Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Opposition to Wayne Mapp's bill shows its necessity

Through my partner I frequent a place of employment with a high proportion of staff receiving youth rates, minimum wage and rates just above the minimum wage.  The interesting thing that I have found recently since the introduction of Wayne Mapp's bill  (Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill) to parliament is who is in support or opposition to it.

Almost universally the "workers" are in support, while the "employees" are not.  My differentiation really just being on the basis of my observation of who actually works and who just turn up do the hours and go home.  In the latter category are those that I can tell my wife were absent from her work without having been there that day - just by what day of week it was.  It is those that when she is telling me of a staff stuff up (and consequent customer complaint), I can accurately guess who it was by the nature of the mistakes.  It is that recently departed staff member who was fired because of time clock fraud.  It is the staff member that was attempted to be fired for job abandonment - but was saved by a procedural mistake (but incidentally is back to their second written warning within 2 weeks of that).

From this place of "employment" I see widespread opposition to Wayne Mapp's proposed provisional period - and the opposition only makes me more determined that it is absolutely required.
Tags: , , , ,

No comments: