Government warned their employment law changes will have opposite effect of that intended

The problem with people who have never had real jobs, and being the boss of a nurses’ union is not a real job, is that they think they can solve complex economic issues like employment by passing laws that their union paymasters want.

Very often the opposite of what they intended takes effect.

That is precisely what the government is being warned about:

The Government’s employment law reforms could increase costs and reduce flexibility for businesses, leading to a risk of a shrinking jobs market, according to Government officials.

The advice is contained in a regulatory impact statement from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament last week.

The bill aims to strengthen collective bargaining through a range of measures, including guaranteed rest and meal breaks, reasonable union access to a workplace, and bringing back the 30-day rule where a new worker has to be given the same conditions as a collective agreement.

MBIE officials found that the cost of the proposals would mainly fall on employers, including from higher wages and compliance costs, and from a potential fall in productivity.

The MBIE papers identified the following risks associated with the bill:
reduced employment due to changed incentives on employers to hire new workers
• an increase in industrial action and protracted bargaining due to the need to conclude agreements and include pay rates in collective agreements
• an increase in partial strikes by removing an employer’s ability to deduct pay for partial striking
lower productivity due to less flexibility (mainly from the need for guaranteed meal breaks)


“We note that there has been limited research undertaken on the changes, and what research has been done has shown little impact from the previous changes. As such, the impacts of the proposed changes on the economy overall would be limited.

“The changes should strengthen the position of unions in bargaining and in turn limit some of the worst practices in the market. In doing so, this could limit firm flexibility, which could impact on innovation in and by firms.

“It could also have a detrimental impact on employment levels, particularly when if accompanied by a general economic slowdown.”

Gee, pretty obvious observations. Still not obvious enough for idiots like Iain Lees-Galloway.

When you add the increases to the minimum wage, plus less flexibility and increased costs, then what you are looking at is higher unemployment, more automation and the exact opposite of what was intended.

Labour never learn though.



Do you want ad-free access to our Daily Crossword?

Do you want access to daily Incite Politics Magazine articles?

Silver Subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story.  And when he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet.   Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet, and as a result he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist that takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him.  But you can’t ignore him.