Where’s my rights?
You should actually care about this.
It’s not your fault if you haven’t got a clue. The average joe usually doesn’t hear about changes to their rights until the laws have already been passed. Let me help:
In the next 100 days workers will be facing a big upheaval of our rights – and many of us won’t even notice until it’s staring us in the face. Our right to a break, likelihood of a pay rise, and the muscle our unions have are all under the microscope.
So there’s this little thing called the Employment Relations Act that means bosses, workers and unions have to make nice with each other. It entitles workers to cool things like breaks, justice for bad treatment, a decent contract, and a union to give a toss about us.
The government reckons that at the moment employees and unions have too much power, they want to take away a bit of that power and give it to employers. They argue that employers require more flexibility to steer the ship the way they want so they’ve put together a package called the Employment Relations Amendment Act to do just that.
Now I’d be fine with it if all employers were on the side of the angels, but sadly many are not. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of fair and reasonable bosses out there with a conscience that extends beyond their profit margins, but there are also ample employers out there who would pay you less if they could.
The easiest change to explain is the axing of our tea break. This is not the scariest change in the parcel but it is the most likely to piss the average worker off. At the moment a 10-minute paid break is a minimum right that we have for every four hours worked. It’s a sensible entitlement, one that allows workers to refresh and refocus, meaning they will be more motivated and perform their job safer and more productively.
I won’t say enjoy it while you can but I will say that a morning tea break will no longer be a concrete entitlement. Employers will be able to, if they have reasonable cause, dictate when and where breaks are taken and have the power to withhold smoko breaks altogether.
Now I know from experience that in some industries there already exists a culture of peer-pressure not to take breaks (cough* hospitality *cough). My concern is that the law change will legitimize this custom and that we will see the same thing creep into other industries and workplaces.
The most harmful part of the deal however is the changes to collective bargaining – when unions and employers negotiate with each other to develop an employment agreement for workers. Currently the law says that if these two parties begin negotiating they have a good faith obligation to come to an arrangement, i.e. finish the negotiation by reaching a deal. Sounds pretty reasonable no? If my girlfriend asks me to wash the dishes and I say “later” but she isn’t happy with that response, we’ve got to come to a compromise right?
Well the new law says if employers get fed up with talking they can take a hike and essentially ditch the negotiation, effectively leaving the union, and the workers, in no man’s land. This could have a number of consequences:
- Unions will have less influence to negotiate fair contracts for workers.
- Bargaining could take forever – leaving workers in the lurch.
- Employers could stall long enough for the bargaining period to finish and then offer their workers individual contracts with worse conditions.
- Overall union influence and membership could diminish.
The last point is bad news for all workers, even those who aren’t union members, because unions are the only real voice in support of us and our working rights not only in terms of defending employees but also in terms of having an influence on laws that could affect your rights (oh the irony). Less union members means unions have less capacity to have a say in what goes on in the Beehive.
The Human Rights Commish, itself an independent arm of the government, told the PM that the new law is a bad idea and could breach the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In a report to the government the commish said: “it is difficult to understand the justification for deregulating the New Zealand labour market even further, while at the same time breaching international obligations to protect employee’s rights.”
But so far our Human Rights representatives have been treated like the unwanted uncle who lives alone in a hut in the bush and talks to possums – soundly ignored.
There’s more. The current 30 day rule that means new workers are covered by the conditions of an existing collective employment agreement will be canned. This 30-day grace period gives workers time to choose whether to join a union and continue to enjoy the benefits of the collective or sign an individual employment agreement instead. Removing this means employers can lock workers into individual contracts before workers get to taste the fruits of union membership.
Strikes will be cracked down on and employers will be able to reduce the pay of striking workers and it will be made more difficult for unions to access worksites and encourage workers to join.
If I was a sceptical man I would suspect that these law changes are aimed at reducing union membership and as a result, lessen the influence unions have on government policy.
Our unions have campaigned for decades to ensure that we have decent working conditions. Without them keeping tabs on government we wouldn’t have a minimum wage, maternity leave, reasonable working hours, and holidays. True story.
Just to drive the point home further – after 16 deaths in the forestry industry in 2012-2013, Worksafe, the government’s health and safety watchdog, has reported 1 death in 2014. This is largely due to the unions exposing the horrendous working conditions in the industry and forcing the issue onto the government agenda. Without unions more Kiwi families would be mourning fathers, sons, and brothers.
Now I am a worker whose job it is to look out for other workers, so clearly I am biased, but this Employment Relations Amendment Act – it stinks.