Otago Southland Employers Association chief executive Virginia Nicholls explains why business organisations like hers think the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2018 represents a great leap backwards.
There's been a lot of commentary about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which, if passed, will bring about sweeping changes to workplace relations across the country.
Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has stated that the proposed legislation ``will help create a highly skilled and innovative economy that provides good jobs, decent work conditions and fair wages'' - all laudable goals which every New Zealander supports, I'm sure.
However, Mr Lees-Galloway has failed to explain how the changes proposed will deliver on these goals.
The Otago Southland Employers' Association, along with our sister organisations the EMA, Business Central and Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce, as well as BusinessNZ, support the principles expressed by Mr Lees-Galloway, but we're asking him and the Government to explain how returning to the employment relations environment of the 1970s will help this country and its economy move forward.
Over the last 10 years New Zealand's growth rate has been among the highest in the OECD, while our unemployment rate has been among the lowest. It's no coincidence that this growth has occurred during a period in which New Zealand has benefitted from some of the most progressive employment legislation in the world.
The ERA Bill is all about dismantling that legislative framework, which has helped businesses become more innovative and adaptable and which has driven growth across many sectors.
The changes proposed by the ERA Bill include the removal of 90-day trial periods for businesses with more than 20 employees - a major disincentive for businesses to take a chance on unskilled or inexperienced staff. They will also enable union representatives to access a workplace without the prior consent of the employer - potentially disruptive and an infringement on non-union member rights. They will also compel employers to provide the details of all new employees to unions - contrary to current privacy laws.
Tighter laws on meal and rest breaks could potentially restrict both worker and employer flexibility, while the removal of the multi-employer collective agreement opt-out, where employers can refuse to bargain for a multi-employer collective agreement, will not be easy in their operating environment.
It's hard to see how any of these or other changes proposed in the Bill will, in the words of the minister, ``help create a highly skilled and innovative economy that provides good jobs, decent work conditions and fair wages''. Rather, they seem to be motivated by an ideological position that pits employees against employers and suggests employers need to be regulated to do the right thing by their people.
Some commentators have criticised our Fix the Bill campaign but, like the Government, those critics have failed to explain how the changes that the Bill will bring about if passed in its current form will move us forward, instead of the other direction.
Are we wrong to ask the Government to explain this?
