Fair payment to be scrapped if National get in

[Praktica]

Fairly obviously fair pay is about fair pay; i.e. a reasonable amount of money for a reasonable amount of work.

You'd think - but that isn't what it is about. 

If you're going to go on about something at the very least get a basic understanding of it. 

The information is literally at your finger tips

---

Fair pay doesn't mean extra effort cannot be rewarded. It just means people who work should be paid fairly. It is about the employers really, more than the employees.

So imagine a base rate being set at the fair pay level. Productivity then allows for additional reward...

Yeah, but the reality is vastly different; employers will say that the Govt. has determined what a fair wage is for a certain job, and that's that - coupled with the fact that directors now have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to get the best possible return, unnecessary pay rises will potentially open them up to legal recourse. 

This type of thing benefit the ones who don't really want to work hard, or who want to do the bare minimum, whilst people who want to work hard for a greater return will not - accordingly the hard workers will work less... It's like that old fable; let me dig it out:

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/abou...a704cb76d8

Lot's of handwaving and supposition here, but behind it is the same old discredited myth, happily propagated by employers and their stooges. What they want is everyone on the same, low pay, to maximise what they can take out of the business. Got to pay for the mcmansion, the boats and the porsche...

[Lilith7]

Wouldn't it be unfair if two people got paid the same, but one worked twice as hard?

It would be fair if the person who worked hard got rewarded for their hard work - don't you think?

Fair pay doesn't mean extra effort cannot be rewarded. It just means people who work should be paid fairly. It is about the employers really, more than the employees.

So imagine a base rate being set at the fair pay level. Productivity then allows for additional reward...

"It is about the employers really, more than the employees."

And - hence the objections.

[jilledge]

The people who will benefit will be the employers and the slackers. They will save $$ and get paid more respectively.

The people who will suffer will be employees who want to work hard and get ahead

[SueDonim]

You'd think - but that isn't what it is about. 

If you're going to go on about something at the very least get a basic understanding of it. 

The information is literally at your finger tips

---

Yeah, but the reality is vastly different; employers will say that the Govt. has determined what a fair wage is for a certain job, and that's that - coupled with the fact that directors now have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to get the best possible return, unnecessary pay rises will potentially open them up to legal recourse. 

This type of thing benefit the ones who don't really want to work hard, or who want to do the bare minimum, whilst people who want to work hard for a greater return will not - accordingly the hard workers will work less... It's like that old fable; let me dig it out:

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/abou...a704cb76d8

Lot's of handwaving and supposition here, but behind it is the same old discredited myth, happily propagated by employers and their stooges. What they want is everyone on the same, low pay, to maximise what they can take out of the business. Got to pay for the mcmansion, the boats and the porsche...

I think you'll find the majority of employers are far from "mcmansion". Sure there are some, but so many small businesses are struggling to pay the staff they need to employ to stay alive. Some don't even get to pay themselves.

---

The people who will benefit will be the employers and the slackers. They will save $$ and get paid more respectively.

The people who will suffer will be employees who want to work hard and get ahead

In some cases it would allow the employers to survive to keep everyone on minimum wage, but that does little to help the overall economy. You are dead right about the slackers. Add to that the drug takers. And anyone else failing to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. So many have lost the concept of working hard to get ahead. If they do, the tall poppy syndrome will try to tear them down anyway.

The article in your link was good food for thought. I would say NZ is struggling to maintain Gorman's position in the happiness scale at the moment. We have too much of the "teacher's" "class" going on at the moment. We are struggling to get people to work. People seem to think that work ethic = having a job, rather than working hard at that job to ensure the success of the business.

---

A productivity payment ? Then those who work harder will earn more. Been there, done that - it doesn't work.

For me.  The lazy buggers cut corners and churn out more work.

It can work if the employers have the knowledge and ambition to make it work. Trouble is of course than many don't take enough interest in the shop floor. And sometimes churning out a higher volume of lower quality work actually is more profitable than a smaller quantity of high quality work. And that could mean the difference between staying alive or bankruptcy for many. But that's also why we've become so dependent on China - cheap rubbish that can be thrown away in the short term so that we can buy another one. If we could swing the balance back to pride in quality and an appreciation of saving money by buying the best once, then the worker producing that quality output can be properly rewarded. And the environment would benefit without all the rubbish being discarded.

[Zurdo]

Given the option, the public will buy cheap. Given the option, the employer will pay less.

[jilledge]

Given the option, the public will buy cheap. Given the option, the employer will pay less.

Absolutely, given the option they will - fair pay agreements give them the option to pay less, because in a competitive market they have to pay more.

[Wainuiguy]

I don't have an issue with people being paid a fair wage. But when you dictate that 10% of a workforce can force the other 90% into an agreement then that is just plain wrong. How can the same business with 10 people in Invercargill be expected to pay the same wage as one with 100 in Auckland? That is the situation being set up.

There are aspects of the ERA that didn't work. But making things like joining a union voluntary was a good thing. If people saw value in unions then Union membership would be sky high. But memberships continue to decline year on year.

[king1]

I don't have an issue with people being paid a fair wage.  But when you dictate that 10% of a workforce can force the other 90% into an agreement then that is just plain wrong.  How can the same business with 10 people in Invercargill be expected to pay the same wage as one with 100 in Auckland?  That is the situation being set up.

that is not the case. If you read the details you will see that the 10% is the number of workers needed to start the bargaining process - the negotiated settlement must then be voted on and ratified by all members covered by the agreement, not just the 10%... 

and as far as the geographical issues are concerned, the bargaining agreement is setting *minimum* conditions, employers will still be able to pay over and above to attract workers to Auckland...

[Zurdo]

I only joined the Union when working for larger companies, only a couple of times, otherwise I worked for smaller firms and was in daily contact with the owner, problems sorted on the floor. And I took advantage of all the Union gained for me without joining....my mother used to have words to me about that. I could earn extra by doing overtime, and the rates for that were set by the Union, or I could do shift work, again, rates gained by the Union. I did go on strike a couple of times...we went to the pub for the afternoon. Now if you refuse to sign to the conditions of the employment contract, they shout ''NEXT !'' Until someone signs.

Funny how now the only Unions with any power and who do strike action are public service...nurses, teachers, firemen. Good on them, but the rest of us can't anymore. I don't want to go back to the days of the Unions, but the Employment Contact Act is controlled by the employer, not the employee...unless it's a job with severe skill shortages.

[C_T_Russell]

Increase the minimum wage too much and Mcdonalds will become unaffordable!
Right now McDonalds costs more than it did pre-covid.
Perhaps this is not a bad thing, as you may as well go to burgerfuel for something that costs only a fraction more.