Employment

Pay people what they are worth, “You got an $8 skill, I pay you $8″

A Chinese migrant is making waves with his ideas about the stupidity of the minimum wage.

Expect howls of outrage from labour, especially Darien Fenton over this story.

A Chinese immigrant is campaigning to have fellow migrants paid below the minimum wage.

The New Zealand Government’s immigration requirements are flawed because they allow migrants without valuable skills to move to New Zealand, [Easter] Wu said.

And if a migrant does not have the skills to get a job paying at least the minimum wage, they should be happy receiving payment that reflects their competency.

“How much you are worth is how much you get. You got an $8 skill, I pay you $8,” he said.  Read more »

Rodney Hide reckons the unemployed should be auctioned on Trademe

Rodney Hide has hit on a brilliant idea, auction the unemployed on Trademe.

To be fair it wasn’t his idea, but he is certainly looking into it.

We have 50,000 people on the unemployment benefit and plenty of work that needs doing. The 50,000 represent 1000 years of work that doesn’t get done each and every week. The waste is horrific.

The waste follows from the failure to match the unemployed to the jobs that need doing at a price potential employers are willing to pay.

The matching part of the problem is a perfect job for the internet. And, sure enough, US techno whizz Morgan Warstler has the fix: match the jobs and the unemployed on eBay and pay them through Paypal.

In New Zealand our equivalent, Trade Me, is the perfect set-up linking Kiwis wanting to sell with those wanting to buy. It’s similarly perfect for matching those looking for work with those with jobs that need doing. Trade Me should be used to match jobseekers to jobs.

Under the Warstler scheme the unemployed would register on Trade Me to receive their benefit payment each Friday night.  At present, an unemployed 20-year-old receives a benefit payment of $190.84 gross a week.  Let’s make that $200.

Once an unemployed person is registered on Trade Me anyone wanting work done can bid for them to do it.  It’s the perfect way to match the jobs that need doing to those who can do them.   Read more »

I knew one day a BA had to become useful

A BA is no longer a useless degree…you can use it to get a filing job for $10 per hour…yes all you teacher out there sitting all smug in your taxpayer funded job you got off the back of a BA…it’s worth $10 an hour in the real world…where they pay in real dollars.

The college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement, albeit an expensive one, for getting even the lowest-level job.

Consider the 45-person law firm of Busch, Slipakoff & Schuh here in Atlanta, a place that has seen tremendous growth in the college-educated population. Like other employers across the country, the firm hires only people with a bachelor’s degree, even for jobs that do not require college-level skills.  Read more »

Is Matt McCarten the employers secret weapon?

Matt McCarten whines about the “living wage”:

When I entered the workforce in 1980, a Kiwi worker was paid the same as an Australian for a similar job. Now our average wage is 20 per cent less in real terms. Interestingly, our minimum wage of $13.50 is 30 per cent less. Australia’s minimum, in our money, is $20.35. Even adjusting for their living costs, it’s $16.28 – $110 more a week for a full-time worker.  Read more »

An email from a reader in Christchurch about unemployment

via the tipline

Hi Cam

I saw this last night whilst out walking and thought it would be good ammo for you.

In essence, if you can fog a mirror you can get a job in Chch at the moment – and likely for the next ten years.  Read more »

More on Christchurch’s bludgers

Earlier today I blogged about the fascinating call for more immigrants in Christchurch to fill positions for jobs that remain unfilled despite over 5% unemployment rate in the city.

Stuff has another article about the issue of Christchurch’s bludgers not pulling their weight:

Christchurch baker Diane McPherson has had an “absolute nightmare” trying to find staff for the past four months.

One applicant turned up for an interview in pyjama pants, another was texting during the interview and another flicked her tongue piercing in and out of her mouth and indicated she was not prepared to remove it during work hours.

McPherson, who owns the Brumby’s Bakery and Wendy’s Supa Sundaes stores at the Hub in Hornby, said many others did not return messages inviting them for an interview, or, having been offered a job, failed to turn up for work.

“I’ve had ones from [Work and Income] who just want me to sign a form to say they have been for an interview but don’t want a job through the summer,” she said.  Read more »

Employment Courts and Public Servants

We’ve had plenty of strange cases in our Employment Relations Authority’s hearings.

But this saga involving a public servant (what else) copping an injury while swinging from the chandelier during a romp with a colleague means that Australia wins the Bledisloe Cup for weird decisions hands down:

A PUBLIC servant who was injured while having sex during a work trip has won compensation after a five-year legal battle.

The case, which has involved three legal appeals, is likely to have significant repercussions for employers, as it clarifies when they are responsible for staff.

The woman, who worked for a federal government agency, was sent on a work trip to an office in regional NSW in November 2007.

Her employer booked her a motel, where she arranged to meet and dine with a male friend after work.

They returned to her room and had sex, during which a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled off its mount and fell onto her face.

”If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced or encouraged her to engage in such an activity,” the judges said.

”In the absence of any misconduct, or an intentionally self-inflicted injury, the fact that the applicant was engaged in sexual activity rather than some other lawful recreational activity while in her motel room does not lead to any different result.”

A Typical Unemployed Battler, Ctd

An email from a reader:

I just seen your blog about the “typical unemployed battler” that the Herald has spewed forth and thought you should be aware of the same rubbish in The Christchurch Press today.

First off it must be tough being a single dad, however;

  • He’s never going to find a job that revolves around schools hours so he’ll have to come up with a different plan!
  • He seems to have no discernible experience but is quite happy to ignore the boom in the construction sector as a viable place for work (surely any job is better than no job)
  • He wants to set up his own business exterminating rabbits on farms but appears to have no experience and can’t get any because he hasn’t got a car!
  • He can’t get a car because he hasn’t a licence and that’s everyone else’s fault because his benefit is too low!

Instead of holding his hand, telling him it’s not his fault and getting a picture of him painstakingly filling another job application (apparently they had to take the crayon off him and give him a pen!), he should be told;

How about getting your mum to help out with your kid after school and then you go and get a job in construction where there is plenty of work for those showing willing?

Whilst you’re earning you can get your driving licence and you can get a job and some experience in your chosen career of killing rabbits.

Then after a few years when you’ve made enough money you can set yourself up in your own business as you planned!

Unfortunately that probably won’t happen!

A good start

Comrade Kate has announced changes to Part 6A have been approved by cabinet. They are what I would describe as a good start if somewhat timid.

The left wing will of course commence wailing and gnashing of teeth in response.

Cabinet has agreed to further improvements to the Employment Relations Act 2000, including changes to Part 6A that deals with the cleaning, catering, orderly and laundry industries, Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson said today.

The objective of Part 6A is to provide continuity of employment for employees in specific industries when a business is restructured or sold.

“A review of Part 6A found that there were significant operational issues around transferring employees’ entitlements and information to the new employer,” Ms Wilkinson says.

“Proposed amendments will fix these issues and provide more certainty and clarity for employers while at the same time protecting key benefits for affected employees.

In addition, the review found that while larger businesses had been able to adapt better to the requirements of Part 6A, small and medium sized businesses faced greater proportional costs.

“For example, a husband and wife cleaning team who tender and win a small contract may be currently required to take on any staff doing the work under the previous contract owner.

“That’s why Cabinet has also agreed to exempt small and medium businesses – those with fewer than 20 employees – from the provisions of Part 6A where the SME is the incoming employer.”

Employees in small and medium enterprises account for approximately a quarter of those in affected industries.

Once could argue that if it is good enough for a quarter of businesses then it is good enough for all of them. Other changes announced are:

  • A return to the original position in the Employment Relations Act where the duty of good faith does not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement.
  • Empowering the Employment Relations Authority to declare in certain circumstances that collective bargaining has ended.
  • Allowing employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining.
  • Allowing for partial pay reductions in cases of partial strike action.
  • Removing the 30-day rule that forces non-union members to take union terms and conditions.
  • Changes around the disclosure of personal information following Employment Court judgments involving Massey University.

One way traffic

Surely he jests (Paid Content at NBR):

An Auckland immigration consultant expects to see more working holiday schemes after the government signed a deal with the Philippines today.

Philippines president Benigno Aquino was in New Zealand with a number of senior colleagues and a business delegation of 70 people.

Prime Minister John Key and Mr Aquino met to discuss the growing relationship between the two countries and later witnessed the signing of the new agreement.

Under the scheme, 100 Philippines’ residents between the ages of 18 and 30 will be granted temporary visas for a year-long stay in New Zealand.

They will be able to take up work but cannot stay with the same employer for more than three months.

Likewise, 100 New Zealanders will be able to travel to the Philippines every year under the same conditions.

I can understand 100 Philippines’ residents wanting to come here. Just look at the income figures from there.

The current exchange rate between the Philippines Peso and the New Zealand Dollar  shows that 1PHP=0.0297.

So the median hourly rate for a nurse in the Philippines is $5.94 and for a highly paid IT Consultant (like Lynn Prentice) they would get $15 per hour. Sheesh even bludgers in New Zealand get more as a base benefit for sitting on their arses.

Our minimum wage laws require people to be paid $13.50 per hour and Labour and the Greens want that increased to $15 per hour which they describe as a “living wage”. Clearly the teeming millions in the Philippines find that a living wage is so much less than what our fat cat politicians believe to be the case.

I’ll lay money on the table right now that there will be one way traffic in this exchange system with the Philippines. They will be coming here but not a single Kiwi will take up the challenge of working for those wage rates in the Philippines.

Personally I’d like to see far more Philippines residents coming here to work, but I wish our politicians would be honest about it.

Instead of a silly limit of 100 people, let’s let in thousands, even at our minimum wage they are earning many time more than they are capable of earning in the Philippines. It is a win, win for the country. We get hordes of willing and capable workers at a better price than our own workforce…and the workers from the Philippines get to earn many thousands more working here than they could ever dream of in the Philippines.

Of course the unions will complain…and the left wing politicians…but then they have just proved to us all that you can easily live on $2.25 per day. Even at Philippine wage rates that is double for just one hours work, should be plenty enough.

Bear in mind also that the Philippines has the highest pay rates in Asia…something that is causing consternation amongst their employers who are struggling to compete with Vietnam, Cambodia and China.

Perhaps DPF could negotiate a better scheme while he is sunning himself in Vietnam and Cambodia?