Locke Keith: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Locke Keith: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15415] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I see that Lynne Pillay wished to continue her speech; I apologise to her. But I will continue in the same vein. 
It seems that it is a very good thing to have a written employment agreement constructed and kept by the employer as a reference point. On one hand it means there is something to refer back to to see whether the employer is matching the requirements in that agreement. On the other hand—as the previous speaker pointed out—employers’ organisations will construct a standard agreement that contains the 90-day provision without any reason being required for dismissing a person within the first 90 days. That agreement will be sent out to every employer and it will almost be a black mark against them if they do not use it. Employers are very organised in that respect in making sure that all other employers keep in line. Supposedly there is a choice in terms of whether people go into the 90-day arrangement; in fact people will not be able to get a job anywhere else because all contracts will have that 90-day provision in them. People will have the choice between having a job and not having a job. 
I agree with Lynne Pillay that there will be euphemisms such as letting people go instead of sacking them. They are all excuses. Another one that came up was that a person could be overqualified. Employers might say that a person is a very nice worker but is overqualified and that they will let that person go and get somebody else. Those are not real reasons and reasons will not be required under the 90-day legislation but we can see how things will operate. 
The changes are all completely unnecessary because particularly in the labour market we have now where there is a high level of unemployment any reasonable employers will not be looking to recruit people for 90 days. They will be recruiting to get the best person on a permanent basis providing the training from day one and spending their money on that training. Having that 90-day provision has nothing to do with the quality of the employees being hired and has everything to do with being anti-union as in the examples given before: sacking people if they show any sign of standing up for their rights linking up with the union or whatever. That will be the primary reason why people are sent down the road. 
Workers who are pro-union and who will be sent down the road are generally the better workers. I have found that the more one stands up for other people’s rights the more confidence one has in one’s own rights and skills. Those people tend to be the better workers; they will be the ones who are sacked. 
In my experience it has been the most unionised workplaces that have put out the better product. I used to work at New Zealand Motor Corporation in Petone producing Honda cars. We had a strong union there and the quality of the Honda cars was great. My partner worked out at what was then Todd Motors which then changed to Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand where the union was much weaker. Quite a lot of people got annoyed with the conditions there and there was a bit of sabotaging of cars actually. The quality of the cars coming out was lower because the union was less strong. 
It is actually in the employer’s interest to have a strong union in the workplace but a lot of employers do not operate in that way; they just want to run the business their way. Trevor Mallard gave some examples of that particularly of employers who have a small business where the boss is more concerned with keeping control over everything than in having a collective workforce that works well together. 
To summarise the existence of this written agreement has its positive sides. But in the hands of the employers’ federation it will probably lead to a universalisation of this offensive 90-day provision.