Woodhouse Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Woodhouse Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15397] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to talk about the costs of recruitment in the context of the 90-day probation period. At the select committee we heard a lot of Draconian stories of employers in sweat mines dragging along these poor people for 89 days and on the 90th day flicking them out the door because that is what employers do. The reality is somewhat different. Even if one accepts that employers are financially motivated— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Twenty-five percent of them do that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Here we go! There is a “glass three-quarters empty” approach to the world. Lynne Pillay is essentially saying never mind that the other 75 percent who were given a go who might have marginalised or new immigrants got a permanent job out of it. Never mind the fact that the 25 percent who were let go might have gone of their own volition. The Department of Labour did not say in its report that they were sacked. All it said was that they were no longer employed at the end of 90 days. So it did not take into account that a lot of those short-term workers were people who decided that they did not want to work where they were and left of their own free will. No no according to Lynne Pillay 25 percent of them were sacked. 
I want to come back to the issue of money. The Labour Opposition talks about money-grubbing employers and if that is the case if employers are motivated by that single thing the dollar then they will weigh up very carefully the costs of hiring and firing. At the select committee we heard that even for basic jobs in retail the costs of hiring somebody can run into thousands and thousands of dollars. There is the cost of advertising the cost of screening the cost of the appointment and the cost of legal advice. There is the cost of getting an employment agreement in place. There is the cost of uniforms training health and safety training and induction and there is the loss of productivity while someone is buddied with the new employee. During that 90-day period a substantial investment in the employee has been made. Yet we are being asked to accept that these callous employers will on day 89 or day 90 say: “Tau you’re out the door—down the road. There is no excuse and it doesn’t matter that we’ve invested not only several thousand dollars but several tens of thousands of dollars.” 
Darien Fenton 
: No one said that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is exactly what is being implied. The member opposite said that no one said that but actually they did. They came to the select committee in Auckland and said that callous employers will use employees and abuse them and then dump them. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who said it? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Members of the Service and Food Workers Union who lined up one at a time with the reverend on the end—I cannot remember what his name was—actually went through that process. We heard that it would be terrible. Before that particular submission we heard from McDonald’s Restaurants of New Zealand. McDonald’s said— 
Sue Moroney 
: Scrupulous record! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: If the member uses her ears and not her mouth she might learn something. She was not at the select committee hearing. We heard that those terrible employers actually have— 
Sue Moroney 
: Not from that member I won’t. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Maybe she will learn something maybe she will not but if she is quiet just for once she might learn something. McDonald’s has a performance measure for its managers—it is probably related to bonuses—on the retention rate of their employees at 3 months and they are not the only organisation that has that. It is considered a failure if an employee whom they have screened and employed is not working at the end of the 3-month period. So much for callous employers using abusing and turfing out their staff! They are simply not doing that. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does every employer have that? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No but here we go again—here is the inconsistency. Because every employer does not have it then we must wrap them all up in bureaucratic processes but we do not worry so much about the occasional errant employees. According to Labour we have rules for employers but not for the poor old employees. It is completely inconsistent because it is the employer who is investing sometimes not just thousands but several tens of thousands of dollars in an employee. Nobody in their right mind even if they are a bad employer motivated by money will then flick off that employee. It simply does not occur.