Forum Archive Index - February 2004

[nickk@quicksilver.net.nz]

Russ 

Have to agree slightly, but mainly disagree - mixtrader raises valid issues. 

It is always difficult to see the changes to an economy that such 
legislation brings.  My view is that policy and legislative changes such as 
this take many years to manifest themselves in an economy (example - 
Rogernomics; undoubtedly the most profound and dynamic policy change ever 
likely in this country.  The benefits are there to be seen by anyone who 
cares to study them) by which time employers/employees will have adjusted 
and found ways to circumvent the direct impact it has on them. 

The ERA Bill is fundamental because what was missing from the 'reform' era 
of the late 80's & 90's was significant labour reform.  The ECA went nowhere 
near in relaxing labour law enough for the country to benefit as it could 
have from Rogernomics.  The politicians from the 90's were too scared to 
reform after such massive reform by the previous Labour government. 

This Bill is definitely anti-business.  That is undeniable.  It is 
definitely pay-back to the unions for their support/lobbying.  Next year we 
get four weeks paid leave (that is not included in this Bill and is a union 
lolly for next year).  Businesses may well react by saying 'oh well, 
business as usual'.  Some will find it too tough.  The concern I have is 
that it will have an impact on mergers and acquisitions - fundamental for 
our equities market.  The Bill makes it illegal for purchasers of some 
businesses to lay-off some unwanted staff.  The biggest worry is that 
Margaret Wilsonovich can add to the list of workers that must be retained 
(currently cleaners and some others) by simple regulations.  She will need 
no mandate of Parliament.  She is one scary woman. 

gooner 

Russell writes: 

> Dont worry, it will be "bussiness as usuall" when it all beds down. The
> mineing industry was going to suffer if children had to go to school and
> were not allowed to work seams to narrow for adults.
> In my life time, the cry went out, the country cannot afford to give workers
> 3 weeks holiday a year, now we are looking at 4.
> Change is the only constant thing, we all get used to it and its then "back
> to bussiness as usuall" this time its no different.
> Allan.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: mixtrader
> To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 2:54 PM
> Subject: [sharechat] Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
> 
> 
> Hi Sharechatters 
> 
> Following on from the discussion on risk... 
> 
> I am keen to know your views on the impact of the legislative changes
> proposed by Ms Wilson with particular reference to the risk it poses the
> economy in general and (more specifically) the risk it poses the NZ equities
> markets. 
> 
> For the record, my own analysis is that it will increase business compliance
> costs, decrease worker productivity, decrease GDP per capita, increase
> problems in the labour market through increased activism, and limit the
> willingness of entrepreneurial people to embark on new undertakings or
> expansion of existing businesses. 
> 
> My thoughts are that the fundamentalists among us might view some industries
> as being inherently more risky for investment which could lead to something
> of a shift in the firms that they are prepared to invest in. 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/ 
> 
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/