Migrants quitting NZ in bigger numbers

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000949DF-5958-149A-BB1483027AF1010F

Friday June 23, 2006
By Angela Gregory

The number of immigrants who leave after staying for more than a year has doubled in the past decade.

Migration researcher Professor Richard Bedford told an immigration conference in Auckland yesterday that many more people who came to this country intending to stay for the long term were now leaving for the long term.

In the year to March 1996, 11,930 migrants had left, intending to stay away for 12 months or more, compared with 22,090 in the year to March 2006.

The figures do not include New Zealand citizens.

Of those migrants who left in the 12 months to March this year, 41 per cent were originally from Asian countries and just over half were from traditional migrant source countries such as Britain.

Professor Bedford thought some migrants weren't settling because of the difficulty of getting other family members into the country.

He said the family quota was not being increased in proportion to the growing numbers of migrants coming in.

Professor Bedford, convener of Waikato University's migration research group, said much of the pressure to bring in family members came from the Asian migrants.

"We have sought people from that part of the world but not made it easy for them to have their families here."

He gave a warning that New Zealand could not assume countries such as China and India were bottomless sources of skilled migrants.

They were increasingly competed for by other countries and some were now wanting to return home as local opportunities increased.

Chinese migrants to Canada were increasingly returning to China, he said.

Professor Bedford said global migration was increasingly mobile.

New Zealand had the highest per capita rate of immigration and emigration in the OECD, as well as the largest numbers of its people living overseas relative to its population size.

Professor Bedford considered the biggest challenge facing New Zealand in the next five years was to stop its workforce being gutted by other countries trying to lure the country's skilled workers.

$2400 worker's payout for filthy graffiti

Another laughable example of how New Zealand justice system works. To be fair, laws were enacted to protect employees against unjustified termination. Its not like in the Philippines wherein they can hire you for a maximum of six months and they can terminate the employment. Here, employers cannot simply sack an employee. There are procedures needed to be undertaken. If an employer is unsatisfied with an employer's work, it needs to have a discussion with the employee how can the situation be rectified. If it didn't work out, three strikes and you're out. Unfortunately, there are scumbags who take advantage of this. Read on...



$2400 worker's payout for filthy graffiti

Wednesday June 7, 2006
By Claire Trevett

A plasterer who wrote graffiti on a client's house and tried to use his employer's fuel card for his own van has been awarded $2400 for hurt and humiliation after he was eventually sacked for being late.

The Employment Relations Authority determined that Daniel John Paterson suffered because of his unjustified sacking from his job with Tauranga company Visual Coatings.

The authority ruled that Mr Paterson did not get an unequivocal warning that his job was at risk.

The decision, called "insane" by company owner Bruce Debenham, has stunned National's employment spokesman Wayne Mapp and been cited by employers as an example of sacked workers trying on the system.

Dr Mapp said: "The boss gives a young guy a go and he proves to be a headache so the boss gets punished. Where is the justice in that?"

Employers and Manufacturers Association spokesman David Lowe said workers were "trying their luck to see if their employer can be tripped up".

Mr Paterson was sacked after working for Visual Coatings for three months, during which time he tried to fill up his car using a company fuel card at 12.30am on a Friday after a night out drinking with a friend.

The petrol station rang Mr Debenham to tell him the card was being used without authorisation.

Mr Paterson also scrawled obscene words on the windows of a house he was working on. Another colleague drew swastikas on the house framings.

Both were seen by the owners of the house and their 7-year-old son. The owners were religious and one was Jewish with a parent who had survived the Holocaust and was due to visit.

The authority said that although it believed Mr Debenham had issued warnings, he had not given Mr Paterson an unequivocal warning that his job was at risk.

It ruled that Mr Paterson was not entitled to reimbursement for lost wages because he had not served out his week's notice or looked for a new job hard enough, but he was given $2400 for suffering hurt and humiliation.

Mr Debenham told the Herald Mr Paterson's actions had put his company's livelihood at risk and the ruling was "insane".

"The people who owned that house were both religious. One was Christian and the other Jewish. They both felt their new house had been tainted when they saw the graffiti. We almost lost our work with the building contractor through it."

He said he could appeal, but he was not sure if it was worth the time and money.

Dr Mapp, who is sponsoring the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill, which allows for a 90-day trial period for new workers, said this was a classic case where his legislation would apply.

"Here is a guy who proved to be a plonker well within three months, yet the boss had to pay him $2400."

The case has also upset the Employers and Manufacturers Association, which said a rise in cases to the Employment Relations Authority was the result of workers using its processes frivolously, simply to try their luck in taking on the boss.

Mr Lowe said the ERA had become a "grievance gravy train" after a 28 per cent growth in cases in the past year.

The increase was partly because of the complicated procedures for employers dealing with workplace problems. Small businesses were particularly vulnerable because many could not afford experts to see them through the red tape.

Another reason was workers "trying their luck to see if their employer can be tripped up".

Mr Lowe said the awards system was a lottery and the discretion given to members led to large variations in payments for hurt and humiliation.

Awards given by Wellington authority members were an average $7208, compared with $4825 in Auckland and $4809 in Christchurch.

The national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, Andrew Little, said workers did not use the personal grievance process lightly.

"Going to court against the boss is one of the most stressful things that can happen to a worker.

"Workers who have been sacked or treated badly in some way usually feel pretty battered and bruised and you've got to be pretty gutsy to go through with a case."

Labour laws were flexible and the problem was bad managers who did not follow fair procedure.

Dr Mapp said protection in genuine cases of grievance was important, but the system had flaws.

GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY

* 436 personal grievance cases before the Employment Relations Authority last year

* 340 in 2004

Decisions in favour of employees:

* 58% last year

* 52% in 2004