Employment Laws

Planned changes to employment and holiday laws announced by Prime Minister John Key on Sunday are hardly the stuff of revolution.

The fundamental role of the Employment Relations Act in promoting collective bargaining remains, and the architects of the Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s will consider the tweaks and adjustments timid.

They represent the attitudes of a Government shading towards the right while still keeping within range of the centre.

They reflect policies of a National Party determined to be pragmatic rather then radical.

Nonetheless, the measures, if enacted after passing through parliamentary processes, will, in total, help employers as they try to do business.

They will, in small ways, help New Zealand's competitiveness.

The extension of the 90-day trial period to mid-sized and large businesses has attracted the most headlines, and perhaps even a little hysteria.

It is being promoted as a way to help those on the margins (young, migrants, long-time unemployed) get jobs and to encourage the creation of extra positions.

Employers are gun-shy of taking risks because of the laborious, tricky and difficult dismissal process if staff fail to work out.

Everything possible should be done to embolden businesses to take chances for the sake of both the marginalised - particularly the tens of thousands of young people unable at present to climb on to the first rung of the employment ladder - and the wider economy.

Tiny New Zealand in a remote corner of the Pacific has to strive to stimulate successful businesses and it cannot compete when hamstrung by restrictive labour laws. This probationary period extension will never be a panacea for job opportunity or growth, but each opening to increase competitiveness has to be grasped.

When the trial was introduced for small employers, it was predicted that exploitative employers would be commonplace and said that the culprits would be "named and shamed".

But, as Mr Key has noted, there has been little outcry and the change has been received positively.

No doubt, a few foolish and ruthless employers have abused the probationary period provision.

Shame on them.

Most, though, having gone to the trouble to recruit, induct and even train, will keep staff if they are at all suitable.

And any decent employer should give staff reasons they are not being kept on, even if those reasons do not have have to stand up through current disciplinary and dismissal processes.

It should be remembered, too, that Labour governments in Australia and the United Kingdom preside over broader trials.

The "sickie" provision has also provoked vigorous reaction.

The plan is that employers would have the right to ask for a medical certificate after one day rather than the usual minimum of three at present.

Generally, with the employer paying for the doctor's visit in these circumstances, nothing will change for most people in most places.

The provision will be a small but useful backstop for employers in a few cases of staff taking unscrupulous advantage of sick leave.

Many more details about the employment package will emerge and be discussed in the coming days.

One involves swapping the word "would" for "could" in the tests for a reasonable employer's responses in personal grievance cases.

This apparently subtle change is likely to improve the employer's position.

Another change gives the employer rather than the employee the final say on when alternative holidays are taken if agreement cannot be reached. There is also the potential transferring of public holidays to other days, with mutual agreement, and the ability for the fourth week's holiday to be paid out in cash on the employee's initiative and employer's agreement.

Many formal employment and holiday provisions would be unnecessary in an ideal world with ideal employees and employers.

Helpful give and take would promote a harmonious and productive workplace.

In the real world, though, rules are needed to cover all sorts of situations to try to approximate what might be considered "fair".

Sadly, these rules will never cover every eventuality nor deal with every abuse from one quarter or the other.

National, before the last election, signalled it would make changes to employment and holiday laws.

In now doing so, it is clearly distinguishing itself from Labour while maintaining a relatively moderate position.