The current hysteria about employment Trial Periods is a crock!

We have always had the right to use a trial period in employment. My first Personnel Management role in the 1980’s was in the apparel industry, in a factory in Porirua just north of Wellington in New Zealand.

Staff operated machines and were paid a piece rate, i.e. they got a set rate per garment produced on spec. The staff pool was largely unskilled and it was hard to know if an unskilled person was able to do the job, let alone sustain the production rate and meet the quality standard consistently. The arrival of more sophisticated machinery also had to be considered.

Because of the new machinery we were meeting with the Union anyway to discuss the new production expectations and related piece rates so we also talked about how we might ensure successful staffing appointments.

We agreed that with the support of training, an experienced Buddy and regular feedback, a trainee operator should be at the standard production target rate within two weeks, then maintain that for the third week.

If after week two the trainee hadn’t reached target, their employment ended. If they did achieve target but were unable to maintain for the third week, their employment ended.

The system worked extremely well. Even trainees who didn’t make it through often commented how pleased they were to have the chance. It also worked the other way for prospective employees who had never worked in a factory before. They got the chance to experience the work and environment knowing they too could decide not to carry on. So much better for their dignity.

I can recount various examples of how these types of systems worked, with rational, agreed and fair processes. So why the big fuss when this is not new?

Well the so called new advantage in employment is being touted to mask the true intent – the removal of employment human rights. Decisions to determine whether or not the trial period was fairly run or whether or not the trainee would have a job cannot be challenged. So the employer gets to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. I asked someone who was vigorously advocating this right, “If the Police suddenly rushed in now and accused you of a crime, arrested you and carried you off, would you expect the right to challenge their claim?”

Their answer was of course, “YES!” Go figure.

Urging domestic growth but buying overseas

I don’t understand. In a time when we are doing everything we should to encourage & develop our industries, we are awarding major contracts to overseas business.

On the one hand we continue to raise standards of living in New Zealand through wages, holidays, significant occupational safety requirements and an array of other benefits which employers pay. Well actually the consumer pays!

Yet on the other hand, we or certainly the Government places significant orders with suppliers in places like China. Employee welfare is not exactly high on the priority list of Chinese employers – if at all. Neither is safety for employees or consumers for that matter.
New Zealand manufacturers therefore are way behind in the opportunity to price competitively, despite their best efforts.

So here we are with a Government borrowing millions of dollars every week to buy stuff from China and similar manufacturing environments. By ignoring our own industry we are jeopardising their ability to keep operating in New Zealand, or at all.

Of course when this productive sector closes down, the ranks of the unemployed swell and all of the attendant social impacts inevitably increase. The Government then borrows even more money to pay for the enlarging non-productive sector.
How does that work toward an economic recovery? Go figure.