Govt caves in to sleepover pay demands

Email
Print

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 5:52a.m.

The support workers have not been paid the $13 an hour minimum wage for sleepover shifts with disabled people

The support workers have not been paid the $13 an hour minimum wage for sleepover shifts with disabled people

Unions have agreed to drop legal action over pay for disability support workers after the government said it would put up $90 million to phase in minimum wages for sleepover shifts.

The support workers have not been paid the $13 an hour minimum wage for sleepover shifts with disabled people, receiving instead a much lower allowance, and their case has reached the Supreme Court.

Health Minister Tony Ryall said on Monday $90 million would go towards phasing in minimum wage rates by 2013, and an extra $27.5 million would go towards back-pay liabilities.

"The employers, the union and the Crown have agreed to seek to discontinue litigation currently in front of the Supreme Court."

Providers of disability support services are also putting in money and Mr Ryall said the agreement was a fair one.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

14 Sep 2011 08:06a.m.

Jack endaboch wrote:

Accepting the underserved windfall(tantamount to paid hours)is a retrospective admission that staff were asleep on the job and they therefore should be subject to code of conduct violations. You can't have it both ways.

13 Sep 2011 04:51p.m.

Caro wrote:

Get over yourself jack, the majority of these workers are not greedy at all. The people I know at Idea work way more hours than they ever sign for and enrich the lives of our families in their care. These workers need a living wage then staff retention might improve too.

13 Sep 2011 04:04p.m.

brian wrote:

jack: Couldn't agree with you more. A contract is - defined in law - as being an agreement reached between two - or more - peoples (parties to te agreement). The Govt, nor any court in this land are party to that agreement - per force - as neither had been co-joined at jack: Couldn't agree with you more. A contract is - as defined in law - as being an agreement reached between two - or more - equals, i.e. the parties to the agreement. The Govt, nor any court in this land were then - or now - party to that agreement - per force - and neither had been co-joined at the beginning of "the agreement" of that employment, nor was it then unlawful for such a contract - that suited all parties - to enter into such an equally beneficial agreement. Nor was "that" agreement unlawful then (or now) Again we see the "idiots" contriving to "create" a new set of rules that override contracts - then - made in good faith. The parties concerned (then and in full agreement, then) were all quite content prior to - this - the heavy hand of "the idiot factor" the bureaucracy - trough feeders - stepping into where angels fear to tread. Let's get this straight! A contract is a contract. It's like marriage, where "one" is intoned upon to speak now (which was then, decades ago) or forever hold their peace, end of story. Petty Bureaucracy *F* off.the beginning of "the agreement" for that employment. Again we see the "idiots" contriving to "create" a new set of rules that over-ride contracts made. The parties concerned were all quite content prior to the heavy hand of "the idiot factor" beaucracy - trough feeders - stepping into where angels fear to tread. Let's get this sraight! A contract is a contract. It's like marriage, speak now (which was then, decades ago) or ever hold their peace, end of story. Petty beaucracy *F* off.

13 Sep 2011 02:47p.m.

roydon wrote:

this gov't fought strongly against this but in the end the courts ruled against them. tony ryall has cut that many jobs that every hospital bar none is short staffed.
vote national,never in a million years.
congratulations to the workers for this success, a combined effort that if national had their way would never happen.

13 Sep 2011 09:42a.m.

jack endaboch wrote:

How quickly the ethos of the staff of a welfare agency shifts from altruism and helping to maintain a positive life-style change. All those litigants signed up for the conditions of employment that required a sleepover component, it was never intended to be paid work for that provision of the service.If it did not meet the expectation or idea of paid work then individuals were free to work elsewhere. If honesty was an issue then many would not accept the backpay as they worked the system to allow for greater access to Sleepover rostering because it suited many.Those in the know, know the system has been rorted for years. Sleepovers meant peoples' travel costs are less, they eat the food budgeted for the residents, they use power and facilities IHC pay for and on occasion they have partners stay (contrary to the rules) Now a union-led screwed up interpretation of service is promoted and incredulously accepted by the Courts. The good thing is IHC will revamp its residential services and rostering so the awake night-staff are now going to work their little tushes off. IHC staff by and large are good sorts but a large number are in it for what they can take from a system that struggles with accountability and good process. Their letters of confirmation for their undeserved windfall should be addressed...Dear Greedy Buggers.