Good

Wayne Mapp's Private Members Bill has been drawn from the hat - and let me be the first to forecast some of the dullest and most predictable responses. The bill is to introduce a probation period for workers.

Probation period bill to be debated by parliament
24 February 2006

National MP Wayne Mapp's members' bill to establish a 90-day probation period for workers in new jobs will be debated by Parliament.

It was drawn from the members' bill ballot yesterday, and is likely to come up for its first reading next month or during April.

It will not be supported by the Government and is not expected to survive its first reading, but Mr Mapp was optimistic.

"This bill will ensure we have workplace law that will help New Zealand close the production gap with Australia," he said.

"This will enable employers to take a chance with new employees without facing the risk of expensive and protracted personal grievance procedures."

Mr Mapp said New Zealand and Denmark were the only two countries in the OECD that did not have a probation period for new employees.

In most the period was three months, and in Britain it was 12 months.

Just wait for Labour and the Greens to come out and cry that this is 'just another example of the vast right wing conspiracy trying to screw over the down trodden worker'. 'A further erosion of workers rights.' What absolute and utter bollocks! It is the sort of idealogical and hysterical reactive rant that typifies both parties and annoys the hell out of me. It also smacks of the response of a group of people that have never had to do much hiring and firing - just read a couple of books about it.

The probation period specifically helps those that might otherwise struggle to get a job. In NZ, an employer can only consider hiring someone if they are absolutey certain that the person is solid, because you know that if they turn out to be absolutely dire, you're stuck with them. You're buggered. Would you take a punt on a person that has a slight disability - but there is a 30% chance that they would be fantastic? Hell no. Criminal record - even a minor one? Nope. Long gap in their work history? Not me.

Would you take a chance on that person if you could say to them at the outset, 'we are not 100% sure you're right - but we want to give you a good chance to prove to us that you are'? I would like to think that, for most employers, the answer to that is yes.

To the Nats - drop the 'productivity with Australia comparisons', that record has had one too many outings already. Attack it from the workers side, and you may not only win the argument - but you may also win a couple of friends along the way.