To The Front: Workers Give It Up For The Wealthy
Column - By John Minto.
Workers rights took a big step backwards last Friday with the enactment of a raft of anti-worker legislation courtesy of John Key's
National government.
April 1st saw laws which mean workers can be sacked in the first 90 days of employment without reason and without the
chance to challenge the decision; the requirement to produce a medical certificate even after a single day of absence;
further restrictions on a union's right to access a workplace to speak with workers and the right for workers to sell
the fourth week of their annual leave for cash.
At the same time the government increased the minimum wage by just half the level of inflation. It went up two percent
to $13.00 while inflation for the 2010 calendar year was four percent. Workers on low incomes are continuing to go
backwards.
These are typical Tory government measures and should be seen simply as National delivering to its core constituency in
the business world.
But besides the obvious attack on workers rights the most awful aspect of the employment law changes enacted by the
government last Friday is their emphasis on supporting the worst employment practices of the worst employers.
Take the 90-day, fire-at-will provision for example. If an employer can't follow simple guidelines to support and assist
a worker to come to grips with a new job for example they can just fire the worker without reason. What is so difficult
about providing appropriate training and the chance to improve? What is so hard about being fair and reasonable? No need
to provide training, no need to provide a warning or guidance, no need to even give a reason - just fire the worker
inside 90 days because the government has removed any legal avenue to appeal.
Ironically this 90-day fire-at-will bill will not affect most unionised worksites because this provision will be
unlikely to be in any collective employment agreement at the site. For the first 30 days of employment a worker is
automatically on the provisions of a collective employment agreement if there is such an agreement on site and the new
provision indicates the worker must sign up to it before they start work.
Where it will kick in viciously is where an employee is at an un-unionised worksite where the worst of employment
practices go largely unchallenged in any case. The 90-day law will legitimise the worst employment practices by the
worst employers.
Forget the government sales pitch about this law giving a chance of employment to workers who would not otherwise be
taken on. That's just government spin. This provision has been in place for small worksites (less than 20 employees) for
over a year and the Department of Labour's once-over-lightly survey on the use of this provision last year showed there
were no new jobs created while 20% of workers employed under the provision were sacked within 90 days.
If we translate to the overall employment situation and the 400,000 workers who change jobs every year we have the
potential for up to 80,000 every year to be sacked without reason, justification or the right to appeal.
This has nothing to do with supporting employment. It's about seeing workers as just a resource to be exploited for
profit.
And profits are doing very well through most of the developed capitalist world. Many governments overseas are struggling
with huge levels of sovereign debt after bailing out the greed and stupidity of private sector banks and financial
institutions but private sector profits are soaring.
According to Morgan Stanley the profits of the S 500 companies, excluding banks, were up by 18.7% last year. In Britain private sector profits have risen since the
recession by 14 billion pounds while real wages have dropped by two billion pounds.
Although I haven't seen the figures for New Zealand there's no reason to think a similar pattern does not apply here.
What is obvious however is that the government here is working hard to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of
those who work for a living.