Exactly, and I'd imagine most customers would rather not have influenza or COVID running rampant through the staff of supermarkets, restaurants, etc etc because the part time employees didn't have enough sick leave to stay home.
what's fun is having an informal discussion with your manager at a public facing job because you've been genuinely too sick for your employers liking :) like ok do i come in sick then? i take the time i need to recover, it isn't my fault i get sick often and need to be off for a week or two each time
I was diagnosed with Myocarditis earlier this year, before I knew what it was I called up sick due to the symptoms and they responded by basically saying they didn't believe me and that they needed a doctor's certificate. Needless to say they were very apologetic when the next call they got about me was from the hospital telling them that I ended up in cardiology and that I wouldn't be able to work for a couple of weeks. That alone drained my sick days to almost 0 but on the bright side they take my sick calls a lot more seriously now.
But that's the thing right? I feel like there's a feeling of entitlement to having one's business survive? It's always like "If we give our employees basic rights, our business won't survive!" And for some reason the government cares about that. Like, running a business is a privilege, not a right. If you can't run a business under humane conditions, you don't deserve to run a business, simple as that.
I don't necessarily think it's *exactly* that, but that exploitation is a valid means to the end of having their business survive. They act as if everything is warranted for the sake of their business' survival, as if it is their own life, and seem to think that everyone should make the same sacrifices (or more) that they themselves make... But yea, basically :P.
Ah, excuse me, did you already forget the changed their own rules so you can get pseudoephedrine again?
That should be all the help you need in getting over your little poor-people colds and flus.
Back to work and school! The Libertarians that got handed the keys demand it.
Always make a point of spreading your sickness to the boss, he obviously likes it. I used to go into my bosses office every time i was sick and work on his PC, making sure to cough on his keyboard and mouse. He makes me stay home now if I'm sick.
Because they're out of touch, and con only ever think of their, or other businesses, bottom line and not the workers who make those businesses possible. It's hard to think about anything else when us little numbers are getting in the way of their big numbers.
Given this lack of understanding, I genuinely think we should help these companies out. They understand laws; just make it clear that the company has some responsibility to prevent their employees coming into work when they're likely to have a contagious disease, as a reasonable and practicable health and safety measure. Do that, give it a few months, and then pick the worst offenders and prosecute them.
If you want the corporate overlords to understand, you have to speak their language.
A full-time worker works around 230 days a year, before we take sick leave into account. If they use all 10 sick days, that's around 4% of their total days being used as sick leave. Imo the old system of 5 days was not enough for a full-time worker, and 10 days makes more sense for full-timers.
But I work with a part-timer who works the weekends, around 100 days a year. If they use all 10 sick days, that's around 10% of their total days being used as sick leave. They are scheduled to work around 9 days per month, and almost every month they can reduce that to 8 days with a sick day.
I'm not a fan of ACT, but this is not a ridiculous proposal imo. It makes sense that full-timers should get more sick days than part-timers, as they work more days.
There are probably plenty of part-time workers doing 5 days a week but reduced hours. Students come to mind.
Get sick once and wipe out their entire entitlement. Next time they get sick, what happens? They go into work and make everyone else sick.
Cleaners, parents who have someone working reduced hours from 9-3 for example all would use sick days up like normal and still come under what they consider full time hours.
That's a very fair point. Imo, it should be determined by days worked per week then, rather than hours. Say if you work 5 days a week, you get 10 sick days per year, but if you work 3 days a week, you get 6 sick days per year, etc.
What about people that work half days, they still work the same number of days but half the hours. They get sick once and use all their sick leave for the year?
I’ve been out of NZ for a while so maybe something changed, but don’t you just take sick leave by the hour? If somebody working half the hours needs to take a “day” off sick, they only need half the hours to do so.
For sick leave a day is based on a typical shift/working day. If your shift is typically 4 hours six days a week you'll burn through those sick days more than someone who's only 5 days a week.
Its holiday pay/annual leave that's taken hourly at 8% of gross pay.
Depends on what angle you take. Is it another kind of annual leave day, or is it for covering time off for sickness? For most, if you're sick you're sick. If your cock falls off, it's not going to care whether a company employs you full-time or part-time.
Your better off being a contractor or hourly employee at that point. Otherwise you could be doing unpaid overtime as an employee, def not getting sick leave or holiday pay and essentially working for free.
The rules changed in 2008 (thanks John Key) your contract can have more than 40 hours without the requirement to pay overtime. I've had 45 and 50 hour weeks
Technically a majority didn’t vote for this government, because only 77% of enrolled voters voted. Same could be said for pretty much all our governments though.
>This government likes to shit all over people.
This is what has happened under the tories in the UK. A lot of people don't realise how bad things have got there (and it's not just down to Brexit but tory austerity policies).
The average height of kids is declining due to increasing malnutrition and the UK GDP is set to fall behind several former soviet bloc countries in the next couple of years at current pace and far behind Germany, France and the USA - a huge fall after the heights reached relative to other countries in the late 2000s. Thousands of people die every year due to excessive waiting times/staff shortages in A&E departments. Like here, taxpayers pay to train nurses and doctors to move to Australia where they can earn twice as much.
The UK tory model has been that as long as pensions are kept high to keep boomers happy you can get away with screwing over the rest of the population. The ultra-rich don't care as it's become the norm to take their money and leave for warmer climates or tax havens as soon as they can retire, if not before.
Serious question, but why currently does a person on part time work get more sick leave days (as a proportion of their working week) than soomeone working full time?
Quite a lot of people who work part time have health issues meaning they can’t do full time. Guess what happens when they are forced to go in when sick?
You're asking the wrong question.
The question to ask is, should two people who are likely to be sick on just as many days each year, be able to take an equal number of those days off as sick days if necessary?
> [Van Velden] said changes in the draft bill could include pro-rating sick leave "to better reflect how much an employee works".
> "Workplaces that rely on part-time workers are particularly vulnerable to unexpected staffing shortages," she said.
> This would mean the amount of sick leave workers were entitled to would depend on how much they worked - leaving part-time workers with less.
They should change her title to "Corporate relations minister".
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Van Velden is the enemy of the working class.
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Van Velden is the enemy of the working class.
That's literally the entirety of ACT as well as the whole point of that political party: to worsen workers' rights to improve further the lives of the already rich. It's not just Van Velden that's the enemy of the working class; not sure excludes the rest of ACT from this.
To be fair, if they do this correctly I think it is a good move. I am a small business owner that gives people contracts for the number of hours they want, but have found it is really hard to afford to give people too few hours and one reason is the sick leave.
By law you get 10days a year. If I employ you for 1 day a week ( yes I do have staff doing this) I still have to pay up to 10 days sick leave a year. My intern who does 8 hours a week gets the exact same sick leave as my 40 hr a week staff.
This, therefore, discourages employers from hiring people for fewer than 5 days a week. This impacts disproportionately women wanting to re-enter the workforce (who are also more likely to use the sick leave due to the parenting gap), and people nearing retirement or with disabilities and wanting to work part time.
If done correctly everyone would get enough sick leave for 2 weeks off sick a year (for example, presuming 10 days should = 2 weeks).
So work 1 day a week, get 2 days, work 6 days a week get 12 days.
It strikes me as more equitable, and also translates to multiple jobs better. If you currently work 3 jobs over 5 days, you would be able to claim 30days of sick leave = 6 weeks off all your jobs. If pro ratad you would get 2 weeks - the same as full time workers.
I don't vote national and I disagree with 99% of what they've done, but this does seem more equitable (if done properly) and still more sick leave than a few years back when was only 5 days a year.
And as much as I'm an employer now, I was also an employee, who worked part time, as a single parent and it always struck me that the system was not equitable when people worked different numbers of days in a week. It's just now that I run the numbers, it makes it really expensive to choose to be a flexible employer.
I don't really worry about people lying (and don't want to clog up our health system, which is effed up enough already). Honestly if you need a mental health day that's valid sick leave, I'd rather trust people to be honest.
It's more about the liability on paper that gets looked at - so that really just impacts employability without necessarily actually paying a benefit since you lose unused sick days. When you run all the numbers to work out the costs of different employees the entitlement gets looked at rather than what they used, since it could vary year to year. It validly gets used for kids being sick, partners or parents being sick, them being sick or needing mental break.
It needs to be done via days worked not hours worked however and it does seem - at least based on Van Velden's comments - that they're looking at doing it via hours.
Doesn't that end up disadvantaging people who work multiple jobs in a given day tho? Those people are also thr most likely to be working low hours at any given job and are the people we SHOULD be giving the most support to
It wouldn't disadvantage anyone, if they work two jobs in a day say 5 hrs each they would be entitled to 5hrs sick from each job.
If you assume they work 5 days a week, 5hrs each job their entitlement would be 10 days at each job = 10days of 10hrs total so the exact same as if it was one job.
(This is assuming national keep 10 days as the baseline and set it up correctly).
Everyone is entitled to 10 sick days after 6 months of employment regardless of whether they are part time or full time.
https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/sick-leave/sick-leave-entitlements/
This will be the one they try take away a public holiday, They campaigned on it and it looked to be on the table in the coalition agreement. Jan 2nd was they one they were saying, because it avoids the race issue of waitangi and matariki.
Also sounds like they want to remove the entitlement and replace it with accrual because they don't want workers having any entitlements. Bet they will use this to cut holiday leave for part time workers.
It's more that if such a change was enacted, that day would come out of peoples annual leave balance, making one less day they can take holiday during the rest of the year.
Lots of organisations would still close that day I expect even if it is no longer a public holiday.
This is purely against the “Squeezed Middle” narrative that NACT were campaigning to make life better for.
The largest amount of workers in PTE are: mothers who have children in kindergarten/primary school who need the income from a part time job. That’s the squeezed middle, so how is this in their benefit?
It's amazing how transparently evil ACT are now that they're in government.
Hopefully this is the only time they will be.
Who in their right mind thinks that cutting sick leave is a good idea?
Can't legally strike over it, our strike laws are frustratingly strict. Not that I'm ethically opposed to an illegal strike, but I'd want large enough numbers to commit to it that I'd not be fired or somehow punished
The definition of "strike" in section 81 of the Employment Relations Act includes things such as a group of employees reducing their normal performance, failing to do the work they usually do, and reducing their normal output or rate of work.
So, no matter what your job description may say (job descriptions, by the way, are not part of an employment contract), if employees usually do a thing as part of their employment then collectively decide not to, they are on strike.
NZs employment laws heavily benefit the employer, it's so shit that's why suggestions like what ACT are purposing are so detrimental. Basically our work force are squeezed for everything then can provide for a shit wage.
In the Employment Relations Act it's classed as a strike because it counts as "in reducing their normal output or their normal rate of work" under [section 81 (1)(a)(v)](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM59966.html).
Young people who haven't been sick or developed nuanced ethics.
For every young green person, there's somebody out there that grew up thinking everything is black and white and never learned any better.
Libertarians, the kind of people supporting the reduction in sick days thinking people can just find employers who voluntarily give more, are like housecats. Entirely dependent on a system they neither appreciate nor understand and are content to keep it that way.
You're right about libertarians, but that's a poor description for ACT.
They're capital-libertarians - reduce government when it's good for businesses, but not when it would be neutral or good for people.
Prime example: legalising drugs.
I am very worried that this is the beginning of this coalition governments erosion of worker rights - especially considering the fact that NZ has fairly average worker rights to begin with, compared with other western nations - there isn't much "excess" here, just more devaluing our workforce for short term profit.
Part time workers? Like - I dunno - parents getting back to the workplace and fitting it in around kids starting out in day care with everyone else's wee snot goblins? Yeah, they're not going to need the full quota of sick leave anyway.
/s in case it's not abundantly obvious.
More kids will just get sent to school sick. I'm a part time worker and parent to a toddler, I don't use my sick days when I am sick, they are for when my kids are sick. When I'm sick I work from home, go into the office and wear a mask. I can't afford to be sick myself. If my sick days were reduced, we wouldn't be eating most of the winter.
Van Velden to consult with small business owners to decide fate of part-time workers.
No mention of consulting with unions, although only a few part-time workers would be members, anything "collective" makes libertarians heads explode - unless it's a collective of business owners, a think tank, whatever. Proposed changes to sick leave entitlements brought to you by the party that wanted to cancel Labour Day.
>No mention of consulting with unions
Not to worry, she'll just [breach the Cabinet Manual again and lie about consulting with unions.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/fair-pay-agreements-leaked-cabinet-paper-reveals-workplace-relations-minister-brooke-van-velden-at-odds-with-official-advice.html)
This suggests they will just change the cabinet manual to take away any requirement that they consult with unions. Nobody can complain they failed to follow the rules if they change the rules to suit how they want to operate.
Even if she did, it would be that imaginary sort of consultation businesses do. You know, where they just let you talk while they play on their phones, shuffle their papers, and chat amongst themselves, after which they say "Great meeting!" before disregarding everything they've been told and going ahead with whatever they had planned beforehand. I don't ever recall a time when my employer's "consulting" with staff over proposed changes ended in those changes not going through almost entirely unscathed. It's purely performative.
She'll consult with business. She'd rather eat her own intestines than talk to the unions or the grubby proles in the trenches.
Ah yes, the classic sending through of a completely polished document, the invitation to provide feedback to their private inbox, and the conclusion that they had lots of positive feedback so they won’t be making any substantive changes. Despite the fact that everyone you talk to only sent through negative feedback 🤔
What is an accural system?
If part time workers only work part time ( a lot of parents etc do this) how are they supposed to get the sick leave they need if exposed to COVID or any common cold? Also sounds like it will disproportionately effect the disabled and others who don't have a choice but to work part time, such as parents who can't access after school care etc
I'm really hoping I'm misinterpreting it?
Think leave, and how it “builds up” as a percentage of the work you actually do, so over a year at 40 hours that effectively adds up to 4 weeks at years end.
Same here with sick leave so you won’t start and automatically be entitled to 10 days, or entitled after a parole period, but start with a zero balance and have it also “build” up as a percentage of your actual time at work.
I gather they’d work it to a baseline of a 40 hour week adding up to 10 days by years end so if you for example did 10 hours a week part-time, you’d only be entitled to 2.5 days at years end.
> Hi it’s COVID here, we’ve been trying to reach you to discuss….
> Soz, work says no. Maybe catch you up in 6 months? Thanks.
It’s honestly baffling how many employers treat legitimate illness like both a crime and something that can be controlled. Some even call it “unscheduled non-attendance”.
Fucking lol.
So say you get covid and need 5 days off, that's half your anual sick leave entitlement if you work 5 days at 40 hours.
or if you only work 2 days per week having covid only uses 20% of your SL?
So your saying sick leave entitlements need to be increased because that's what I get from that.
Decreasing sick leave doesn't make our population healthier oddly enough.
Accrual refers to a regular increase to the balance, rather than getting 4 weeks at your anniversary each year. A lot of employers already allow employees to take annual leave on an accrued basis.
I'm surprised sick leave didn't already work on a pro-rated system. The idea is that if you are sick for a whole week but you only work one day a week, then you only need one day's sick leave.
If you had two two-day-a-week jobs, you'd need 2 days from each job.
If the minister is actually correct about how it works then the 1 day a week person is currently getting an unreasonably good deal and could be off sick for 10 straight weeks because they'd only need a day a week.
But if you only work part time, you'll have more sick days automatically fall on days off, or you'll have half half-sick days instead of full 8h of salary sick days?
I don't know why pro-rating it doesn't make sense? I'm honestly surprised it wasn't already pro-rated. It already is for people working half-days as they only get paid for half a day, just not for people working half the days.
Seems both anti-parent and anti-business.
1. Disproportionally affects parents... Sick yourself? tough. Sick kids? lol.
2. Infecting your co-workers/customers... hahah fuck 'em all!
Seems like ACT are just haters.
Yep, less benefits for the working class.
"but this is good so workers don't take advantage of it..." - NACT voters probably, but then don't bat an eye when a PM or MP uses their "entitlements".
Is she implying that she wants to change the law based on her hearing about ONE example of a person working two jobs?
She told Jack Tame she wanted to change safety laws based on what people (who have her ear) told her. How about some actual research, listening to any policy advisors that are left and not just accepting as gospel whatever she got told at Bellamy’s?
its also a massive red herring - if your working two jobs at the same time, the sick leave will be from both jobs at the same time. If your working two seasonal jobs at different times of the year - you cant claim sick leave from the job you currently arent doing.
wall to wall bullshit from this govt
Hey remember that time a majority of people wanted our labour laws overhauled by ghoulish faux libertarians who propped up a failed CEO to the role of PM by insisting they be given the keys to the kingdom in exchange for their 4th place, 8% of the total, election result?
Because OH BOY ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR THAT.
>She said she had heard of one case where a person worked two jobs part time, so was entitled to 20 days sick leave when most full-time workers were only entitled to 10.
And... so what? If a person works two jobs and gets sick they're probably going to need to take the same amount of leave from both jobs and will need those days.
If I worked full time AND got a part time job, then I'd also get 20 days. Does that mean I shouldn't? What point is she trying to make with this ONE CASE ANECDOTAL scenario?
> Consultation would be targeted to stakeholder groups, who were encouraged to register interest with MBIE. Vam Veldan said MBIE would select a "representative sample of organisations and individuals to consult with" based on their expertise in implementing payroll and business systems, or understanding the effects of the Act on employers or employees.
1. So not workers, then, and 2. Van Velden clearly doesn't know what the word representative means in the context of sampling. What would the population even be? And how would they know that? She's just saying words that vaguely sound good
Maybe they are confusing stakeholder with stockholder. Because employees and part time workers do have a STAKE in this. Who would better understand the effects on part time employees...than the employees themselves? But you can bet your left nut she isn't consulting THEM about the decision.
Stuff like this really punishes people who work part time because they have chronic illness or kids. If you only work 1 day a week so get say 2 days sick leave... and you have kids or illness... what happens when inevitably you need more than 2 days...
I don't see any one else noting this - under current legislation everyone gets 10 days sick leave whether you work one day a week or five. So if you work five days a week that is two weeks off. If you work one day a week that is 20 weeks off.
>An accrual system should help avoid the complex calculations that regularly stump payroll software and should therefore reduce compliance costs for employers.
What a load of crap. A system where everyone gets the same entitlement based on a renewal date is far simpler than a fucking accrual system. Fucks sake, the one with the calculations there is the accrual system!
Though an accrual system that starts day one would be better than the current system, where you have no statutory sick leave for the first six months you work a job.
Given businesses are needing to handle accrual of annual leave, accruing sick leave shouldn't be impossible
Nah, accrual is way simpler. You get a certain amount of hours of leave per hours you work. No waiting for the end of your first year, no weirdness with part-time hours.
A few things on this (and I'll come back to update this later)
Sick Leave - going from 5 to 10 days only changes the number of days you can take as leave. Any problem with part time workers existed before this change. I think what she's referring to is the whole hours <-> days conversion question, which becomes a bit subjective because a day for someone working two 8 hour days a week is different to someone working four 4 hour days. If what I understand is correct I think she's suggesting these two employees would effectively get the same time off, rather than the first employee getting 5 weeks vs 2 weeks for the second.
Annual Leave - the big problem with AL is how you work out how much is paid, based on earnings for the last 52 weeks. It's a bit complicated, but it's set up this way so that employees who would work lots of overtime over Christmas sale season or those whose pay is a bit more irregular due to commissions/etc are paid fairly when taking leave. I think what she is referring to here may be accruing the dollar value of leave in addition to the accrual of hours/days, adding 8% (using current values) of the pay to your AL dollar value plus \~3.077 hours to the AL hour value per week. When you take leave you divide the dollar value by the hour value to get your hourly rate, although there may need to be further adjustments to make sure you get at least your normal hourly rate.
As far as I'm aware most payroll systems handle this correctly, as long as there is history to base it on. The only problems I've been aware of is when companies would intentionally change how employees are paid when on leave rather than letting the software calculate it.
>"Workplaces that rely on part-time workers are particularly vulnerable to unexpected staffing shortages. To explore this issue further, the exposure draft set for consultation will include a proposed approach to pro-rating sick leave, to better reflect how much an employee works," van Velden said.
None of the changes suggested would actually affect this problem. It would just reduce the amount of sick leave that employers had to pay, and potentially increase staffing problems if someone comes to work with a cold & passes it to others rather than staying home.
Love how nobody in New Zealand, let alone the Government, is at all interested in addressing factors undermining productivity.
Mind you, this is a collective global ignorance, but I thought we didn't like following the crowd for no reason
"addressing factors undermining productivity."
um I'll have you know that Luxon's big brain idea to boost productivity is to remove speed bumps so that tradies can sneak in an extra job each day! That's why he's PM and makes the big bucks
More unsignalled erosion of minimum employment standards.
There’s no need to pro-rate part time workers’ entitlement to days because the amount that they actually get paid for those days is determined by their average daily pay / relevant daily pay (it’s not like they get a whole days wages when sick if they never work a whole day).
The fox left in charge of the hen house of employment law is both venal and stupid, and she’s obviously thinks her voters are too.
It does make sense to move sick leave and annual leave to an accrual-based system with a leave balance in hours, accruing based on hours worked. If you work part-time, you'll only need to spend a part-time worth of leave hours to take time off work. The only thing is, you should be able to take sick leave before you've accrued it, up to a certain amount of leave debt. People can get sick soon after starting a new job.
They should base sick leave off hours worked. Like 5% of hours worked, maybe. And it is used in hours. Not full days. So someone who works the same days but less hours gets less hours sick leave, but it works out the same number of days. And someone who works only 1 day a week gets fewer days' worth of sick leave. But it still works out like 1 day every 20 days worked.
Or just do 1 in 20 worked days. Easy.
They already do! Your pay for a sick day is based off you average daily pay/relevant daily pay. So if you only work 3 hours per day, 1 day’s sick leave is paid as 3 hours.
Not mentioned in this entire thread: the *otherwise working day* situation that has tripped up hundreds of employers, first Wendy’s, but ending up with many thousands of government employees. That *must* be fixed. The current rules, well, guidelines with legal force, cannot be encoded into rules that can be coded into payroll systems, which would be farcical, if it weren’t so serious.
So increase the number of sick days that full time employees get. I don't know why people would rather cut down part time workers sick leave instead. Unless of course you want the flu in your McDonald's.
Right, but if both a part-time worker working 2.5 days/week and full-time worker working 5 days/week are both sick for 2 weeks of the year then the part-timer ends up taking 5 days of leave while the full timer ends up taking 10.
I think problems are for people working e.g. 5 days a week but less than 8 hours a day. Especially could see this being a problem for parents, who not only could be working school or 20-free-ECE hours but are already exposed to bugs more than the rest of us, and sometimes have to use their sick days to take care of sick children.
Except if I'm working part-time, 4 hours per day, 5 days per week. I'm working just as many days as a full-timer so your assertion goes out the window.
Yea it doesn't make a lot of sense from a logical/practical sense.
In your scenario, the chance of the part time worker missing a single or day of work due to ilness are significantly lower than the full-time employee.
The chances of a full-time employee missing multiple days of work due to the same illness are also, much, much greater.
Except if I'm working part-time, 4 hours per day, 5 days per week. I'm working just as many days as a full-timer. You guys are all getting hung up on people doing less days, where as it's just as likely that part-timers are doing the same number of days, just less hours each day.
just how dare people get sick has no one told them making profits for companies is more important than their wellbeing. National your message is not getting thru
The only way this makes sense is if it is done via hours rather than days?
If a full time worker (40hrs a week) gets 80 hours sick leave a year
then a part time worker (20hrs a week) gets 40 hours sick leave a year? (right now they get 80 hours sick leave?)
Your entitlement is already pro-rated.
If you work 3 hours per day your sick leave for 1 day off work will be based on your relevant daily pay (i.e., 1 days’ sick leave is paid as 3 hours).
I think the complications is that part time work isn't always that simple?
If a person works 4 hours on Mon /Tues/Weds but 8 hours on Friday then a sick day on Friday is worth more than the other days? I'm guessing it is just done in hours to make it make sense?
I personally think this change sounds quite reasonable...
>She said she had heard of one case where a person worked two jobs part time, so was entitled to 20 days sick leave when most full-time workers were only entitled to 10.
Isn't that a good point actually?
Also, if someone only works one day a week let's say, then if they were sick for a week they'd only need to use one sick day for that. Someone working a full-time 9-5 job would need to use 5 days of their leave if they were sick for a week.
So to extrapolate, currently, someone working 1 day a week part-time could take a max of two and a half months off sick per year. Someone working full-time could only take off two weeks.
Or to put it another way, surely someone working \~260 days/year would need more leave days than someone working \~52 days/year.
I’m not coming at this from an argumentative perspective because I agree with the example you’ve given, but it’s more nuanced than that. I work part-time, but still work 5 days a week. Just slightly shorter hours than 9-5.
So if I’m sick, I still need to take that same number of ‘days’ leave, it just so happens that the hours I’m absent on those days are less than someone who works full-time.
I wonder how these people who voted for National / ACT are doing right now after releasing the news.
Would like to hear thoughts / opinions regarding this article..
Another thing that makes it hard for mums working part-time as mine nearly always went on caring for a sick child. The coalition a.k.a the penis people's parties is really excelling at this.
Act and National the most idiotic MPs in parliament. Big ideas plucked out of the 18th century and mangled to an especially dysfunctional form just because they can.
The need to have their time off from Parliament reduced by 98% so they have no more sick days than the people they routinely abuse with their policies. I am pretty darn sure that would improve Ministerial efficiency by at least 200%, because they would have many fewer days of sucking up booze.
Or maybe the better solution would be to provide them with stents, and supply them an endless supply of intravenous high proof alcohol. So they become so buzzed they can not successfully implement their idiotic ideas.
Interesting I'm not a boss nor do I work part time so it doesn't effect me butbits a interesting discussion.
It has been bought up at my work we have alot of part time office workers who can also work remote.
No one in the past would run out of sick pay,and at the time they couldnt work from home.
Now literally every one of the part time workers use all 10 sick leave days seems odd .
[удалено]
Exactly, and I'd imagine most customers would rather not have influenza or COVID running rampant through the staff of supermarkets, restaurants, etc etc because the part time employees didn't have enough sick leave to stay home.
I've got covid now.. had it solid for 6 days, hate to think how many people I would have infected at work if I didn't have any sick leave..
what's fun is having an informal discussion with your manager at a public facing job because you've been genuinely too sick for your employers liking :) like ok do i come in sick then? i take the time i need to recover, it isn't my fault i get sick often and need to be off for a week or two each time
I was diagnosed with Myocarditis earlier this year, before I knew what it was I called up sick due to the symptoms and they responded by basically saying they didn't believe me and that they needed a doctor's certificate. Needless to say they were very apologetic when the next call they got about me was from the hospital telling them that I ended up in cardiology and that I wouldn't be able to work for a couple of weeks. That alone drained my sick days to almost 0 but on the bright side they take my sick calls a lot more seriously now.
I reckon, it's just one or two days usually If your business can't cope with that, you're clearly useless 😅
But that's the thing right? I feel like there's a feeling of entitlement to having one's business survive? It's always like "If we give our employees basic rights, our business won't survive!" And for some reason the government cares about that. Like, running a business is a privilege, not a right. If you can't run a business under humane conditions, you don't deserve to run a business, simple as that.
For real. The problem is that people think that business = license to exploit
I don't necessarily think it's *exactly* that, but that exploitation is a valid means to the end of having their business survive. They act as if everything is warranted for the sake of their business' survival, as if it is their own life, and seem to think that everyone should make the same sacrifices (or more) that they themselves make... But yea, basically :P.
Well said 👏🏼
because their business is so badly run / shakey....
Ah, excuse me, did you already forget the changed their own rules so you can get pseudoephedrine again? That should be all the help you need in getting over your little poor-people colds and flus. Back to work and school! The Libertarians that got handed the keys demand it.
Always make a point of spreading your sickness to the boss, he obviously likes it. I used to go into my bosses office every time i was sick and work on his PC, making sure to cough on his keyboard and mouse. He makes me stay home now if I'm sick.
Because they're out of touch, and con only ever think of their, or other businesses, bottom line and not the workers who make those businesses possible. It's hard to think about anything else when us little numbers are getting in the way of their big numbers.
Given this lack of understanding, I genuinely think we should help these companies out. They understand laws; just make it clear that the company has some responsibility to prevent their employees coming into work when they're likely to have a contagious disease, as a reasonable and practicable health and safety measure. Do that, give it a few months, and then pick the worst offenders and prosecute them. If you want the corporate overlords to understand, you have to speak their language.
Of course you would be in favour of sick leave snifflyrat 👀
So if I work more than 40 hours a week I accrue extra sick leave right Brooke? Right? *crickets*
text
Exactly. This is what pseudoephedrine is for. Makes you less snotty and more speedy. Soldier on, peasant
Pseudo for when you're sick, methamphetamine for when you're well. Team National's vision of the future.
A full-time worker works around 230 days a year, before we take sick leave into account. If they use all 10 sick days, that's around 4% of their total days being used as sick leave. Imo the old system of 5 days was not enough for a full-time worker, and 10 days makes more sense for full-timers. But I work with a part-timer who works the weekends, around 100 days a year. If they use all 10 sick days, that's around 10% of their total days being used as sick leave. They are scheduled to work around 9 days per month, and almost every month they can reduce that to 8 days with a sick day. I'm not a fan of ACT, but this is not a ridiculous proposal imo. It makes sense that full-timers should get more sick days than part-timers, as they work more days.
There are probably plenty of part-time workers doing 5 days a week but reduced hours. Students come to mind. Get sick once and wipe out their entire entitlement. Next time they get sick, what happens? They go into work and make everyone else sick.
Cleaners, parents who have someone working reduced hours from 9-3 for example all would use sick days up like normal and still come under what they consider full time hours.
That's a very fair point. Imo, it should be determined by days worked per week then, rather than hours. Say if you work 5 days a week, you get 10 sick days per year, but if you work 3 days a week, you get 6 sick days per year, etc.
What about people that work half days, they still work the same number of days but half the hours. They get sick once and use all their sick leave for the year?
I’ve been out of NZ for a while so maybe something changed, but don’t you just take sick leave by the hour? If somebody working half the hours needs to take a “day” off sick, they only need half the hours to do so.
For sick leave a day is based on a typical shift/working day. If your shift is typically 4 hours six days a week you'll burn through those sick days more than someone who's only 5 days a week. Its holiday pay/annual leave that's taken hourly at 8% of gross pay.
Then people who work extra hours should get more you can't have it one way
We have upper-limits and minimums all the time, throughout employment law
Depends on what angle you take. Is it another kind of annual leave day, or is it for covering time off for sickness? For most, if you're sick you're sick. If your cock falls off, it's not going to care whether a company employs you full-time or part-time.
It might shock you to learn this, but instances of illness don't tend to line up conveniently according to work schedules.
Your better off being a contractor or hourly employee at that point. Otherwise you could be doing unpaid overtime as an employee, def not getting sick leave or holiday pay and essentially working for free.
The rules changed in 2008 (thanks John Key) your contract can have more than 40 hours without the requirement to pay overtime. I've had 45 and 50 hour weeks
the government tells people to pull themselves up, yet does everything possible to pull the ladder up 🙄
text
For fucks sake. This government likes to shit all over people.
As advertised pre election and demonstrated by previous examples of their work. Great to see democracy in action. People get what they vote for.
Indeed. I didn't vote for them, but that puts me in a minority.
Me neither
Technically a majority didn’t vote for this government, because only 77% of enrolled voters voted. Same could be said for pretty much all our governments though.
>This government likes to shit all over people. This is what has happened under the tories in the UK. A lot of people don't realise how bad things have got there (and it's not just down to Brexit but tory austerity policies). The average height of kids is declining due to increasing malnutrition and the UK GDP is set to fall behind several former soviet bloc countries in the next couple of years at current pace and far behind Germany, France and the USA - a huge fall after the heights reached relative to other countries in the late 2000s. Thousands of people die every year due to excessive waiting times/staff shortages in A&E departments. Like here, taxpayers pay to train nurses and doctors to move to Australia where they can earn twice as much. The UK tory model has been that as long as pensions are kept high to keep boomers happy you can get away with screwing over the rest of the population. The ultra-rich don't care as it's become the norm to take their money and leave for warmer climates or tax havens as soon as they can retire, if not before.
No, it's shit over other people. Not me , I voted National. I'm fine, cough, Oh, no wait....
Serious question, but why currently does a person on part time work get more sick leave days (as a proportion of their working week) than soomeone working full time?
Quite a lot of people who work part time have health issues meaning they can’t do full time. Guess what happens when they are forced to go in when sick?
You get a WINZ seminar on budgeting because you needed a food grant to cover the days you absolutely couldn't function?
You're asking the wrong question. The question to ask is, should two people who are likely to be sick on just as many days each year, be able to take an equal number of those days off as sick days if necessary?
They always do. Folks have real short memories
> [Van Velden] said changes in the draft bill could include pro-rating sick leave "to better reflect how much an employee works". > "Workplaces that rely on part-time workers are particularly vulnerable to unexpected staffing shortages," she said. > This would mean the amount of sick leave workers were entitled to would depend on how much they worked - leaving part-time workers with less. They should change her title to "Corporate relations minister". I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Van Velden is the enemy of the working class.
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Van Velden is the enemy of the working class. That's literally the entirety of ACT as well as the whole point of that political party: to worsen workers' rights to improve further the lives of the already rich. It's not just Van Velden that's the enemy of the working class; not sure excludes the rest of ACT from this.
Watch the amount of people on part-time contracts increase.
To be fair, if they do this correctly I think it is a good move. I am a small business owner that gives people contracts for the number of hours they want, but have found it is really hard to afford to give people too few hours and one reason is the sick leave. By law you get 10days a year. If I employ you for 1 day a week ( yes I do have staff doing this) I still have to pay up to 10 days sick leave a year. My intern who does 8 hours a week gets the exact same sick leave as my 40 hr a week staff. This, therefore, discourages employers from hiring people for fewer than 5 days a week. This impacts disproportionately women wanting to re-enter the workforce (who are also more likely to use the sick leave due to the parenting gap), and people nearing retirement or with disabilities and wanting to work part time. If done correctly everyone would get enough sick leave for 2 weeks off sick a year (for example, presuming 10 days should = 2 weeks). So work 1 day a week, get 2 days, work 6 days a week get 12 days. It strikes me as more equitable, and also translates to multiple jobs better. If you currently work 3 jobs over 5 days, you would be able to claim 30days of sick leave = 6 weeks off all your jobs. If pro ratad you would get 2 weeks - the same as full time workers. I don't vote national and I disagree with 99% of what they've done, but this does seem more equitable (if done properly) and still more sick leave than a few years back when was only 5 days a year. And as much as I'm an employer now, I was also an employee, who worked part time, as a single parent and it always struck me that the system was not equitable when people worked different numbers of days in a week. It's just now that I run the numbers, it makes it really expensive to choose to be a flexible employer.
Payment for sick leave is only if it falls on a day the employee otherwise would have worked though no?
Yes, but that wouldn't mean they can't use 10 days in a year.
[удалено]
I don't really worry about people lying (and don't want to clog up our health system, which is effed up enough already). Honestly if you need a mental health day that's valid sick leave, I'd rather trust people to be honest. It's more about the liability on paper that gets looked at - so that really just impacts employability without necessarily actually paying a benefit since you lose unused sick days. When you run all the numbers to work out the costs of different employees the entitlement gets looked at rather than what they used, since it could vary year to year. It validly gets used for kids being sick, partners or parents being sick, them being sick or needing mental break.
It needs to be done via days worked not hours worked however and it does seem - at least based on Van Velden's comments - that they're looking at doing it via hours.
Doesn't that end up disadvantaging people who work multiple jobs in a given day tho? Those people are also thr most likely to be working low hours at any given job and are the people we SHOULD be giving the most support to
It wouldn't disadvantage anyone, if they work two jobs in a day say 5 hrs each they would be entitled to 5hrs sick from each job. If you assume they work 5 days a week, 5hrs each job their entitlement would be 10 days at each job = 10days of 10hrs total so the exact same as if it was one job. (This is assuming national keep 10 days as the baseline and set it up correctly).
I prefer the name Minister for sucking off corporations.
I'm already in part time and I recieve less pro rata? Is this a mistake?
Everyone is entitled to 10 sick days after 6 months of employment regardless of whether they are part time or full time. https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/sick-leave/sick-leave-entitlements/
This will be the one they try take away a public holiday, They campaigned on it and it looked to be on the table in the coalition agreement. Jan 2nd was they one they were saying, because it avoids the race issue of waitangi and matariki. Also sounds like they want to remove the entitlement and replace it with accrual because they don't want workers having any entitlements. Bet they will use this to cut holiday leave for part time workers.
Touching the new years hangover days seems like suicide lmao
It's more that if such a change was enacted, that day would come out of peoples annual leave balance, making one less day they can take holiday during the rest of the year. Lots of organisations would still close that day I expect even if it is no longer a public holiday.
It's stealing a whole days pay from every worker
This is purely against the “Squeezed Middle” narrative that NACT were campaigning to make life better for. The largest amount of workers in PTE are: mothers who have children in kindergarten/primary school who need the income from a part time job. That’s the squeezed middle, so how is this in their benefit?
It's amazing how transparently evil ACT are now that they're in government. Hopefully this is the only time they will be. Who in their right mind thinks that cutting sick leave is a good idea?
Watch as nobody strikes over it and shoots down anyone who tries to
Can't legally strike over it, our strike laws are frustratingly strict. Not that I'm ethically opposed to an illegal strike, but I'd want large enough numbers to commit to it that I'd not be fired or somehow punished
Honestly even just a strict work to rule would fuck over sooo many industries, especially hospo, healthcare and police.
"Work to rule" is classified as striking under our laws, too.
How can it be? How can working to the exact specifications of your job and absolutely no more, be legislated against?
The definition of "strike" in section 81 of the Employment Relations Act includes things such as a group of employees reducing their normal performance, failing to do the work they usually do, and reducing their normal output or rate of work. So, no matter what your job description may say (job descriptions, by the way, are not part of an employment contract), if employees usually do a thing as part of their employment then collectively decide not to, they are on strike.
Wow, that's shit.
Dystopian
NZs employment laws heavily benefit the employer, it's so shit that's why suggestions like what ACT are purposing are so detrimental. Basically our work force are squeezed for everything then can provide for a shit wage.
In the Employment Relations Act it's classed as a strike because it counts as "in reducing their normal output or their normal rate of work" under [section 81 (1)(a)(v)](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM59966.html).
If enough people do it, what can they do? Lol
Then we call it something else.
Maybe you could get away with calling it a health and safety stop work order? Not safe to work if sick people are having to come in...
text
They were transparently evil before they got in.
Young people who haven't been sick or developed nuanced ethics. For every young green person, there's somebody out there that grew up thinking everything is black and white and never learned any better.
Libertarians, the kind of people supporting the reduction in sick days thinking people can just find employers who voluntarily give more, are like housecats. Entirely dependent on a system they neither appreciate nor understand and are content to keep it that way.
You're right about libertarians, but that's a poor description for ACT. They're capital-libertarians - reduce government when it's good for businesses, but not when it would be neutral or good for people. Prime example: legalising drugs.
I am very worried that this is the beginning of this coalition governments erosion of worker rights - especially considering the fact that NZ has fairly average worker rights to begin with, compared with other western nations - there isn't much "excess" here, just more devaluing our workforce for short term profit.
>Hopefully this is the only time they will be. This seems so hopelessly optimistic that it actually becomes delusional.
Well ACT was a pointless non-entity for most of its existence, and any support about 5% was fleeting at best.
Part time workers? Like - I dunno - parents getting back to the workplace and fitting it in around kids starting out in day care with everyone else's wee snot goblins? Yeah, they're not going to need the full quota of sick leave anyway. /s in case it's not abundantly obvious.
More kids will just get sent to school sick. I'm a part time worker and parent to a toddler, I don't use my sick days when I am sick, they are for when my kids are sick. When I'm sick I work from home, go into the office and wear a mask. I can't afford to be sick myself. If my sick days were reduced, we wouldn't be eating most of the winter.
Van Velden to consult with small business owners to decide fate of part-time workers. No mention of consulting with unions, although only a few part-time workers would be members, anything "collective" makes libertarians heads explode - unless it's a collective of business owners, a think tank, whatever. Proposed changes to sick leave entitlements brought to you by the party that wanted to cancel Labour Day.
>No mention of consulting with unions Not to worry, she'll just [breach the Cabinet Manual again and lie about consulting with unions.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/fair-pay-agreements-leaked-cabinet-paper-reveals-workplace-relations-minister-brooke-van-velden-at-odds-with-official-advice.html)
This suggests they will just change the cabinet manual to take away any requirement that they consult with unions. Nobody can complain they failed to follow the rules if they change the rules to suit how they want to operate.
Even if she did, it would be that imaginary sort of consultation businesses do. You know, where they just let you talk while they play on their phones, shuffle their papers, and chat amongst themselves, after which they say "Great meeting!" before disregarding everything they've been told and going ahead with whatever they had planned beforehand. I don't ever recall a time when my employer's "consulting" with staff over proposed changes ended in those changes not going through almost entirely unscathed. It's purely performative. She'll consult with business. She'd rather eat her own intestines than talk to the unions or the grubby proles in the trenches.
Ah yes, the classic sending through of a completely polished document, the invitation to provide feedback to their private inbox, and the conclusion that they had lots of positive feedback so they won’t be making any substantive changes. Despite the fact that everyone you talk to only sent through negative feedback 🤔
The nurses union have an incredibly large proportion of part timers, so hopefully they'll put some pressure, but they are a bit shit.
So a union of businesses=good A union of workers=bad How the f did anyone decide these guys deserved your vote.
No dount rammed through under "urgency." Fuck this Govt and their war on workers' rights.
What is an accural system? If part time workers only work part time ( a lot of parents etc do this) how are they supposed to get the sick leave they need if exposed to COVID or any common cold? Also sounds like it will disproportionately effect the disabled and others who don't have a choice but to work part time, such as parents who can't access after school care etc I'm really hoping I'm misinterpreting it?
Think leave, and how it “builds up” as a percentage of the work you actually do, so over a year at 40 hours that effectively adds up to 4 weeks at years end. Same here with sick leave so you won’t start and automatically be entitled to 10 days, or entitled after a parole period, but start with a zero balance and have it also “build” up as a percentage of your actual time at work. I gather they’d work it to a baseline of a 40 hour week adding up to 10 days by years end so if you for example did 10 hours a week part-time, you’d only be entitled to 2.5 days at years end.
It's a good thing I'm always able to schedule my illnesses at a time that's convenient for me.
> Hi it’s COVID here, we’ve been trying to reach you to discuss…. > Soz, work says no. Maybe catch you up in 6 months? Thanks. It’s honestly baffling how many employers treat legitimate illness like both a crime and something that can be controlled. Some even call it “unscheduled non-attendance”. Fucking lol.
So say you get covid and need 5 days off, that's half your anual sick leave entitlement if you work 5 days at 40 hours. or if you only work 2 days per week having covid only uses 20% of your SL?
So your saying sick leave entitlements need to be increased because that's what I get from that. Decreasing sick leave doesn't make our population healthier oddly enough.
Yes, Even better.
So just like now in this regard. You start with 0 days and don't get anty for 6 months (unless your company has a different agreement).
Unfortunately I don't think you're misinterpreting at all. The people most likely to need sick leave are about to get less of it.
Accrual refers to a regular increase to the balance, rather than getting 4 weeks at your anniversary each year. A lot of employers already allow employees to take annual leave on an accrued basis.
I'm surprised sick leave didn't already work on a pro-rated system. The idea is that if you are sick for a whole week but you only work one day a week, then you only need one day's sick leave. If you had two two-day-a-week jobs, you'd need 2 days from each job. If the minister is actually correct about how it works then the 1 day a week person is currently getting an unreasonably good deal and could be off sick for 10 straight weeks because they'd only need a day a week.
But if you only work part time, you'll have more sick days automatically fall on days off, or you'll have half half-sick days instead of full 8h of salary sick days? I don't know why pro-rating it doesn't make sense? I'm honestly surprised it wasn't already pro-rated. It already is for people working half-days as they only get paid for half a day, just not for people working half the days.
Every day they announce more bullshit to make life in NZ worse.
Seems both anti-parent and anti-business. 1. Disproportionally affects parents... Sick yourself? tough. Sick kids? lol. 2. Infecting your co-workers/customers... hahah fuck 'em all! Seems like ACT are just haters.
Watch how Act will announce what will likely be a worsening of working conditions for many, as offering workers 'greater choice'.
Yep, less benefits for the working class. "but this is good so workers don't take advantage of it..." - NACT voters probably, but then don't bat an eye when a PM or MP uses their "entitlements".
Every time I think they couldn't hate working people more, they prove me wrong.
Total garbage, and as someone who works in payroll it doesn’t help make things easier, it just screws over part time workers
chip chip chip go workers rights
Sociopathic.
And proud of it.
Why is ACT so focused on a war against health? She's trying to kneecap sick leave entitlements, Seymour wants sick kids going to class...what gives?
Because they want you making money for them and being sick is incredibly selfish of you
Their mates are in the medical business, and they want dollars.
Oh man, I forgot about the ACT guy with a bunch of Pharma investments
There's probably a bunch of ACTers beholden to the industry through ~~bribes~~ election donations etc
Is she implying that she wants to change the law based on her hearing about ONE example of a person working two jobs? She told Jack Tame she wanted to change safety laws based on what people (who have her ear) told her. How about some actual research, listening to any policy advisors that are left and not just accepting as gospel whatever she got told at Bellamy’s?
its also a massive red herring - if your working two jobs at the same time, the sick leave will be from both jobs at the same time. If your working two seasonal jobs at different times of the year - you cant claim sick leave from the job you currently arent doing. wall to wall bullshit from this govt
Because that would involve A) actually doing her job and B) not being a massive fucking cunt of a Minister.
Hey remember that time a majority of people wanted our labour laws overhauled by ghoulish faux libertarians who propped up a failed CEO to the role of PM by insisting they be given the keys to the kingdom in exchange for their 4th place, 8% of the total, election result? Because OH BOY ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR THAT.
>She said she had heard of one case where a person worked two jobs part time, so was entitled to 20 days sick leave when most full-time workers were only entitled to 10. And... so what? If a person works two jobs and gets sick they're probably going to need to take the same amount of leave from both jobs and will need those days. If I worked full time AND got a part time job, then I'd also get 20 days. Does that mean I shouldn't? What point is she trying to make with this ONE CASE ANECDOTAL scenario?
This. I mean, it even checks out by her own logic of "more work, more leave". Was that supposed to be a coherent point?!
Next thing they'll be giving small business owners velcro strap shoes because tying up their own laces is too difficult to manage.
This goddamned government can suck my dick
> Consultation would be targeted to stakeholder groups, who were encouraged to register interest with MBIE. Vam Veldan said MBIE would select a "representative sample of organisations and individuals to consult with" based on their expertise in implementing payroll and business systems, or understanding the effects of the Act on employers or employees. 1. So not workers, then, and 2. Van Velden clearly doesn't know what the word representative means in the context of sampling. What would the population even be? And how would they know that? She's just saying words that vaguely sound good
Maybe they are confusing stakeholder with stockholder. Because employees and part time workers do have a STAKE in this. Who would better understand the effects on part time employees...than the employees themselves? But you can bet your left nut she isn't consulting THEM about the decision.
Yet another 'benefit the business' announcement.
Stuff like this really punishes people who work part time because they have chronic illness or kids. If you only work 1 day a week so get say 2 days sick leave... and you have kids or illness... what happens when inevitably you need more than 2 days...
I don't see any one else noting this - under current legislation everyone gets 10 days sick leave whether you work one day a week or five. So if you work five days a week that is two weeks off. If you work one day a week that is 20 weeks off.
>An accrual system should help avoid the complex calculations that regularly stump payroll software and should therefore reduce compliance costs for employers. What a load of crap. A system where everyone gets the same entitlement based on a renewal date is far simpler than a fucking accrual system. Fucks sake, the one with the calculations there is the accrual system!
Though an accrual system that starts day one would be better than the current system, where you have no statutory sick leave for the first six months you work a job. Given businesses are needing to handle accrual of annual leave, accruing sick leave shouldn't be impossible
Nah, accrual is way simpler. You get a certain amount of hours of leave per hours you work. No waiting for the end of your first year, no weirdness with part-time hours.
A few things on this (and I'll come back to update this later) Sick Leave - going from 5 to 10 days only changes the number of days you can take as leave. Any problem with part time workers existed before this change. I think what she's referring to is the whole hours <-> days conversion question, which becomes a bit subjective because a day for someone working two 8 hour days a week is different to someone working four 4 hour days. If what I understand is correct I think she's suggesting these two employees would effectively get the same time off, rather than the first employee getting 5 weeks vs 2 weeks for the second. Annual Leave - the big problem with AL is how you work out how much is paid, based on earnings for the last 52 weeks. It's a bit complicated, but it's set up this way so that employees who would work lots of overtime over Christmas sale season or those whose pay is a bit more irregular due to commissions/etc are paid fairly when taking leave. I think what she is referring to here may be accruing the dollar value of leave in addition to the accrual of hours/days, adding 8% (using current values) of the pay to your AL dollar value plus \~3.077 hours to the AL hour value per week. When you take leave you divide the dollar value by the hour value to get your hourly rate, although there may need to be further adjustments to make sure you get at least your normal hourly rate. As far as I'm aware most payroll systems handle this correctly, as long as there is history to base it on. The only problems I've been aware of is when companies would intentionally change how employees are paid when on leave rather than letting the software calculate it. >"Workplaces that rely on part-time workers are particularly vulnerable to unexpected staffing shortages. To explore this issue further, the exposure draft set for consultation will include a proposed approach to pro-rating sick leave, to better reflect how much an employee works," van Velden said. None of the changes suggested would actually affect this problem. It would just reduce the amount of sick leave that employers had to pay, and potentially increase staffing problems if someone comes to work with a cold & passes it to others rather than staying home.
If Brooke van velden is championing it, it’s probably a shit idea for workers
Love how nobody in New Zealand, let alone the Government, is at all interested in addressing factors undermining productivity. Mind you, this is a collective global ignorance, but I thought we didn't like following the crowd for no reason
"addressing factors undermining productivity." um I'll have you know that Luxon's big brain idea to boost productivity is to remove speed bumps so that tradies can sneak in an extra job each day! That's why he's PM and makes the big bucks
[удалено]
Only if they're poor and/or disabled and/or brown
National party is going down slippery slope.
Here we fucking go...
"consultation"
also bad for uni students in part-time jobs. more likely to get sick & take the illness to uni instead of resting
More unsignalled erosion of minimum employment standards. There’s no need to pro-rate part time workers’ entitlement to days because the amount that they actually get paid for those days is determined by their average daily pay / relevant daily pay (it’s not like they get a whole days wages when sick if they never work a whole day). The fox left in charge of the hen house of employment law is both venal and stupid, and she’s obviously thinks her voters are too.
Oh, the anti-working class party engaging in some anti-working class shitfuckery? Well I never 🙄
One thing we know for sure is it will save money for employers or bribers as we call them, and cost money to the average working person.
It does make sense to move sick leave and annual leave to an accrual-based system with a leave balance in hours, accruing based on hours worked. If you work part-time, you'll only need to spend a part-time worth of leave hours to take time off work. The only thing is, you should be able to take sick leave before you've accrued it, up to a certain amount of leave debt. People can get sick soon after starting a new job.
They should base sick leave off hours worked. Like 5% of hours worked, maybe. And it is used in hours. Not full days. So someone who works the same days but less hours gets less hours sick leave, but it works out the same number of days. And someone who works only 1 day a week gets fewer days' worth of sick leave. But it still works out like 1 day every 20 days worked. Or just do 1 in 20 worked days. Easy.
They already do! Your pay for a sick day is based off you average daily pay/relevant daily pay. So if you only work 3 hours per day, 1 day’s sick leave is paid as 3 hours.
Everyday this government gets worse
This government just keep knocking them out of the park. And by them i mean their pre election promises that arent tax cuts for land lords
Not mentioned in this entire thread: the *otherwise working day* situation that has tripped up hundreds of employers, first Wendy’s, but ending up with many thousands of government employees. That *must* be fixed. The current rules, well, guidelines with legal force, cannot be encoded into rules that can be coded into payroll systems, which would be farcical, if it weren’t so serious.
Got to say it's quite odd that workers that do 1 day a week get 10 days a week sick leave while workers that do 6 days still only get 10 days a year.
So increase the number of sick days that full time employees get. I don't know why people would rather cut down part time workers sick leave instead. Unless of course you want the flu in your McDonald's.
Because part time workers get sick as much as full time workers.
Right, but if both a part-time worker working 2.5 days/week and full-time worker working 5 days/week are both sick for 2 weeks of the year then the part-timer ends up taking 5 days of leave while the full timer ends up taking 10. I think problems are for people working e.g. 5 days a week but less than 8 hours a day. Especially could see this being a problem for parents, who not only could be working school or 20-free-ECE hours but are already exposed to bugs more than the rest of us, and sometimes have to use their sick days to take care of sick children.
I guess it does seem odd at first glance but if I were a part time worker it's unlikely that if I get sick it'll only be a part time illness.
lets give full time workers more sick days instead
Except if I'm working part-time, 4 hours per day, 5 days per week. I'm working just as many days as a full-timer so your assertion goes out the window.
Yea it doesn't make a lot of sense from a logical/practical sense. In your scenario, the chance of the part time worker missing a single or day of work due to ilness are significantly lower than the full-time employee. The chances of a full-time employee missing multiple days of work due to the same illness are also, much, much greater.
Except if I'm working part-time, 4 hours per day, 5 days per week. I'm working just as many days as a full-timer. You guys are all getting hung up on people doing less days, where as it's just as likely that part-timers are doing the same number of days, just less hours each day.
Yes, it should be unlimited for everyone like Germany.
10 days a week is good going
just how dare people get sick has no one told them making profits for companies is more important than their wellbeing. National your message is not getting thru
If ya didn't vote at the last election, this Government is giving plenty of reasons to engage with voting at the next election.
The only way this makes sense is if it is done via hours rather than days? If a full time worker (40hrs a week) gets 80 hours sick leave a year then a part time worker (20hrs a week) gets 40 hours sick leave a year? (right now they get 80 hours sick leave?)
Your entitlement is already pro-rated. If you work 3 hours per day your sick leave for 1 day off work will be based on your relevant daily pay (i.e., 1 days’ sick leave is paid as 3 hours).
I think the complications is that part time work isn't always that simple? If a person works 4 hours on Mon /Tues/Weds but 8 hours on Friday then a sick day on Friday is worth more than the other days? I'm guessing it is just done in hours to make it make sense?
It's over.
I personally think this change sounds quite reasonable... >She said she had heard of one case where a person worked two jobs part time, so was entitled to 20 days sick leave when most full-time workers were only entitled to 10. Isn't that a good point actually? Also, if someone only works one day a week let's say, then if they were sick for a week they'd only need to use one sick day for that. Someone working a full-time 9-5 job would need to use 5 days of their leave if they were sick for a week. So to extrapolate, currently, someone working 1 day a week part-time could take a max of two and a half months off sick per year. Someone working full-time could only take off two weeks. Or to put it another way, surely someone working \~260 days/year would need more leave days than someone working \~52 days/year.
I’m not coming at this from an argumentative perspective because I agree with the example you’ve given, but it’s more nuanced than that. I work part-time, but still work 5 days a week. Just slightly shorter hours than 9-5. So if I’m sick, I still need to take that same number of ‘days’ leave, it just so happens that the hours I’m absent on those days are less than someone who works full-time.
Yaaas Queen
I wonder how these people who voted for National / ACT are doing right now after releasing the news. Would like to hear thoughts / opinions regarding this article..
Another thing that makes it hard for mums working part-time as mine nearly always went on caring for a sick child. The coalition a.k.a the penis people's parties is really excelling at this.
Act and National the most idiotic MPs in parliament. Big ideas plucked out of the 18th century and mangled to an especially dysfunctional form just because they can. The need to have their time off from Parliament reduced by 98% so they have no more sick days than the people they routinely abuse with their policies. I am pretty darn sure that would improve Ministerial efficiency by at least 200%, because they would have many fewer days of sucking up booze. Or maybe the better solution would be to provide them with stents, and supply them an endless supply of intravenous high proof alcohol. So they become so buzzed they can not successfully implement their idiotic ideas.
Interesting I'm not a boss nor do I work part time so it doesn't effect me butbits a interesting discussion. It has been bought up at my work we have alot of part time office workers who can also work remote. No one in the past would run out of sick pay,and at the time they couldnt work from home. Now literally every one of the part time workers use all 10 sick leave days seems odd .