We supported absolutely what we perceived as the Government's original intentions with this clause, that is, to introduce legislation which could effectively and rapidly deal with the situation which arises when an employer deliberately evades paying wages and holiday pay owed to workers.
Having worked with very low income people in Auckland over the last sixteen years I have watched with apprehension the rise of what can only be called sweated labour, exploitation of a degree and scale which was unthinkable in the 60s and 70s. In our unemployed workers' organisation we often heard of people, particularly refugees and migrants from Asia and the Pacific.... and more recently from Eastern Europe and the Middle East.... who worked in places like building sites, offices, garages and homes for as little as $2 an hour, and with none of the conditions or protections afforded even the most hard pressed of the traditional New Zealand workforce.
Such migrants often have little grasp of the English language, and in some cases are in the country illegally. They fear the law, and usually have no knowledge of local organisations who might be able to help them. Even when they do become aware that assistance might be available, such workers can be terrified of telling anyone of their situation for fear of various forms of retribution.
The Green Party therefore was keen to support any and all efforts by Government to help knock this type of gross abuse on the head once and for all. Unfortunately, the clause as originally drafted did lack sufficient clarity, and we could sympathise with the confusion and fear caused in the minds of many employers, managers and directors.
We were also anxious about the possible impact of
Clause 245 as originally drafted on voluntary organisations of all sorts. As anyone who
has much to do with the not for profit sector knows, it is often hard these days to
find competent people willing to put the time in voluntarily on the Boards and
Management Committees of schools, community groups, trusts and all the other plethora of
organisations which play such a critical role in our society.
As a number of submitters to the Select Committee pointed out, the clause as originally
drafted would have made it harder still to recruit people, especially those with any
personal assets whatsoever, on to the governing bodies of schools and community groups.
There is a lot of fear out there already about the financial liability of trustees - to
have added this extra burden would have had, I believe, acute consequences for the
voluntary sector.
The Green Party therefore worked to remove any reference to charitable trusts or incorporated societies from this section of the Employment Relations Bill, and we are pleased that this was achieved as part of the redrafting process. The new clause applies only to limited liability companies, and this was the only basis on which we could support it. The redrafted version also overcomes our concerns about the original clause, as it clarifies and narrows down the situations in which liability will apply. Because the clause will affect only deliberate attempts by companies to avoid their most basic responsibility to pay minimum wages to their workers, the Green Party now has no hesitation in voting for it as amended.
Subscribe to email newsletters
