Latest news with #EmploymentRelationsAct
Scoop
2 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
ERA Changes Hurt Workers, Pander To Big Business
The Green Party says proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act announced today by the Government will further undermine workers' rights while pandering to big business. 'This cruel Bill will cut off our most vulnerable workers from the rights that belong to them,' says the Green Party spokesperson for Workplace Relations and Safety, Teanau Tuiono. "Our economy has been built by our workers - supporting them means supporting ourselves. For generations, workers' rights have been hard-won and should be protected as a cornerstone of a people-focused modern economy. 'Today, this Government has put forward a number of dangerous changes to the ERA, including redefining the roles of employees and contractors to allow gig economy companies like Uber to trample over the rights of their workers. 'The removal of automatic union membership on collective agreements will result in lower wages, and putting up barriers to raising personal grievances will entrench power imbalance and harm in our workplaces. 'All of this quite clearly plays directly into the hands of companies looking to cut corners and boost profit margins at the expense of our workers and communities. 'The Coalition has unapologetically pushed its anti-worker agenda this term - including gutting Pay Equity, scrapping fair pay agreements, reinstating 90-day trials, and introducing effective cuts to the minimum wage. 'A Green Government would undo the laundry list of attacks made by the current Government on the rights of workers,' says Teanau Tuiono.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
New Bill To Boost Labour Market Flexibility
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says amendments to the Employment Relations Act will improve labour market flexibility and help businesses to grow, innovate, and employ with confidence and certainty. 'Today I'm announcing the introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to Parliament, marking a key milestone in this Government's efforts to help New Zealand businesses employ or contract with confidence and create more and better opportunities for workers,' says Ms van Velden. The changes give effect to several ACT–National Coalition Agreement commitments, including to provide greater certainty for contracting parties. 'Workers and businesses should have more certainty about the type of work being done from the moment they agree to a contracting arrangement. 'The new gateway test introduced in this Bill will provide greater clarity for businesses and workers around the distinction between employment and contracting arrangements. This will provide greater certainty for all parties and will allow more innovative business models,' says Ms van Velden. The Bill will also make changes to simplify the personal grievances process including two significant changes. 'The amendment to personal grievances will reduce rewards for bad behaviour and reduce costs for businesses in the process. Under current law, if a personal grievance is established the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court may award remedies including reinstatement into a role, and compensation for hurt and humiliation. The changes make clear an employee whose behaviour amounts to serious misconduct will be ineligible for remedies. 'This change will ensure that hardworking New Zealanders don't see bad behaviour rewarded,' says Ms van Velden. The Bill also introduces an income threshold of $180,000 above which a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal cannot be pursued. High-income employees often have a major impact on organisational performance, getting the right fit is crucial. This change will provide greater labour market flexibility, enabling businesses to ensure they have the best fit of skills and abilities for their organisation. It allows employers to give workers a go in high impact positions, without having to risk a costly and disruptive dismissal process if things don't work out, benefitting those seeking to move up the career ladder.' Another change will cut compliance at the beginning of employment. By removing the '30-day rule' employers and employees will now be free to negotiate mutually beneficial terms and conditions from the start of employment. 'I am committed to building business confidence, ensuring a strong economy that will lift wages, create opportunities, and help Kiwi workers get ahead,' says Ms van Velden. The public and interested groups will have a chance to submit on the Bill when it is at Select Committee.
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Jevon McSkimming – Privacy And Democracy Vs Journalists
Opinion – Asia Pacific AML 'I dont think journalists have yet learnt that their power of the pen or words they publish can perpetually harm a persons livelihood, their familys livelihood and in the case of Mr McSkimming, forever destroy his reputation and career,' says … Opinion: Kerry Grass, Asia Pacific AML Is Former NZ Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming a victim of a malicious and orchestrated rumour? Was the rumour designed to derail his candidacy from New Zealand's next Police Commissioner and secure the role to Richard Chambers? Since the time the news broke that NZ's next Police Commissioner was shortlisted to two candidates, I have been following that media trail. It was therefore an interesting article to read, shortly after, that one of the candidates had been stood down from employment duties. The media article reported that there was a pending investigation and gave some detail about the allegation. What was then unfortunate to read but fairly common in New Zealand's media, was a small number of journalists who continued reporting details of the allegation. Such conduct by journalists I find very frustrating and it would seem they have ignored that Mr McSkimming has minimum rights afforded to him under New Zealand's laws. These laws include the Bill of Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Employment Relations Act. Section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), afford Mr McSkimming to the Right to Natural Justice. It sets out – (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law. (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination. (3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. To then read that journalists and the Minister of Police continued to publicly share their personal views and report details of the allegation – is beyond belief. I don't think journalists have yet learnt that their power of the pen or words they publish can perpetually harm a person's livelihood, their family's livelihood and in the case of Mr McSkimming, forever destroy his reputation and career. This impact still eventuates if he is found innocent of the allegations that journalists and Minister Mitchell are reporting. There is also the possibility the allegations were designed to derail Mr McSkimming's role as the next Police Commissioner. If so, the orchestration and malicious leaking were successful in the objective.
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Jevon McSkimming – Privacy And Democracy Vs Journalists
Opinion – Asia Pacific AML 'I dont think journalists have yet learnt that their power of the pen or words they publish can perpetually harm a persons livelihood, their familys livelihood and in the case of Mr McSkimming, forever destroy his reputation and career,' says … Opinion: Kerry Grass, Asia Pacific AML Is Former NZ Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming a victim of a malicious and orchestrated rumour? Was the rumour designed to derail his candidacy from New Zealand's next Police Commissioner and secure the role to Richard Chambers? Since the time the news broke that NZ's next Police Commissioner was shortlisted to two candidates, I have been following that media trail. It was therefore an interesting article to read, shortly after, that one of the candidates had been stood down from employment duties. The media article reported that there was a pending investigation and gave some detail about the allegation. What was then unfortunate to read but fairly common in New Zealand's media, was a small number of journalists who continued reporting details of the allegation. Such conduct by journalists I find very frustrating and it would seem they have ignored that Mr McSkimming has minimum rights afforded to him under New Zealand's laws. These laws include the Bill of Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Employment Relations Act. Section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), afford Mr McSkimming to the Right to Natural Justice. It sets out – (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law. (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination. (3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. To then read that journalists and the Minister of Police continued to publicly share their personal views and report details of the allegation – is beyond belief. I don't think journalists have yet learnt that their power of the pen or words they publish can perpetually harm a person's livelihood, their family's livelihood and in the case of Mr McSkimming, forever destroy his reputation and career. This impact still eventuates if he is found innocent of the allegations that journalists and Minister Mitchell are reporting. There is also the possibility the allegations were designed to derail Mr McSkimming's role as the next Police Commissioner. If so, the orchestration and malicious leaking were successful in the objective.
