"Everyone's a winner" is the phrase being bandied around Parliament at the moment in relation to the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which last week unanimously passed its third and final reading.
Everyone is certainly jumping on the bandwagon to claim their part in securing the "win'' for workers through the abolition of zero-hour contracts.
The issue has dogged the Government for the past year.
Pressure built from unions, workers, the public, the Opposition and the Government's own support partners to banish the punitive contracts, which obligated workers to be available to work, yet have no guarantee of any work.
It certainly did not seem a fitting employment practice for a first-world country.
The contracts are not new, although it was feared their use was increasing in this country - led in the main by multinational fast food industry giants.
The issue has become a big political one elsewhere, too.
In the United Kingdom it has been playing out in parallel.
Here, thankfully, it has taken a relatively short time to bring to an end what those on all sides of the political divide now acknowledge was an unfair provision that disadvantaged often already low-paid workers.
The changes were part of an omnibus Bill introduced to Parliament last year, designed to amend several pieces of legislation to make workplaces fairer and more productive for employers and employees alike.
Among the other positive changes are those to paid parental leave entitlements.
The initial legislation, however, still permitted employment agreements to contain no specified hours if that suited the employer and the employee.
The Government argued "flexibility''.
Labour, the Greens, NZ First - and the Government's support partners the Maori and United Future parties - argued that was in effect "entrenching'', not abolishing, zero-hour contracts and demanded amendments to support the legislation.
These were finally accepted in order to pass the final hurdle.
In something resembling an undignified lolly scramble, all parties are now claiming the first, last or most credit for the changes.
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse is claiming he has achieved "a rare thing''.
After being in the hot seat recently over the flaws in health and safety legislation risk rankings, he should have made more of the success - for the unanimous support is significant, particularly over something as important and divisive as employment standards.
His response that he had to "throw a bone at someone to stop barking at cars'' (a line he has used before) took the shine off what could have been his moment, as it appears offensive to the very workers he says the legislation is designed to safeguard.
Political point-scoring aside, in reality, the tide had already turned in terms of zero-hour contracts.
Last year many companies had already seen the light: Burger King and Restaurant Brands (which owns KFC, Pizza Hut, Carl's Jr and Starbucks) bowed to pressure and agreed to stop the practice and McDonald's had agreed to guarantee workers 80% of hours worked over a three-month period.
This explains the relative silence from businesses now.
Add in a recent 50c increase to the minimum wage (to $15.25 an hour), and workers finally have some real reasons to celebrate.
Most importantly they won't have to be on a contract which states they must be on call, available for work, but with no guarantee of work and no ability to take work elsewhere.
They no longer need to fear that a wrong move could see them ditched from the roster at the whim of their employer.
If workers feel more secure, there will be more of an incentive for them to do a good job.
Members of the public with whom they interact will have a better experience, and the employer benefits from that, too.
Could it just be, in this instance, everyone is a winner after all?
