90 days to prove your worth

Listening to TV 1's breakfast show this morning I listened with some concern regarding the Council of Trade Unions view in relation to the liklihood of the National Government introducing changes to the employment legislation and allowing employers to impose a 90 day probationary period for employees.

It is interesting to me the fear they seem to have and the narrow view in which they view this legislation. The fear that they seem to view this with no sense of positivity towards smaller employers and businesses.

Now remember...by my history, I am a Labour supporter, however this time I did change my colours. I belong to no political party in terms of paid memberships.

Personally, I have no issue with this if the employer follows the rules around this. For me, as an employer this is ideal. After 90 days, or perhaps even sooner, if I see that this situation is not going to work out then we part ways. If I see things happening that I like and I see that this person will be a benefit to my company then I would likely before the end of the 90 day period, take them on fully.

Its better than being stuck with someone who is absolutely useless and it takes up to 90 days and thousands of man hours and dollars to get rid of the useless beggars.

To me, this is nothing more than a test drive for a person. You take one for the car before you buy it and commit to a long term relationship with the car. If I had a chance to take a car for a 90 day test run I'd be wrapped.

Labour has been good at looking at one side of the coin. There are two sides. I think this one is not a turn to the dark ages of the Employment Contracts act, and it certainly does allow itself room for abuse, however I think there are significant pros to the move.

• Time saving for people who aren't up to the job.
• Less time mucking around with dismissal processes if they aren't up to the job.
• An opportunity for workers to prove their worth.
• Opportunity for workers to find out if this job is really for them.

I think this one is a good start. Its not perfect. Its functionality will be tested in months to come I'm sure. Lets see how it works before we condemn it. After all, we can only blame ourselves for putting them in.

Thats what you get

I was reading an article in the paper about a young boy who was bitten by a dog and the mother was angry with the Hamilton City Council that the dog was not destroyed. From what the article said, the boy seemed to have reaped what he sowed...to some degree, it seems the mother did too.

Seems this boy has a history of animal abuse. The investigation into the incident showed the kid was grabbing the dogs testicles multiple times even after being told not to and the dog, understandably enough had enough and struck out. The injuries to the face mostly being the result. As a parent, I would be livid too. But I would also want to know the kid was being punished for his side of the affair.

I'm sorry...I have very little sympathy for the mother. I wonder, and I can only speculate that the child, a 3 year old boy...had to have learned this behavior somewhere from someone. Has he seen abuse of animals from family members? Had he seen other kids around grabbing a dogs nuts and laughing thereby making him think its fun and ok to do? This is speculation of course, but none the less, has to be considered.

I think the council made the right decision. And so to many others it seems. I vote for the dog. If a kid kept smacking me in the nuts, hell, I wouldn't be so placid myself. Probably flick the kid a time or two myself.

Way to go HCC. Good call on this one.