Employment Relations
I have been
noticing a lack of balance in workplace relations over the past decade or so
and I bring to you some experiences as indicators of areas needing improvement.
I was recently given a cover page from a job application for a minimum wage
job. It asks for a Schedule of Claimant
Injuries be requested from ACC before the job application can be
considered.
I phoned
Employment NZ, astoundingly for every question I asked, answered, we're not
qualified to answer that, told me the person should seek legal advice and
eventually, advised me to phone the Privacy Commission. I'm not entirely
sure what Employment NZ actually does.
The Privacy
Commission, was more helpful, and agreed it was beyond what is required for
employment, which is information that is relevant to the applicant’s suitability
for the particular role, and a person’s sensitive claim or childhood injuries
are not. But then the person has to make
a formal complaint - which then becomes a matter of public record and like employment
court means a person will be branded a troublemaker and blacklisted.
Similarly,
the Employment Relations Authority relies on a formal complaint being made,
hearings and the outcome becomes a matter of public record. I myself have applied for positions where the
application asks if I’ve ever taken a grievance against an employer, there is
never a question asking what for.
An
example of this is a graduate lawyer who was severely bullied by the boss in
their first job. With a provable case
they sought legal advice but were told, yes you have a good case but if you
take an employment grievance it will damage your future. This graduate left the
job, but the bullying continued with the now-ex boss attempting to cancel the
practicing certificate and even informing the local District Court they were
unable to practice. It only ceased when
their next employer intervened.
So,
if an educated legal person, with resources, can’t address workplace issues without
it affecting their career, you can imagine that people well down the food-chain
have an even more difficult time.
Another
story. National, when on the government
benches, abolished ‘zero hour’ contracts, effective 1 April 2016, to great
accolade. However, those businesses just
moved onto, for example, two-hour casual contracts, with all the uncertainty of
a zero-hour contract, the need to be available for work whenever you are called
or you go to the bottom of the list.
An
actual example, of another local workplace where casual staff, employed on a
two-hour contract over the busy Christmas period, were often written onto the
roster for shifts but not informed of them and then censured for ‘no-show’. A staff member found out that it went on to their
staff record because the supervisor left the shift book open on the staff room
table, for all to see, and although they explained were told there was no
recourse for this. Sometimes they were
told they were working a shift but when they traveled in, arriving at work
(sometimes cancelling other plans or paying for child-care) the shift they were
told to come to work for hadn’t been entered into the roster and there was
nothing for them to do but return home.
One
worker had a supervisor stand behind them to ‘watch them work’, because they ‘weren’t
working fast enough’, while berating them for the so called ‘lack of work’ they
had done their previous shift under a different supervisor (the worker, and
four others, worked the entire shift did everything they were told to do by
their supervisor, but this worker was the only one berated).
This
was so bad a customer intervened telling the supervisor they couldn’t treat
staff like this, that customer complained. The company ‘apologised’,
but during the meeting told the employee this supervisor had done this before. The worker then became the target for the
supervisors. It got to the point the
casual staff ‘joked’ about what the supervisor could find to yell at them
about. Such things as not sweeping the floor correctly the night before (they
hadn’t swept the floor on that shift), putting the sweepings in the ‘wrong’
rubbish bin, ordering that boxes marked ‘23 kg two person lift’, be placed on
top of racks requiring the single person perform an over-head lift while
standing on top of a ladder platform, laughed at when replacement box-cutter
blades were requested, then later being admonished because the boxes cut for
display were untidy. Staff have absolutely
no recourse, there’s little other work available and if they leave the
employment or are ‘fired’ I understand there is a lengthy stand down period
before any govt assistance can be received.
People have no choice but to put up with bullying, abuse and
exploitation, all for twenty cents above minimum wage, because the company
often advertises itself as paying staff above minimum wage.
Ironically
the workers I was speaking with were working under these conditions while the company
founder was made a Knight Grand Companion of The New Zealand Order of Merit in
the New Year Honours. Yep.
Over
the past ten years, I’ve known many young people who have desperately wanted to
gain a trade qualification. These are
good hard-working young people, that completed school and polytechnic courses,
turn up to work every day ready and able to work. One young person took a student loan to
attend a motorcycle mechanic pre-trade program. This program, in Wellington, graduates around
30 pre-apprentice trainees a year, there’s 2 or 3 motorcycle mechanic apprenticeships
available per year in the area. This
young person then tried to gain a Locksmith trade, their story follows.
After
answering an advertisement for a locksmith cadetship in 2013, promising an apprenticeship
for the right candidate, this young person was successful in their
application. For fourteen months they
were ‘teased’ with the promise of ‘next month’, when eventually they were
signed up as an apprentice with Competenz. After a first meeting with a mentor,
then monthly for three months, that mentor left, their replacement had no
knowledge of the industry or system, who also left within the month, this went
on for a total of eight mentors, with even an eight-month gap between mentors, and
no bookwork was assessed. They were also given unit standards that were
expiring, or had expired, to complete and then needed to be redone. After two years of being signed up as an
apprentice, and over three years with this company, this apprentice attended
their first block course which had been ‘palmed off’ to the Manakau
Institute of Technology to organise and administer. The tutor was handed the course content the
morning of the course (in front of the class). During the two week course,
discussion among students was that it was a waste of time. Level three and four unit standards, worth up
to 20 credits each, were condensed into one or two pages of questions that were
answered as open book class discussion. This former apprentice says they are
qualified in master key systems, but have never created a master key system and
wouldn’t know where to start. From what
this apprentice understands, the tutor, his own boss and many other bosses who
had apprentices on the course made complaints about the contents or lack of,
they were simply told it would be better next year.
The
next level block course was held 16 months later at the same campus was much
better, curated by industry leaders, not Competenz. Despite having completed all of the required
hours for an apprenticeship, plus some, they were unable to complete the unit standards
as they weren’t given the training required. Out of the five years and two months working
there, four years as an apprentice, three and a half of those years were as
sole charge in a branch shop with no supervision or training.
It
is clear advancing the apprentice to qualify was not the priority of keeping an
apprentice in this company. As many
other examples show, apprentices are simply cheap skilled labour who have no
recourse, if they have any hope of ever qualifying or getting another job in
the industry.
There
is also a problem with cross-crediting, this apprentice had completed a
pre-trade motorcycle course and had gained a number of unit standards, for example
using ‘basic hand tools for automotive’ however was unable to cross-credit to
using ‘basic hand tools for engineering’, even though when they repeated, it
was exactly the same content, the explanation given they were ‘incompatible
fields’.
Two
other young people, successful in getting apprenticeships in the motorcycle
industry, in different regions, had very similar experiences. On apprentice pay rates, not released for
‘block courses’ working almost sole-charge, with little or no supervision. For
one, there was not even a qualified motorcycle mechanic on the staff and they
were doing ALL of the motorcycle work, being paid apprentice rates but their
hours were being billed out at full price! It took this person a year to find another
workshop where they could finish their apprenticeship. The other moved regions to find a workshop
where they could complete their apprenticeship, both taking almost six years to
complete a three year qualification.
A
final example is of a hairdressing apprentice, who on apprentice rates spent
three years in each of two salons, enduring similar experiences to those
above. This young person has given up
their dream and now milks goats. In
every online discussion there are further anecdotal accounts of similar
exploitation and frustration.
I
personally know six young people who have undertaken apprenticeships, only one
doing an electrical apprentice, has had a reasonable run, and for the others
their troubles were certainly not through their own lack of efforts.
There
is absolutely no protection for them, no oversight of their apprenticeships, no
one for them to turn to, none of the taxpayer funded authorities, institutions,
services or departments had any care or concern. It took 14 YEARS to expose a slavery and
human trafficking ring in Hawkes Bay[1]
– what chance do these young people have?
Minister
Hipkins said in a paper to Cabinet;
“The plan also suggested
stopping industry training organisations from arranging and paying for training
and paring back their role to setting standards and qualifications and advising
the Tertiary Education Commission under the new title of industry skills
bodies.
Tertiary institutions
would take over the job of organising and providing work-based industry
training and that would be a big challenge.
Providers would take responsibility for approximately 140,000 trainees
and apprentices in addition to the approximately 110,000 vocational education
learners they already serve (based on 2017 figures).
This would require
increased capability and capacity. This change will promote better alignment
between on- and off-job education and training, and stabilise provision of
vocational education across the economic cycle,".
The paper said industry
training organisations (ITOs) might respond negatively to the proposals, but
they included a significantly increased leadership role for the industry[2].”
In a similar vein, the report from
the working group on Fair Pay Agreement is not addressing the current
employment relations and standards system. The EPA recommends New Zealand will benefit from stronger employer-worker
dialogue and discusses that it will better integrate vunerable groups[3]. As previously described, the only way for an
employee to have a grievance addresses, even when the employer is blatently breaking
the law, is to make a formal complaint.
This places the onus on the employee, potentially damaging their future
employment opportunities, to uphold workplace legislation from an increadbly
unequal position and is effectively allowing employers to exploit and abuse
workers. Nothing in the FPA proposal
addresses this.
There is no proposal in any of the signaled workplace or polytechnic changes that addresses these ongoing problems.
For a government, whose raison d'etre was purported to be standing up for workers and vulnerable people, they are again failing.
Unless their purpose is now in giving unions more power, but workers none, then they are a great success.
[1] NZ
Herald, Name suppression lapses for Samoan national accused of slavery, 17
December 2018 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12178378
[2]NZ
Institute of Skills and Technology: 16 polytechs to merge under government
proposal 14 February 2019 https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/382366/nz-institute-of-skills-and-technology-16-polytechs-to-merge-under-government-proposal
[3] https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/695e21c9c3/working-group-report.pdf
Ugh! Reading some of those examples reminds me of my brief time at a franchise cafe for minimum wage a couple of years ago. I was hired on a 90 day trial period and it was awful... soul destroying. Owners were nitpicky and overbearing, staff would regularly cry on their breaks. One young staff member was sexually harrassed by the older man who did the dishes, but since he was a friend of the owners family nothing happened so she had to either keep working or quit. It was wrong of me to do this, but i sneaked a peek at a coworker's payslip when she left in on the shelf, she'd managed to stick it out 3 years and she was still on minimum wage. I dropped three plates when i was working there and the staff were told that because of me they weren't going to get their Christmas bonuses. Oh, and two of the workers were male, and they got paid a higher rate. Being let go after my trial period was just about a relief!
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems the franchise cafe industry have a bit of an entitlement problem. Muffin Break boss Natalie Brennan slams 'entitled' millennials https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12206618
Delete