In net terms I am AGAINST the probation policy being put through today. That puts me in a pretty significant minority among my economics peers, oww well it gives us something to talk about. However, I would also add that I am NOT THAT against it – I am only against it in net terms because of value judgments.
Please, explain to me how the current probation policy is different from the one National is going to introduce!
I know about economics, but these subjective terms like “natural justice” do not have a clear meaning to me 🙁 .
I was all ready to rail against the scheme this morning because I thought they were making probation period compulsory – however, now that I can see that isn’t the case I need to find out more about it before I say what I think.
Tane at the Standard states that:
All National’s proposed legislation would do is remove the right to fair process and natural justice
So how exactly does this impact on policy. What are the definitions of “fair process” and “natural justice”. Once I have an idea I’ll talk about the policy, and I’ll compare it and the current scheme to the extremes of “compulsory” and “no probation” – using economics to frame the issue.
Update: I have been informed that the main differences are:
The 90-day provision will apply to any workers employed by businesses with fewer than 20 staff. Workers who are sacked by their employer in their first 90 days on the job will be unable to challenge their dismissal or take a personal grievance case.
Is there anything else?
Kiwiblog has a good run down here.
Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©
A recent survey stated that New Zealand exports were “resiliant” in the face of a massive global recession.
Now this is something that, at first, might seem unusual. New Zealand relies on exports so much, and if the global economy is collapsing surely we will have no-one left to sell too.
However, it is important to remember the difference between “prices” and “quantities”.
I see that the PM has been talking about financial economic variables again – this time it is the exchange rate. Now he says it isn’t a big deal as he didn’t say too much – which is true. But nonetheless, he is PM, he isn’t supposed to say anything about the direction of monetary policy – which includes interest rates.
What the hell is with the headlines saying “Confidence surges post-election” and “New Zealand Consumer Confidence up 5.9 pts to 105.6, after John Key’s election as New Zealand’s new Prime Minister“.
I’ll tell you why consumer confidence rose in November – retail petrol prices fell 15%. I wouldn’t have minded the random conjecture that a change of government made consumers confident – as I would expect a small boost myself. However, they completely ignored fuel prices – how can Roy Morgan tell us what to do with interest rates (which he does every two weeks) without understanding the important relationship between petrol to real incomes and confidence.
How can they seriously think that the election was the primary source of this confidence boost – I’m startled!
Copyright tvhe.wordpress.com ©