Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:57a.m.
By Phillip Patston
If you are old enough, you'll remember the Osmonds proclaimed, "One bad apple don't spoil a whole bunch, girl”. Thirty-five odd years later, when it comes to employment and law enforcement, the fear of God is in me that the Mormon pop sensations' wise advice is going unheeded and a few bad apples are about to spoil it for the bunch.
But maybe it's not the bad apples that are at fault.
A police dog gets killed so all police must wear guns. A couple of employees embellish their CVs and every prospective jobseeker needs a probation period. Could it be that knee-jerk reactions to the odd worm-eaten fruit are going to taint the whole crop?
When I heard about poor old Gage being shot after a "routine enquiry" uncovered the smell of cannabis and provoked a search without warrant (or should that be 'an unwarranted search'?), my first thought was, another good reason to decriminalise dope. But the nation's leaders, media and populace seemed to miss the opportunity for prevention – instead, we are fair headed down the neanderthal path of fighting fire with fire.
Likewise, those on both sides of the 90-day employment probation argument seem oblivious to the fact that the furore over rights and responsibilities is being fuelled by a culture that allows a small percentage of shoddy employers and dishonest candidates to treat people badly. No matter their reasons, they should know better. Why are we designing employment law to cater to such disingenuous agendas?
Peter Cresswell wrote a compelling blog last week, agreeing with Auckland City mayoral candidate Simon Prast's stand that prohibition of drugs doesn't work. Cresswell let journalist Johann Hari summarise:
"[As Milton Friedman pointed out with his Iron Law of Prohibition], chronic drug use will be a problem whatever we do, but adding a vast layer of criminality, making the drugs more toxic, and squandering £20bn on enforcing prohibition that could be spent on prescription and rehab, only exacerbates the problem. ‘Drugs are a tragedy for addicts,’ [Friedman] said. “But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike.’”
Obviously, Gage's demise was directly related to drug prohibition and I'll bet if we delve below the surface of Sunday night's taser-fail and subsequent shooting in New Lynn, there will be a drug connection there, too. Arming police is a red herring.
So too, in my opinion, is the debate over trial periods in employment contracts.
What I'd like to be discussing, rationally and creatively, is how we improve trust in employment culture. I'm an employer, in fact I recruited four new employees last week, and I invoked the 90 day trial period, because I could. But the conversation I had with my employees was that I saw the trial as a buffer for both parties to realise we'd made a bad choice. Any choice to terminate the agreement would be well-discussed and a last resort.
To be honest I feel torn about using the clause because, while I genuinely want to trust the people I just employed, I cannot trust the culture of litigiousness that may prevail should I decide one of my appointments is not right for the job. I should clarify that I fit into the under 20 employees category.
At this point I'm really not sure whether I think the policy should be extended to all employers or not. What I do know is that, whatever someone's contract says, how employment situations are dealt with comes down to the skill and integrity of the employer and employee to manage a difficult transaction. Ensuring and improving that, is where I'd like to see my tax dollar going. Perhaps it's not quite as simple as, "Give me one more chance before you give up on love." But it could be a matter of examining the method of harvest. And, of course, speaking of apples, the question remains of whether they should attract GST.