Who is this policy for? Other than maybe creating a path to kill off management roles in government without needing to pay redundancy. Or maybe it’s just the first step to wind back employment protections.
And what does this mean for existing employees, and termination procedures? What’s stopping an employer giving you a salary increase and firing you?
It’s not for “management positions”, rather it’s for management, so they can dismiss highly skilled and highly paid employees and replace them with either shitty AI or cheaper foreign outsourcing.
E.g. a top tier software engineer in NZ is paid a hell of a lot more than the equally top tier software engineer in Bangladesh… and without the “burden” of employment law.
This is just more anti-employee crap. It’s set at a level high enough that the vast bulk of employees in NZ will never ever be affected.
I would not be surprised if the 180k number drops should National get a second term.
100% It’ll drop to zero. Especially after a public sector purge.
Having worked in the public sector with deep management structures (and now working in a very shallow management structure) … I still can’t see what value many of those deep positions provided.
Well, unless it has no ratcheting clause to have that rise in line with inflation etc. It won’t take all that long before that starts to impact people who see themselves as being quite middle-class* - particularly white collar workers in Auckland / Wellington where housing costs are very high.
*Note i’m well aware that their version of middle class doesn’t align with historic NZ perceptions. But also the amount of high-end inherited wealth and the growing disparity between the top 10% and the rest means its also not entirely unrealistic to put a single income family with one earner at $180k as “middle-class” in Auckland.
its also not entirely unrealistic to put a single income family with one earner at $180k as “middle-class” in Auckland.
That family couldn’t afford to buy a median priced house in Auckland.
That people keep harping on about “six figure salaries” is stupid. I am reasonably sure that phrase dates from the 50’s, and somehow people just don’t want to understand inflation.
Indeed, which is another illustration of the problem with the modern economy - a combined income of $200k plus would be needed and that’s likely only achieved with both partners in a relationship working near full time as well.
I haven’t read the text of the legislation change, but that sounds like an awesome loophole. Someone earning minimum wage, gets pay rise to $181k then immediately fired.
I’m assuming, or at least hoping, that there will be some sort of protection against that. The article seems to imply that the intention is that dismissal claims are negotiated conditions of contracts at high income levels, rather than a fixed legal requirement. So I guess the $180k+ salary needs to be in a signed contract.
I’d love to hear of any employee-employer negotiation that started from a position of no redundancy provision, no unjustified dismissal that ended up with those in the contract.
I guess if you’re in the $180k+ range the the employee has some power as they are hard to find. This law is intended to shift power back to the employer.
Oh absolutely that’s the intent - Act are all about employers doing whatever they want, whenever despite the clear power differential. My point is more that $180k isn’t actually that high level anymore, its pretty close to middle management in a lot of white collar companies.
That also illustrates how there’s bigger gaps between the bottom and middle, as well as an even larger gap from the middle to the top.
I can also see this spectacularly backfiring thought if a court decides that by doing that you broke the “good faith” requirements of the ERA, and so owe back pay.
Who is this policy for? Other than maybe creating a path to kill off management roles in government without needing to pay redundancy. Or maybe it’s just the first step to wind back employment protections.
And what does this mean for existing employees, and termination procedures? What’s stopping an employer giving you a salary increase and firing you?
It’s not for “management positions”, rather it’s for management, so they can dismiss highly skilled and highly paid employees and replace them with either shitty AI or cheaper foreign outsourcing.
E.g. a top tier software engineer in NZ is paid a hell of a lot more than the equally top tier software engineer in Bangladesh… and without the “burden” of employment law.
This is just more anti-employee crap. It’s set at a level high enough that the vast bulk of employees in NZ will never ever be affected.
Oh, yeah, 100% that too.
But also, 180k is coincidentally the around the salary of middle management positions within government.
I would not be surprised if the 180k number drops should National get a second term.
100% It’ll drop to zero. Especially after a public sector purge.
Having worked in the public sector with deep management structures (and now working in a very shallow management structure) … I still can’t see what value many of those deep positions provided.
Well, unless it has no ratcheting clause to have that rise in line with inflation etc. It won’t take all that long before that starts to impact people who see themselves as being quite middle-class* - particularly white collar workers in Auckland / Wellington where housing costs are very high.
*Note i’m well aware that their version of middle class doesn’t align with historic NZ perceptions. But also the amount of high-end inherited wealth and the growing disparity between the top 10% and the rest means its also not entirely unrealistic to put a single income family with one earner at $180k as “middle-class” in Auckland.
That family couldn’t afford to buy a median priced house in Auckland.
That people keep harping on about “six figure salaries” is stupid. I am reasonably sure that phrase dates from the 50’s, and somehow people just don’t want to understand inflation.
Indeed, which is another illustration of the problem with the modern economy - a combined income of $200k plus would be needed and that’s likely only achieved with both partners in a relationship working near full time as well.
I haven’t read the text of the legislation change, but that sounds like an awesome loophole. Someone earning minimum wage, gets pay rise to $181k then immediately fired.
I’m assuming, or at least hoping, that there will be some sort of protection against that. The article seems to imply that the intention is that dismissal claims are negotiated conditions of contracts at high income levels, rather than a fixed legal requirement. So I guess the $180k+ salary needs to be in a signed contract.
I’d love to hear of any employee-employer negotiation that started from a position of no redundancy provision, no unjustified dismissal that ended up with those in the contract.
I guess if you’re in the $180k+ range the the employee has some power as they are hard to find. This law is intended to shift power back to the employer.
Oh absolutely that’s the intent - Act are all about employers doing whatever they want, whenever despite the clear power differential. My point is more that $180k isn’t actually that high level anymore, its pretty close to middle management in a lot of white collar companies.
That also illustrates how there’s bigger gaps between the bottom and middle, as well as an even larger gap from the middle to the top.
I can also see this spectacularly backfiring thought if a court decides that by doing that you broke the “good faith” requirements of the ERA, and so owe back pay.
What is to stop someone from firing you for not having sex with them?