Are you being paid to attend that Teacher Only Day?

I wrote this post in 2018 because this is an eternal problem for teachers.  It affects beginning teachers, teachers returning from unpaid leave and maternity leave, teachers returning to the profession and teachers who have come off a fixed term position the previous year.

It comes around every year, the time when teacher only days and the set up of classes in preparation for school beginning.

Every year new teachers enter the profession and teachers who were out of the profession or are on fixed term contracts come into new schools.  And every year these teachers have a similar problem: getting paid for teacher only days.

The issue is that the Ministry of Education says the education year begins on the 28th of January.  But schools begin their year with new staff before this date.  New teachers to a school are required to attend induction days, teacher only days, team meetings and set up their classrooms - and most of this is done before they are officially on the payroll on the 28th of January.

This year my school begins teacher only days on the 22nd of January, yet I am not officially on the payroll until the 28th of January.  But as a teacher who has come off a fixed term, and has had all the meager holiday pay I am due, am I now expected to attend several days of teacher only days and then set up my classroom ready for the new school year without getting paid?

Many will say, well that is how it has always been.

But I say, just because that is how it has always been, it doesn't mean it is the way it should be!!

I am not saying I will not be setting up my classroom, I just choose to do it when I am actually being paid for it.

We teachers are professionals, and we should be paid for every day we are in school and we should be treated as professionals, not as volunteers.  Some people, particularly beginning teachers, may have to give up some actual paid employment to attend these days in school.  Others may need to pay for child care.  Therefore these days can be at a cost financially to new teachers to the school.

And in how many other professions are you expected to work up to a week in advance of officially being on the payroll and set up your work space without being paid?  It is an insult to the teaching profession to treat teachers in such an unprofessional manner.

And here is the clanger: what if you are onsite working before you are officially on the payroll and you are injured in anyway?  Will ACC cover you and call it a workplace accident?  It really is a health and safety issue.  What other employment laws will I and my new employer be breaking by me being onsite and working before my official contract of employment commences?  (I mention this because the youngest victim of Pike River was not on the payroll officially when the disaster happened - not that something that bad is likely to happen in a school, it's just his family was not compensated fully for losing their precious son as a result).

This year, 2018, the 28th falls on a Saturday.  The Saturday of Auckland Anniversary weekend.  Should I spend the weekend setting up my class so I am worn out and tired for when school starts on Wednesday?  Why should teachers work so many weekends anyway?

Currently it is rather hit and miss if staff new to a school are paid.  I've been teaching for 22 years.  I've started a new school at the beginning of the year a number of times after a break in my service to study/relief teach.  I only remember one new school paying me once for attending these meetings.  I was younger then and less bolshy and less aware.  So now I am more prepared to stand up and say we should be paid.

Add to the fact that, particularly for a beginning teacher, it is expensive to set up a classroom.  Mostly teachers buy many things to set up the class themselves.  Sometimes they can claim items back through their classroom/team budgets.  But often they are buying items over and above what is necessary and creating resources from their own money to use in the classroom to enhance teaching and learning that the school may not reimburse at all.

I personally think there is a simple solution to solving this issue every year.  Move the date of the education year start a week forward.  That way it will fully encompasses the full week before school starts and ensures new staff to a school are paid for the teacher only days, meeting and classroom set ups they will be doing.

I would like to see NZEI and PPTA back this and take it to the Ministry of Education in the collective agreement negotiations this year.  I would like to see Education Minister Chris Hipkins take some leadership on this very small change to the calendar that would demonstrate good will to new and returning teachers in years to come, especially in a time when we have a shortage of teachers to start the school year.

Disclaimer:  I am not taking a dig at any school, especially my new employer.  I'm just stating this is a problem nationwide that needs addressing.  And I have no idea how my school is approaching this issue.

UPDATE:  the PPTA have a distinct clause in their STCA for this situation.  This is their clause:
3.2A.1 Regardless of the first day schools are open for instruction in Term 1, for normal pay and employment purposes the start of the school year is 28 January for those teachers that are employed for that year, except that for teachers being employed for the first time in a state or integrated school, or being employed after a break in service, their start day is as advised to payroll by the employer.

After some help we have found a similar clause in the PTCA which many teachers and principals may be unaware of (I know I certainly was and so were many of my NZEI friends including principals):

So if you find your school is not paying you for those teacher only days and meetings before the 28th of January, you now know where to find the right clause to sort that out.  

But it would make it easier in my eyes if the MOE start of year changed so no one missed out.

UPDATE TWO:  NZEI has approached the Ministry of Education for clarity, particularly as some principals have found some Novopay workers will action this and others have found some Novopay workers will not action these clauses, stating it would muck up holiday pay.  I would like to see the School Trustees Association also come on board to deliver clear instructions to schools to use the above clauses to ensure people are appropriately paid.

Edited: 17/1/21

Talleys v the Meat Workers

It finally happened in August.  Talleys pulled the plug on the mediation that began after they failed to meaningfully participate in the collective agreement negotiations with the meat workers at their AFFCO plants.  This 'negotiation' should now be in binding arbitration, the first negotiation to do so since the new employment laws came into effect in early March this year.

This was not unexpected.  It was widely predicted in the led up to the March kick off of the new employment laws.  The fact that the previous collective agreement for the meat workers expired without Talleys coming to the table with a feasible offer to workers and fudging the negotiations for so long belied their intentions.  They had probably had a fair hand in influencing the law change, considering Sir Peter Talley's sizable donations to the National Party and National's Dr Nick Smith's election campaigns over the years.  It did earn Sir Peter his knighthood.  ;-)

The reaction of the Meat Workers Union (MWU) to Talleys pulling the plug on negotiations was to declare a two day strike on the 10th and 11th of August.  Talleys claim that only 25% of their workers are in the union, but there are some strong reasons for this outlined below.  See North Island Affco workers vote to strike next week (Stuff 4/8/15)

 

So here are some facts about how this has come about.   This is the first contract negotiation to go to arbitration after new Employment laws came into action in March.  Not surprising since the AFFCO meat worker contracts expired in December 2013 and Talleys refused to negotiate meaningfully during 2014, so each worker went onto individual contracts (which were the same as the previous collective contract) in December 2014.  Since the first Monday in March, any new worker was signed up to a different individual contract to existing workers, meaning they would likely to be not getting the same pay and conditions.  This may mean they get considerably less than some of their colleagues.

This led to the Meat Workers Union setting up the campaign Jobs that Count which they launched in March.  As the CTU Rep for my NZEI Area Council I had the opportunity to attend the Waikato launch in Ngaruawahia and blogged about it in Why the Meat Workers deserve your attention right now.  There we heard about the details I have discussed in the previous paragraph above.

 

To start this new season each worker had to sign an individual employment contract with the following:

  

• workers are not allowed to meet in a union type way on site during work hours or off site outside of work hours. WTF? That is so illegal denying workers the right to join the union!
  
• workers will have their employment terminated if they put the company's name in disrepute - so blowing the whistle on the company to the union, an MP or Work Safe (aka the old Labour Ministry) will cost you your job.  Apparently even hosting a  union meeting will get you fired.
  
  
  
• the company will not deduct and/or forward worker's union fees onto the unions.  That is their right, but it is spiteful none the less and speaks to their desire to crush the union.

• workers have to allow the company access to their health and ACC records. WTF again! Wrong wrong wrong on so many levels! They can't access your records without your permission. You are obliged to notify the company of health or injury issues that affect your ability to work, but that's it.

Also bear the following in mind:

• workers currently get two 15 minute breaks a day. Due to hygiene restraints, by the time they get their "on the chain" gear off they often only have 2-5 minutes to go to the toilet and/or have a cup of tea before putting their gear back on again to get back to the chain. Often they fill their teacup with cold water so they can drink it in a limited time.
• new workers to AFFCO are often "called to the office" for a "vigorous discussion" if they join the union. This intimidation is fairly standard.  The union is constantly challenging the company for it in court, the company is fined (wet bus ticket slapped on the wrist) and they continue flouting the law that allows people to choose to join an applicable union.
• Talley's companies, including AFFCO, have an extremely poor health and safety record. ACC has paid out multiple millions of dollars each year for accidents in Talley owned work sites.  Campbell Live and 3 News did a number of stories on the accident rates in Talley's owned meatworks.  Talleys have been a loud proponent against the proposed health and safety legislation that has been worked on since the Pike River Mine disaster, and has been effective in its efforts to have the legislation watered down significantly.

Talleys has form with the meat workers.  They have previously refused to negotiate in a constructive manner.  If you remember in 2012, during the previous contract negotiations with Talleys, AFFCO workers were locked out of their work sites for 84 days.  .
 

The strike in August 2015 only happened because Talleys would not actually negotiate in good faith.

And to add salt to the wound, Talley's lawyers then sent a letter to Helen Kelly, the then President of the CTU, claiming that any CTU actions during this time were unlawful - effectively trying to prevent picketing and the like by others supporting the MWU.

Helen Kelly's response was this post on Twitter on the 3rd of August: "Oh I am so scared. I won't be buying Talley's products until they settle a collective agreement with Affco workers."  Calls went out to boycott any and all Talley's products - vegetables, seafood.... but the meat workers asked that we still buy products produced by AFFCO.

Not long after this, in September, the Wairoa Affco meat workers were locked out of their plant.    At the time of writing this they are still locked out - well over 120 days and counting.  This is despite a court ruling in November that deemed the lock out illegal and then ordered Talleys and the MWU back to mediation.  The Employment Court issued a statement saying the AFFCO plant unlawfully breached the Employment Act by locking out 170 staff who refused to sign new individual contracts.  The Meat Workers Union, which has been negotiating for the workers, labelled the decision a "victory". 

National Secretary Graham Cook said Talley's tried almost everything to prevent workers from bargaining for a fair deal.  "They've forced some workers onto individual agreements, they've tried to undermine the union behind closed doors."  (See Wairoa meat workers lock out deemed illegal from Stuff 17/11/15).

AFFCO has said these workers can come back to work - on the night shift only.  Keep in mind that some of these people are solo parents or both parents will be expected to work the night shift.  So this begs the question of who will look after their kids while they are doing the night shift.  A stand off is still in place, and court action is pending.

Right before Christmas, AFFCO saw fit to dismiss Bertie Ratu and her union delegate colleague Sharmaine Takai from their positions after they visited workers at the Rangiuru meat works support workers.  Bertie was already on suspension for her Facebook post appealing to Maori Party leader and government Minister Te Ururoa Flavell for support for the meat workers to get negotiations going with AFFCO early in 2015. 

“The delegates were dismissed because they went to work to calm union members upset about unfair treatment and tempers were getting short,” says Darien Fenton of the NZ Meat Workers Union.

“I was informed by the company that my visit to the Rangiuru branch breached Health and Safety policies,” says Ratu, from Te Aupouri. 

“Sacking workers for spurious reasons three days before Xmas highlights the difference between one of New Zealand’s wealthiest families and their workforce,” says Darien Fenton.

I had the opportunity to met and hear Bertie Ratu speak at the CTU Women's Conference in July.  This is a woman who would like to be doing her job and bringing an income in for her family, which includes her elderly mother.  But due to circumstances brought about by unfair employment laws and an anti union employer, Bertie and her colleagues are having to defend their rights to belong to a union publicly and to the detriment of their own families.  They are having to fight for the right to have a Collective Employment Agreement that is fair.

This is the action of a company that is anti union and anti worker.  They are allowed to do this because the government has changed the employment laws so that they favour the bosses and put the worker at a disadvantage.  There is no need for bargaining in good faith anymore - these words were removed from the law.  Bosses can bulldoze and use the law to grind down the workers rather than negotiate.

Once again AFFCO and Talleys, you fail the standard in being good employers.  You fail the standard in having respect for your employees.  You fail the standard in garnering loyalty from your employees.  And a business is really only as good as the people who do the job.

Aged care caregivers, women and the 1972 Equal Pay Act - why the government wants to mess with it.

On Wednesday this last week I attended a Unions Waikato event hosting the Service & Food Workers Union and Kristine Bartlett, an aged care worker who was at the centre of the successful equal pay for women case.  She's told us about how she fell into being at the centre of the legal challenge.  An she literally didn't know what she was getting into until it all ramped up.

 

Maxine van Oosten, Unions Waikato co-convenor, and Kristene Bartlett.

Here is an extract from a newspaper article Win for equal pay campaign that explains some of the detail of the court process and decisions (Stuff 28/10/14):

Campaigners for pay equity are celebrating a "slam dunk" after the court dismissed an appeal against a case that could raise the wages of thousands of women across the country.

The question about whether women should be paid the same as similarly-skilled men in different industries was heard by the Court of Appeal in February.
It followed an Employment Court decision last year, which ruled in the favour of Lower Hutt caregiver Kristine Bartlett.
Bartlett, with the support of the Service and Food Workers Union, agreed to front a test case against her employer TerraNova Homes & Care.
The union also lodged a separate claim on behalf of a group of workers, arguing the Employment Court had the power under the Equal Pay Act to determine equal pay.
Bartlett argued her $14.46 hourly wage was less than would be paid to men with the same, or substantially similar, skills, arguing it was a breach of the Act.
Following the Employment Court decision an appeal was lodged and the New Zealand Aged Care Association agreed to help fund the case, arguing that while rest homes would like to pay their staff more they lacked the money to do so and the Government needed to increase is funding of the sector.
Employment law experts have predicted the case could have wide-ranging ramifications for a number of industries such as cleaners and nurses, setting a precedent that could mean higher pay for tens of thousands of female workers.

 

You can find out more about Kristine and the process here and here, and watch her on Campbell Live here.  You can read about what the Human Rights Commissioner has to say here and the employment court decision of August 2013 here.

 

In August 2014, Kristine's wage was $14.46 an hour.  It has increased slightly since, but when you consider that 20 years ago she was earning about $9.50 an hour, how valued are caregivers when they barely had a $5 wage increase over five years?  That works out at a 25c increase per year!!  Is that keeping up with inflation?  Sounds like slave labour to me.

 

Add this to the plight of a caregiver: there is no professional development, if any, and no career pathway for caregivers.  If a caregiver does find and do any professional development (as Kristine has), there is no reflection of this in their pay packet.  Kristine discussed the skills and roles of caregivers as something that not just anyone can walk in from a WINZ office and do.  Zero hour contracts and fluctuating hours are common, meaning that the women can not effectively budget each week and often come up short to pay rent or mortgages and other bills and often bring no lunch to work with them.

 

Consider this:  about the year 2000, Labour MP and Women's Affairs spokesperson Sue Moroney was working for NZNO (nurses union) and negotiating an employment contract with an aged care provider for the nurses and caregivers in the home.  The provider wanted to limit the hours each person worked a week to 30 hours.  When Sue asked why, the provided answered that it was physically demanding work and too much for an individual's body to cope with if they worked 40 hours a week.  Needless to say that clause was not accepted by NZNO, particularly in the light of the hourly wage agreed to and the fact that many caregivers are the breadwinners of their families.

 

So now we fast forward to 2015 and despite the fact that Kristine won this case in August 2013, and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court in 2014, because the caregivers don't have a national or even site wide Collective Agreement, these cargivers have not had their pay packets adjusted yet. That's still to come.  They have determined that the caregivers work should be compared to the work of Corrections officers (who earn considerably more than a caregiver).  The next step is how this will work as either a national collective or site collectives.  Naturally, aged care providers are resisting the change and they have some big help as you will see further down the page.

 

Sue Moroney was also at this meeting.  She explained that in 1990 the then Labour government had put legislation in to help enforce equal pay for equal work. But in 1991 National rescinded that law with their Employment Contracts Act. So this could have been sorted 25 years ago!  When asked why the Labour government of the 2000s had not corrected this, Sue explained that the Labour led government set up a working party to investigate and report back on pay equity and equal work.  This was disbanded when the current National led government took office at the end of 2008 and that work lays abandoned.  You can find out more about some relevant employment law to equal pay here.

 

Sue also explained that the employment court had ruled that equal pay for equal work was covered under the Equal Pay Act of 1972, and that this Act consequently means more than we had ever thought.  It's not just ensuring a woman and a man are paid the same for the same job.  It's about similar levels of work being paid equally.  It means that the Act passed by the Labour led government in 1990 and rescinded by National the following year was not needed because for nearly 42 years we have had the power to do what this recent court case has proved and not realised it.

 

Consequently, Labour and other organisations have become concerned with what the current National led government may do as a result of the employment court ruling and because the owners of aged care facilities have the ear of the government.  Sue Moroney has asked oral questions in Parliament about the government's intention towards the 1972 Equal Pay Act.  No straight answers have been given by relevant ministers.

So several weeks ago, she directly asked the CEO of the Ministry of Women in the formal business of the Select Committee meeting if they had been consulted on any changes to this Act.  The CEO said she couldn't answer. Translation: yes, this government wants to change the Act.

 

So you can see that once again the courts make a decision that is in accordance to the law of the land, John Key's government and his business cronies do not like it, so they are going to change the law, amend the Act to get their own way.  It is just like the court action won by the parents of dependent special needs adult children who look after their own kids instead of putting them into care or employing others to do so.  National changed the law on them too when the courts said that parents should be paid as caregivers to their own adult special needs children.  See the article about the court ruling here and the final budget allowance for it to happen here.

 

Sue believes that the best hope against blocking any amendments that the current government puts forward lays in the result of the Northland by-election.  If Winston Peters becomes the new Northland MP this weekend, and brings in a new list MP for New Zealand First, that will be a vote lost by National.  Sue believes with the strong support of elderly New Zealanders for New Zealand First that their MPs would not vote for any amendments to the 1972 Equal Pay Act as that would affect the caregivers who mainly work with elderly people.

 

ACT MP David Seymour will vote with National on any amendments, because, let's face it, they think the market will fix all - but we can see that 30 years of thinking like that has not helped caregivers at all.

 

Obviously Labour and the Greens would oppose any negative changes to the 1972 Equal Pay Act, which leaves the question of how the Maori Party and United Future would vote.  Sue said that many caregivers are Maori women who are the family breadwinners, so it would be foolish for the Maori Party to vote for amendments that would directly affect this group of workers.  Sue said that Peter Dunne had been supportive of her Bill regarding paid parental leave, so believed he could be convinced of the merits of opposing any amendments (and after all, in my opinion, Peter isn't getting any younger and is closer to needing a rest home than many other MPs, apart from Winston!).

 

Carol Beaumont, former Labour MP and currently working for NZNO, talked about the joint campaign for caregivers between the SFWU & NZNO on how this court ruling will be implemented.  Carol said this is a public campaign that needs the public behind the caregivers, because the public have friends and family who live or work in rest homes.   People need to talk about this - it is CAREGIVERS WEEK after all!!

 

She also said that people need to join unions.  If vulnerable workers like caregivers are in a union, their collective voice has power.

 

Since 2010 until just after New Years this year my Gran was in a rest home.  This decision was not taken lightly by my mother and her brothers and sisters, but when it became apparent that Gran was unable to look after herself independently due to dementia and the consequent ability to drive, cook and clean for herself, it was deemed the best option.  She was followed into care by her younger brother and a dear long time family friend.  Family visited them regularly and also formed bonds with the staff.

 

We saw great staff and not so great staff.  A factor in what makes a great caregiver is the empathy they demonstrate towards the loved one you have in a home.  They develop relationships with each person and know their likes and dislikes.  This was demonstrated to me one day with something as simple as a cup of tea.  The caregiver did not have to ask my Gran how she liked her tea; she just knew.  So Gran received a cup of black tea with no sugar.

 

We also knew there was not enough caregivers for the patients and work they had to do, and that they definitely weren't paid enough (staff turnover demonstrated that).  We knew because cardigans bought for Gran disappeared or Gran would be found by my Aunty on the odd morning to have not had her nighty put on the day before or her teeth would be AWOL.  When you are rushed off your feet and not valued by management, stuff like this occurs.

 

Kristine spoke of the heartbreak she and her colleagues have when they are unable to spend that special time with a frail patient who needs it because of the workload.  She spoke of the simple things like a hug for a dying man that meant so much to him, and to herself in the end.

 

But when Uncle T, then Mrs S and finally my Gran passed away, the rest home caregivers had looked after them with love, dignity and respect.  They worked with the family to the best of their ability, and mourned with us.  So we know the value of the caregivers who had found their vocation.

 

In my opinion anyone foolish enough to argue against equal pay for equal work is both mean-spirited and lacking in foresight.  Why would you bite the hand that feeds you (literally), and in your hour of need.

 

Any amendments  to the 1972 Equal Pay Act in effect puts the advances of women in New Zealand for the last 150 years back into the 1960s at least.  It shows that sexism and chauvinistic behaviours in the National party and big business and society in general are alive and well.

 

For caregivers not to be paid what they are worth and to not value the contribution they make to our society with how they care for one of our most vulnerable groups of citizens is appalling.  To make any changes to the 1972 Equal Pay Act to counter the win of Kristine Bartlett and the caregivers is to fail the standard as a human and against the vulnerable of New Zealand.

Why the Meat Workers deserve your attention right now.

Yesterday I went to learn about what our local meat workers are facing at a meeting held by the Meatworkers Union in Ngaruawahia. As you can see above, Andrew Little was there too. And Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta.  Sue Moroney was there earlier. They were there to support a new movement called "Jobs That Count" that will tell the meat worker's stories.

The Affco workers at Horotiu had their collective agreement expire in December 2013. As of December 2014, as a new agreement had not been reached, all the Affco employees went onto individual employment agreements that were the same as their collective. But if you get a job there as of Monday 9th March, due to the last lot of amendments to the Labour laws by the Nats, which went live on Friday 6th March, your individual employment agreement won't be the same as the rest of the workers. 

We also heard of the tactics used by managers at various sites to block unions and workers becoming unionised.  Union organisers are often not allowed on site to meet workers.   Workers are also dropped after 90 days because they've joined the union or are called to the office and intimidated if they want to join the union.  Misdemeanours are collected to fire workers.  Most of this amounts to workplace bullying.  Some union organisers have held onto union membership forms for two years waiting for a worker to get passed 90 days of employment before presenting the forms to ensure that workers still have a job!

Despite numerous court proceeding taken by the union against practices such as above being used by Talleys and Affco, they continue to flout laws about union representation and other employment laws.

That agreement was hard fought for after a lockout by Affco/Talleys three years ago.  The workers were on strike and consequently locked out for three months.  That's a long time with no pay.  Other unions got together and raised $250,000 to see those workers through the time when their money ran out.

Since their last agreement expired in December 2013, there have been ten days of negotiations.  Nothing new was brought to the table until the tenth day by the employers.  These new demands are not necessarily to the benefit of the workers either.

Unfortunately, Talleys has a history of being a difficult employer.  So the pressure needs to be applied to them to meet the law.  During the lockout, that pressure came from the Meat Workers Union, other unions, politicians and from consumers.

On Thursday night, Andrew Little addressed Labour supporters in Hamilton.  He told a story about when he was with the EMPU how they worked together with Fonterra to increase productivity and maintenance of the plant which also had great outcomes for the workers.  Fonterra gained massive advantages from this process, and it goes to show great things happen for business and workers when the business works constructively with unions representing their workers.

Which makes you wonder why corporations are so anti-union....

With the bargaining rules changed there are implications for all workers in New Zealand.  Under the new rules an employer can deem that negotiations have ceased at any point and take the negotiations to mediation or arbitration.  The power lies with the employer and good faith may walk quickly out the door.

What is happening to the meat workers union has implications for all unions and workers in New Zealand. They are about to test the changes to bargaining that went live on Friday.  For other workers, like teachers and nurses, who have their collectives up for renegotiation this year, what happens to the meat workers is vital and needs to be followed closely.  And that is why, as an NZEI member, I attended.

So what can you do?

Firstly, as a union member, be informed about your industries issues and know what the union is doing and how you can help.  Every little bit counts.  Be informed about the issues for other industries and follow what their unions are doing.

Secondly, send Talleys a message about how to treat their workers and Affco workers by not buying any Talleys products.  Talleys sell frozen vegetables, seafood, dairy products like ice cream and meat - keep buying the meat to support the meat workers, but send Talleys a message about how their treat their workers and Affco workers by not purchasing their vegetables, seafood and ice cream.

And finally, google (or click here) Jobs That Count or find them on Facebook.  If you are a meat worker, share your story.  If you aren't, send them a message of support.  And follow the events and issues as they unfold.

And that's my arm on the left in the top photo. 

Simon Bridges fails the standard



Several weeks ago, Simon Bridges, the Minister of Labour, announced he was making some changes to employment law.  He released a media statement on the 5th of June 2013, which I have included below as well:

 

Legislation to ensure more fairness, flexibility and clarity in employment law passed its first reading in Parliament.

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill proposes a package of measures to improve workplace arrangements in order to lift productivity and help create jobs.  
Labour Minister Simon Bridges told Parliament the Government wants to ensure that employers have the freedom to compete and expand, while key protections for employees are maintained.
The key features of the Bill are:
• The extension of flexible working arrangements so any employee, not just caregivers, can ask for flexible work.
• A return to the original position in the Employment Relations Act where the duty of good faith does not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement. Instead, the Employment Relations Authority may declare whether collective bargaining has concluded.
• Allowing employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining.
• Allowing for partial pay reductions in cases of partial strike action.
• Removing the 30-day rule that forces non-union members to take union terms and conditions.
• Changes to Part 6A so employers have greater certainty over the transfer of employees in certain industries such as cleaning, catering, orderly and laundry – if there is a restructuring or change in the contracted service provider. Small to medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 20 employees will also be exempt.
• Faster Employment Relations Authority processes.
• Greater clarity as to what confidential information employers are required to provide to affected workers in situations such as dismissal or redundancy.
• Requiring parties to provide notice of a strike or lock-out.
“I am especially keen to hear what affected parties have to say on the Part 6A proposals in the Bill, and will carefully consider their submissions and the recommendations of the Select Committee,” said Mr Bridges.
The Independent Taskforce on Health and Safety has recently made its recommendations to the Government, which are currently being considered.
“I want to signal my intention that, where desirable and practicable, this Bill will be the vehicle to implement any changes that need to be made to the employment relations regime as a result of the Government’s response to the Taskforce.
“Overall the proposed changes reflect a pragmatic approach to promoting flexibility and fairness in the labour market.”

 

On the 9th of June, Mr Bridges appeared on the TV1 political programme Q&A where he described his changes as "moderate, centre right law" over and over again.  When challenged by Corin Dann that the employment law was working, Bridges said that parts were unworkable or sloppy, creating problems, that we need more fair, flexible law that improves flexibility and profitability and will flow through to higher wages.  Corin pointed out that the changes would take away the rights to negotiate pay rises through collective bargaining, which Simon refuted by saying that collective bargaining was not fair for employers.  Simon Bridges claims that collective bargaining doesn't work, citing the Ports of Auckland dispute.  Corin pointed out that strikes have declined and are not so much of an issue in New Zealand anymore and asked how would low income workers be protected.  Simon Bridges again described these changes as moderate and pragmatic.

 

Simon Bridges became the Minister of Labour after Kate Wilkinson fell on her sword (finally) on November 5 2012 as a result of the Pike River inquiry (although Chris Finlayson held the position in the interim until John Key did his cabinet reshuffle in late January 2013).  Bridges also holds the portfolio of Energy and Resources.

 

Before Simon entered parliament as the electorate MP for Tauranga (replacing Bob 'The Builder' Clarkson in 2008) he was a lawyer, a Crown Prosecutor.  Considering Simon was a lawyer, you would expect him to know the law, be able to read it, understand it, apply it.

 

It appears not.

 

As you can see from the picture above, Simon Bridges has a poor understanding of one of the most basic tenets of the current legislation.  Pretty poor from a lawyer.

Simon Bridges wants to refuse new employees the right to 30 days to decide if they want to join the union.  Simon Bridges wants to give employers the right to pay new employees less or more with worse or better conditions than their unionised employees from the get go.  While this may be advantageous for the employees who are being paid better and are receiving better conditions, what about the (most likely more numerous) employees who will be worse off?

And why would you remove the requirement for good faith bargaining and allow employers opt out of multi-employer bargaining?  It certainly won't benefit employees or their relationships with their employers.  These changes are a tool to benefit employers only, to maximise their profits.

Before you say I am opposed to businesses making a profit, let me say that profits are important.  It demonstrates a successful business and that is a good thing for the owners/shareholders, employees, community and the country as a whole.  However, profits should not be made to the detriment of employees (their conditions, health and safety), the best interest of the community or country, or the environment, fauna and flora. 

New Zealand is a founding member of the International Labour Office (ILO).  Apparently, some of the above changes mooted are contradictory to our obligations under membership in the ILO.  Even his own officials told Mr Bridges that the amendments pertaining to employers opting out of collective bargaining contravened the ILO workers conventions that New Zealand subscribes to.  On June 4th, Simon Bridges told parliament in answer to a question from Darien Fenton during question time that he would discuss the changes with the ILO when he attended their conference later in June "with my new bestie Helen Kelly... and we'll be able to ask them then what they think".  However, he did not meet with the ILO in the end.  He refused to meet with them so he would not have to hear from the ILO directly how he was breaking the conventions.  The opposition has said that Simon Bridges effectively misled parliament, a very serious charge.

This is pretty typical of a National party minister.  As Helen Kelly put it, "Clearly this is a case of ‘hear no evil’"  Mind you, he has had some great role modelling.  Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata are infamous for throwing their toys out of their play pens when their officials tell them something they don't want to hear (probably why Novopay was such a botch up, because MOE officials couldn't tell them that Talent2 wasn't up to scratch), and Steven Joyce also isn't above throwing a wobbly either I've heard.

At this point (shock, horror) I am going to put up my hand as being a left-leaning, card-carrying unionist, who is involved in my industry union at branch and regional level, and gets to participate at a national level through the Annual Meeting.  I defend the right of the average person to belong to a union because I believe we would not have the standards we have in the work place today if it wasn't for workers uniting and standing up for fair pay, fair working hours and fair and safe working conditions.  I want to preserve the conditions we and others before us have fought for, and continue to strive for better conditions for workers that also allow for business and the public sector to strive for good.

One of the things that is not mentioned at the beginning of this blog is the intention to change the rules around meal and rest breaks.  The legislation covering this was brought in by Labour List MP Sue Moroney under Steve Chadwick's "Breaks and Infant Feeding Act" in 2008, and was enacted in 2009.  Prior to this Act there was no requirement under New Zealand employment law for meal and rest breaks, unless stipulated in each individual or collective employment agreement.  Under this Act, workplaces are required to do the following according to the Department of Labour:

Employees will be entitled to the following paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks:

• one paid 10-minute rest break if their work period is between two and four hours;
• one paid 10-minute rest break and one unpaid 30-minute meal break if their work period is between four and six hours;
• two paid 10-minute rest breaks and one unpaid 30-minute meal break if their work period is between six and eight hours.

If more than an eight hour period is worked, these requirements automatically extend to cover the additional hours on the same basis.

This link will take you to the page where the Department of Labour lists all the changes proposed, and the information about meal and rest breaks is on pages 12-13 of this PDF.

So why was the legislation for meal and rest work breaks introduced in 2008?

With the Employment Contracts Act in the 1990s the collective awards that previously covered most workers were swept away.... and consequently so were the stipulations for rest and meal breaks.  In the twenty or so years since, many young people and immigrants have joined the workforce in New Zealand.  The CTU says "The Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) report that largest number of calls and queries are from workers asking about meal break entitlements especially where small workplaces are not covered by collective agreements."  (CTU Submission to the Industrial Relations and Transport Select Committee ~ Employment Relations [Breaks and Infant Feeding] Amendment Bill ~  May 2008 page 7).

The fact that an Indian restaurant in Auckland has recently been exposed as paying its migrant workers less than $4 an hour for a 70 hour work week show that the company is willing to work their employees as slave labour by how they pay them... so what about their legal rights to meal and rest breaks?

These meal and rest breaks are also vital for health and safety reasons and for sustained productivity.  The following comes from page 6 of the 2008 CTU Submission:

8.2       In certain industries workers are exposed to greater health and safety risks.  Workers who work long working hours, who work shift work and who work at night have higher exposure to health and safety risks.

 

8.3       Rest breaks are also recognised as having a role in ensuing worker productivity. Research undertaken in a car plant in Swansea over a three year period found that the risk of accidents during the last half-hour of a two hour period of work, was double that for the first half-hour. The suggestion is that more frequent breaks could reduce accidents. It was concluded that increasing the frequency of rest breaks of workers who operate machinery could substantially reduce industrial accidents and that frequent work breaks (e.g. ten minutes every hour) can improve work performance[1].

---

[1] Working Time and Health: Fact Sheet, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2004.

Clearly, employees are there to ensure the employer makes money and a profit.  But no employer should profit at the expense of the health, safety and well being of their employees.

Yet New Zealand has a shocking workplace health and safety record.

Just two and a half years ago we lost 29 men to the explosion in the Pike River Mine.  As a nation we watched the West Coast go into full rescue mode... be pulled back for safety reasons.... and then have their hearts broken as a second explosion dashed all hopes.  The nation mourned with the West Coast as a memorial was televised live.  Personally I cried copious tears for the families.

Last year the inquiries demonstrated that systematic failures led to the deaths of the 29 men.  This is a simple outline:

• a lack of mine safety inspectors - there were two for the whole country.
• deregulation of the mining industry.
• a lack of mining industry specific regulations.
• use of non-company contractors within the Pike River workplace to cut costs.
• poor safety training by the company - particularly for the contractors.
• modifications to equipment that monitors gas levels so work onsite could continue.
• lack of safety gear within the mine.
• lack of exits from the mine.
• pressure from management to carry on work despite gas readings.
• a culture of "she'll be right" within the company.

There was that quiet pressure from the top of the company to compromise the health and safety of the workers because they wanted the top quality coal out to make money.

The company was convicted in April for the deaths of the 29 men.  This last week the sentencing was handed down.  The families of the those who died, as well as Daniel Rockhouse, who survived, read or submitted their victim impact statements.  These men were sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, uncles, nephews, cousins, sweethearts.... their families have been devastated, their lives have altered course immeasurably due to a company that did not value health and safety or the lives of their employees and contractors. 

Judge Jane Farish ordered that Pike River Mine Company pay each survivor and the 29 families $110,000 compensation each, or $3.41 million in total.  She also fined the company $360,000 over nine health and safety employment charges.  The company says it does not have the money to pay.  It estimates it can give $5,000 per family.

Is an employee's life worth only $5,000?

Since the Pike River disaster there has been a call for a law to be implemented to allow a company to be charged for corporate manslaughter in the advent of a workplace death.  Simon Bridges should soon be announcing a decision about this possibility  Personal liability for directors has also been called for.  A strengthening of the laws governing mining are also on the table.

In the meantime, Simon Bridges has introduced some guidelines to make mining safer.  They do not change the law and have no legal force.  These guidelines recommend directors provide a clear job description for the chief executive, which includes health and safety responsibilities, and to conduct management performance reviews.  Yip-bloody-pee!!

But we have another industry in New Zealand where we have lost the equivalent number of workers - 30 in six years - forestry.

On Wednesday night TV3's 3rd Degree broadcast a story about the conditions forestry workers work and die in.  Guyon Espinor went to work with the forestry workers, talked to a widow of a forester, parents of a forester, the CTU and the industry leaders.

Forestry has always been a dangerous industry.  Men have died throughout the history of clearing forests.  However, in today's modern world we should be able to minimalise the chance of death or injury. 

There are an average of 330 accidents per year.  Four foresters have died this year alone.... so far.  50% of foresters work longer than 40 hours a week and 10% work longer than 60 hours a week.  There is no cap on the number of hours a forester can work in a week.  The code of practice merely says that workers are entitled to “regular rest breaks, a meal break and a daily or nightly sleep period”.  They risk injury or death for about $20 an hour on average.

The CTU are leading a campaign to make forestry a safer industry.

  

Ken Callow was killed in October 2011 in the Wharerata Forest south of Gibson when a pine tree fell and crushed him.  He was a father of two young sons.  The official report into his death says he was "the architect of his own demise".  The parents of Ken Callow do not want to apportion blame, however they do ask one question: why are so many of our young men being killed or seriously injured in the forestry industry?

What is truly scary though is that the Department of Labour holds no true and correct record of the number of deaths in the forestry sector.  "Shane Philip Frater, 28, died on 1 May 2009 in a forestry block near Te Pohue, off the Napier-Taupo Rd, when he was hit by a branch of a tree as it slid down a hillside.  “Despite the Department of Labour carrying out the investigation it now has no record on its database of this forestry death, or record of his death in the statistics for forestry deaths in 2009, raising questions about how many other Forest fatalities are not recorded,” Helen Kelly said."
 
The CTU, families and industry leaders are calling for an inquiry into why so many foresters die on the job.

Yet Simon Bridges doesn't think that we need an inquiry.  He reckons he has got enough reports and that he has a "strong sense of what the solutions are".

So how does Simon fail the standard?  Let me catalogue the ways:

• Simon wants to end the requirement for employers to bargain in good faith - big fail there Simon, as that merely creates a wedge between employers and employees.
• Simon want to allow employers to bow out of multi-employer bargaining - big fail here too Simon.
• Simon refuses to hear his officials and the ILO and the CTU when they all say his legislation contravenes the conventions New Zealand is signed up to under the ILO - that is a major fail and demonstrates a flagrant disregard to workers rights by New Zealand internationally.
• Simon is removing the requirements for rest and meal times - another epic fail as studies have shown that productivity is higher when workers receive regular work and meal breaks, and that health and safety statistics are more likely to be on the positive side of the ledger.
• Simon's guidelines for directors of mining companies have no teeth whatsoever - another fail.
• Simon's refusal to have an inquiry into the health and safety of forestry workers is another fail.

Simon would do well to remember he is the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Employers.   He is there to ensure that the Department of Labour enforces the law of the land on how businesses operate and how their employees are trained, paid, and treated.

You're not there to ensure some rich fat cat gets richer or fatter Simon!!!  Consequently, you fail the standard.  Big time.

Thanks for reading through to the end.  This post has taken several weeks to compile and events overtook my initial thoughts (e.g. Pike River and the forestry issue) so I felt compelled to include those issues too.  I know it was a long blog.... but I hope it was food for thought.