Being originally from the UK, I find the MMP voting system here refreshingly “European”. For those who don’t know or care, the UK, being stuck in the 1930s, uses the outdated “first past the post” system. To explain briefly, the UK is divided into over 600 constituencies. Come election time, you vote for the MP you want to represent you in your constituency. Whoever gets the most votes, becomes an MP, and once a single party has more than 50% of these MPs, they form a government. This is how a child would understand democracy. However, it does mean that theoretically, 49% of people could vote for a party, and yet this party could fail to secure a single seat in parliament. For this reason, mostly sane countries like New Zealand have adopted a proportional representation model, which gives a parliamentary voice to a greater cross-section of people, whilst also maintaining democracy.
The big problem with our MMP system of course is that it gives fuel, oxygen, and heat to so-called “kingmakers”. The major parties, when not convincing enough, are often reliant on smaller, whacko, fringe parties to form a government. Historically, this has been the role of Northland dinosaur Winston Peters. This time round, not only do we have to put up with Winny, who would be better placed as life Chairman of a provincial rugby club, we now have something much, much worse.
Enter stage-right David Seymour. Seymour, standing 5ft1, is a lesson in the dangers of bullying. Not only is bullying mean, but on occasion, it creates people like David Seymour. Seymour’s danger comes from his ability to dress up divisive, ill-informed, populist, right wing politics as “good old fashioned common sense”. Speaking like a man who eats the Daily Mail for breakfast, he speaks to that tiny bit of hate in all of us. Like many others before him, he finds minority groups to pick on and blame, and talks of a bygone era that was somehow better because road signs were in English and there were less gays.
The latest from Seymour and announced by his deputy and current Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke Van Velden, is that following the upcoming change to the Employment Relations Act, workers earning over $180,000 a year will lose the right to raise unjustified dismissal claims. Before we look into that, it’s worth checking out Van Velden’s career on her LinkedIn page. Possessing the workplace experience of a 14 year old, she seems a somewhat unlikely expert on “workplace relations”. More on this later.
Van Velden argues that somehow depriving workers of basic protection “will enable employers to ensure they have the right fit for their high-impact leadership and specialist roles”, and that “this policy allows employers to give workers a go in these high-impact positions without having to risk a costly and disruptive dismissal process if things don’t work out.”
Van Velden, who’s only proper job has been part-time whilst studying Mein Kampf, uses the below example: many people would have worked with a manager “who has led to poor productivity, low morale, and the boss and the workers are just sitting there and waiting for this person for years and years to want to move on”. Now tell us Brooke, is this what you experienced during your 18 months as an Administration and Warehouse Assistant at “Lighthouse Marine Equipment” of Albany when you were 22? Please, share some more wisdom with us all.
As a raving socialist, you may think I’d support the idea of making things tougher for the rich. Well there’s a few things to consider. Firstly, it blows my mind that we have a bill that, by its very wording, will justify unjustified dismissals. Unjustified is unjustified. Does it matter what you earn, how old you are, or in David Seymour’s case, how tiny your penis probably is? Mistreating employees at any level is wrong and always will be. ACT also know that with only 3.4% of Kiwis earning this amount, it’s a populist vote winner amongst the stupid. Unfortunately, earning $180k in Auckland no longer makes you a corporate fat cat, illegally parking your Bugatti outside the Northern Club. If you’re in a single income family with 3 kids, $180k sees you in middle-management, driving a 4 year old Mitsubishi Outlander, with 15 years left on your mortgage. This policy is about giving the actual rich carte blanche to sack managers because they speak up against bullying, their faces don’t fit, or they won’t go to a strip club with the boys. We have always had mechanisms to move along poor performers. It can be painful, but it’s what protects us all from tyranny.
This is meant to be a recruitment blog of course. Does this mean anything to us? Well, probably. Firstly, I think we’ll see a few job offers that used to sit at somewhere between $150k and $175k magically become $180k. Very stupid candidates will say “hurrah” to the pay rise. Anyone with a brain will ask for a basic of $179,999 thankyouverymuch. It will also be interesting for roles that just happen to be banded at $180k already. If I were to be offered this (not that anyone would), I would eye the role and firm with a level of suspicion. Am I the punt that Van Velden is talking about? For existing employees it also creates an interesting dynamic. Imagine managing a team of sales people in the current economic climate. You’re trying to drive performance but there isn’t the business to do, so you’re behind on your number. Then one day, a meeting request with the big boss pops up in your diary. You think you’re about to be performance managed, but to your surprise…a pay rise! Your new salary, yep…you guessed it…$180k! One month later, you’re pinning your first star onto your McDonald’s badge.
Next week I’ll try and be a bit more Christmassy.
^SW
