-down period for workers let go after the 90-day period, and banning employers from using the law to keep staff permanently casual by sacking and then rehiring them.
So it's not a completely Dickensian law. Initially, it will apply to firms that employ fewer than 20 people, but National hopes it can include larger companies at a later date. The law comes into effect on March 1 and I guess only then will we see whose interpretation of how the law will work is accurate: National's vision of a Utopian society where employers prosper as a result of a highly skilled and motivated workforce or Labour's version, which is of a nation of slave-driving Mr Burnses ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable workers.
