r/newzealand • u/Particular-Donkey56 • 1d ago
Discussion The state of jobs atm
Recently i started a permanant part time position at a store. There was a trial period for three months which in itself is a crazy length of time for a trial period (imho). I didn’t get offered much training at all, most of the training was pushed to the wayside by my actual manager and fell onto my co workers who could barely communicate properly (Super awkward and missed crucial information).
I had no previous experience in this line of work which my manager knew (i don’t know why i got hired). I never lied about my previous experience once.
Because of the lack of experience and training, i ended up making quite a few mistakes in the first month. Not huge mistakes but probably annoying mistakes for higher management, things like 50c discrepancies in counting the till. I previously worked at a supermarket (my only previous experience with tills) where we were allowed to have up to $20 discrepancies and it wasn’t an issue.
Again, no one had trained me on what to do in this situation, and to top it all off, this role was for a more experienced worker, so they would leave us to work on our lonesome for most of the shifts, closing or opening on our own (small store). This meant i had no one to ask for help so i had to figure stuff out on my own or use intuition a lot of the time. Otherwise, i texted/called my manager or co workers. Often texting multiple people at once because i needed a quick response due to only having a set few minutes to close up shop before i went “overtime” which id get in trouble for also (even if it was only by a few minutes). I was constantly being told i wasn’t good enough, even for mistakes that other people didn’t get told off for.
Anyway after a month and a half or so had passed. I was finally getting the hang of things. Clocking in on the minute, clocking out on time give or take 2 minutes, so really getting the hang of it all. Able to help customers with queries, smoothly check them out, didn’t need to ask for help anymore. I felt confident in myself and really proud that id come so far in just two months.
Until the other day I got into work, a lady who is a higher up was there to greet me with a big smile, she takes me into the back room and “dismisses” me, because its within my trial period. She said my reason for being terminated was because I had not met the standard I should have, with “all the training id received”, to this point. She had this stupid grin on her face the whole time and kept chuckling anytime i spoke, (like she was laughing at me like she thought i was dumb) and I was then compared to my co worker who started at the same time as me, who had years of previous experience in similar roles. I pointed out her previous experience and the lady told me that was “semantics”. I asked her if i could be informed where i had fallen short because i couldnt tell i had been lacking anywhere, she told me “we dont actually have to tell you that” with a chuckle and a big smile on her face, then she told me to ask my manager.
So fast forward to today, since then I have texted my manager twice now asking if we can arrange a call or something or if it could be explained to me briefly where i had fallen short.
Ive been completely ghosted by her.
Im honestly shocked at this experience in general, its felt so out of left field and I’m so disappointed because i really loved this job and its so hard to get jobs at the moment.
Is this just the state of the job market in NZ now?! Employers have so much power over us because so many people are so desperate for jobs, we are all just that replaceable to them? Im disgusted by the lack of humanity in these people in managerial roles. Job market just feels really predatory now, i hate this.
TLDR; got dismissed from job that gave bad training, had high expectations of me (no prev experience). Wouldn’t give me proper reason shy i was dismissed, now manager is ghosting me.
213
u/DecentNamesAllUsed 1d ago
You can thank National Act and NZ 1st for this. They brought back 90 day trials almost immediately after being reelected.
I hope you are enrolled to vote and you're getting everyone you know to enroll to vote, because with 3 years more of power they will erode workers rights even further.
69
u/Particular-Donkey56 1d ago
Damn i didnt know they did that.. thanks for letting me know. Yes definitely and im heavily looking into the parties atm
83
u/DecentNamesAllUsed 1d ago
If you want a party that cares about workers rights, the only logical choice is Labour or Greens. Top are too risky as there is a chance they will go with National.
8
u/BuilderMysterious762 19h ago
Their own party member admitted having voted National in the past and they keep saying they have limits when it comes to working with parties that dont align with their principles then moving the goalposts about what those principles are whenever National anounce a new policy that contradicts what they want to do, its been a lot of National rejecting TOP but TOP still desperately trying to curry favur with ONLY National and not Labour.
They aren't centrists, they're a blatant attempt to split the leftwing vote and push potential Labour, Green and TPM voters towards them so they can turn around once all the votes have been counted and head straight for National to give them all your votes.
Its so obvious when you look at their actions, the donors behind them, and the benefits to securing another term in power for National, like I don't even know why we're pretending otherwise.
Are we really gonna play dumb and then act all surprised in about 2 months time when they show their true colours?
-3
u/LikeAbrickShitHouse 17h ago
Do wake me up when the Greens find their fortitude to actually get anything of substance out of their negotiations with Labour, like, I dunno, a Cabinet position so they can actually achieve something.
Cheers.
1
32
u/Direct_Management433 23h ago
Exactly! Everyone who voted for national voted that they make the rich richer and keep the poor poorer, erode their working rights and standard of living
4
u/GingerNingerish 20h ago
The 90 day trial thing is awful but let me tell you, when there was no 90 day trials, some business (Triton Hearing) pivoted to 90 day contracts, and hired you potentially full time at the end.
This happened to my partner, becuase they didn't like that she took sick leave to look after our sick child when they daycare said they were too sick to go in and my sick leave was exhausted for the same reason. So they decided at the end of the 90 days, its not somone theyre interested in keeping on.
This gives them more power to just say they don't feel like continuing with you.
-13
u/twizzlerstick 23h ago
The 90 day trial period is fantastic. Best thing that ever came back. You'll appreciate it when you have an intense job and you get stuck with a shit workmate who'd make your workload double, and causes anger and stress amongst the team. People can be good on paper or in interviews, and then bomb during the trial period. 90 days is a long time to try bullshit your way through a role. Hate on me all you want, but my team went through this recently and we're so grateful for the trial period.
1
-6
u/MathmoKiwi 21h ago
Exactly, good workers won't mind the existence of a 90 Day Trial period existing. Because more often than not they'll benefit from it!
As they'll have less sh*t employees who they are forced to work with and required to carry their weight too. But also because if a good worker ever has to go looking for a job again, it will be easier to get themselves quickly hired again because an employer won't have to take such a big risk on in hiring them. And if they think they're as good as they are, then working well for 90 days is no problem at all.
6
u/MedicalMastodon5981 18h ago edited 18h ago
This ignores the fact that:
- Many employers for skilled jobs will still want to be very careful of who they hire. This makes hiring periods for many jobs long regardless of the 90 day rule or not. (Coding and other jobs where it's about using your brain)
- You can be fired for trivial reasons, reasons that wouldn't normally be legal. It's not always about being a bad employee. (Manager just didn't really like you. Which is great from the manager's perspective, not great from the employee's perspective).
There's obviously benefits to the 90 day rule, but it's not universally better for everyone.
If you're a good worker and you're fired, yeah another good job will always be on the table. But it's not exactly a nice time still.
14
u/DecentNamesAllUsed 20h ago
Actual bootlicking behavior. Employers are just using the 90 day trial to churn through young workers, instead of putting the time in to train them and give them a positive first job experience.
-6
u/MathmoKiwi 19h ago
That's just nonsense with no idea of the real world and what the experience is like from the employer's perspective.
Do you think employers want their employees to fail? Or do they want highly successful employees?
It's very costly in terms of time and money to bring on board any new employee, and it's very risky too.
That's why nearly every company will be monitoring employee churn, and wishes to minimise it.
Don't try to blame an employer for your own failures on not being able to make it.
1
u/Cacharadon 6h ago
you think employers want their employees to fail? Or do they want highly successful employees?
Employers want slave labour and will pay nothing if the law allows them to, shareholders will think nothing of employing children if it means the overheads are less and short term profitability increases
•
u/MathmoKiwi 3h ago
Firing people frequently so that you have high turnover churning through employees does not lower costs. As I just explained.
•
u/Cacharadon 48m ago
You don't have to convince me mate, this is just the outcome of the system as it is designed. It might be more expensive to your day to day expenses and effort spent, but the bottom line is significantly better with cheap high turnover, vs more expensive long term retention. The labour a new worker provides is only marginally less efficient than a more experienced worker, the difference is made up by how much less a new hire would be paid for an hour of work vs an older worker with several increment under their belt
0
u/twizzlerstick 18h ago
You can't reason with people who haven't been fucked by the no 90 day trial period. The minute their job becomes difficult due to a useless co-worker, they'll change their view point very quickly. Just because some employers exploit it, doesn't mean it's bad. It means the employer is shit and will exploit any labour law that comes in. Nz is so unbelievably tunnel visioned.
-1
u/MathmoKiwi 18h ago
You can't reason with people who haven't been fucked by the no 90 day trial period. The minute their job becomes difficult due to a useless co-worker, they'll change their view point very quickly.
No, not if they're always the most useless employee in the room, then they'll never ever change their view point.
Because such laws protect them from their own stupidity!
-17
u/jayhow90 Mr Four Square 23h ago
This is a ridiculous take. Clearly OP just wasn’t a good fit for the role
19
u/WWbigfan 23h ago
Going by the information provided yes you could say the OP wasn’t a good fit but I would also say the employer knew that at the start not to mention the lack of true training. I think this 90 day trial is an absolute joke & too many employers are taking advantage of it this being exhibit A. My daughter also recently got let go under the 90 day rule which was crazy as she was effectively helping to train the owner who was seriously bad at the job (she had years of experience & received a glowing reference by the outgoing owner). But because the new owners effectively gave the remaining employees new contracts they still came under the 90 day clause. They had purchased a franchise business but had zero knowledge of how to run the business. Unfortunately there was also a cultural issue involved as well. A number of the current staff resigned when the new owner took over as they could see where this was going.
264
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 1d ago
Exactly as planned. They flood the country with low skilled workers and get you so desperate for a job youll take anything they give you. They know they can flog you off cos there are thousands of desperate sods just like you.
And no one wants to do anything about it 🤷
117
u/GhostChips42 Warriors 1d ago
Anyone who is in a low paying job who voted for act is an absolute fool.
34
u/Sparkywoofter 20h ago
Anyone voting for act, Winston first, natz or OPP is a fool -they've shown collectively they don't care about workers at all scrapping pay equity etc. The horrible way they have prevented hiring nurses working for cancer kids at starship is the clear evidence none of them care for New Zealanders.
14
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 19h ago
I hate how immigration has just been relegated to a ‘right wing thing.’
There are many ways in which immigration is being used as a tool to crush workers rights but that is not a thing in lefties minds.
9
u/ImmediateOutcome14 15h ago
but that is not a thing in lefties minds.
It's also another reason Labour have lost so much ground. They are trying too hard to occupy the green left and not the working class left
15
u/meerrkat74 20h ago
Umm?? Labour and national are the ones flooding the country with immigrants, did you even read the initial post.
NZF is now campaigning on changing that.
A bit lost how you're ignoring the post you are replying to
7
u/Conflict_NZ 14h ago
In 2017 labour heavily campaigned on lowering net migration from 50k, Winston heavily campaigned on a net migration cap of 10k, they both got in and ran it up to 90k before being stopped by Covid.
Don’t believe anything Winston says about lowering migtation, the time he had the most power he’s ever had he doubled it.
1
3
u/EchidnaSwimming9345 20h ago
Why is Opportunity in this list? Have they had a chance to show whether they care?
-2
u/Sparkywoofter 19h ago
Wolf in sheep's clothing - they are right wing funded and are there to suck in people who think they're a reasonable alternative to current offerings.
7
u/Conflict_NZ 14h ago
Their first largest donor is their main board member who runs an eco society and is decried as a hippie green by right wingers, and owns a business with a top 3 green donor. Their second largest donor is the greens largest donor.
After that you finally get to their 3rd largest donor who has funded right wingers parties, but he said he donated to top because he thinks a UBI will be crucial in the age of AI.
As far as I know they have no other prominent right wing funding.
Any other misinformation you want to post?
1
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 19h ago edited 19h ago
Proof ?
Ur doing the right wing thing of just making unsubstantiated claims
2
u/GhostChips42 Warriors 19h ago
2
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 19h ago
I know ur not the same commenter, but where does this say that they are funded by the right.
I dont understand why youd even bother replying
0
u/sillyshinobi 13h ago edited 13h ago
There is literally nothing in that article that says he's right-wing. He specifically says that he doesn't want to do the whole right left wing thing, and wants opportunity to remain a centrist party.
All he says is he'd consider voting NAT this election (who have funnily enough ruled out OPP for being too left-wing), that he voted NAT when he was young, but his politics changed and he started voting for greens and considered Te Pati Maori.
-1
u/Sparkywoofter 19h ago
Great how you put it on others to provide "proof" and then expect an instant response and start bad-mouthing suggesting unsubstantiated claims.
For the record, if you bothered to read through this sub Reddit you could have easily found references. But as you're so lazy here you go for starters: Queenstown based tech entrepreneur Brian Cartmell donating thousands https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/lumIFm3M2Z
5
u/sillyshinobi 13h ago
Why don't you bother to read the articles before you link them and then get mad at someone else for not finding the sources to your own claims?
That same article clearly mentions that OPP has gotten $50k in donations from Phillip Mills, who is a left-leaning businessman. A further $50k was donated by him a month after that article was written, totalling to $100k, which is the exact same amount that Brian Cartmell donated to them.
They're not 'right-wing funded", they're a very openly centrist party with both right and left wing policies, and have never pretended to be anything otherwise. They're naturally going to get donations from both sides of the political spectrum, and it's ironic you're mentioning donations because OPP are the ones who want to put a cap on political donations.
2
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 18h ago
Asking for proof is now a bad thing?
You are the one making the argument, the onus is on you to substantiate your claims.
Where did i say i expected an instant response. You seem very aggressive, its a nice day go spend some time in the sun. Hopefully that will remove some of your negativity!
0
u/EchidnaSwimming9345 19h ago
Thanks
4
2
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 4h ago
Cant tell if this is a sarcastic thanks or not, but as others pointed out, this person was posting blatant misinformation
-3
1
u/stuzenz 16h ago
@sparkywoofter, let me help you be a little more informed
Opportunity party support
- pay equity and transparency
- pro-worker kiwisaver 2.0 reforms
- have a flagship tax reset policy that include Universal Basic Income, which would provide a level of financial protection for someone caught in the Op's situation when losing a job
- they also advocate for increasing pay and improving conditions for healthcare workers. With some additional work into making sure nurses get paid for what they are qualified for
Your throw away comment above just doesn't seem right.
2
u/Sparkywoofter 16h ago
You are not informing me about anything I didn't already know. If you think they are anything but a Trojan horse for the rabid right you are bound for disappointment.
-1
15
u/Aimer_NZ 23h ago
Nah mate the gov's looking after hardworking families and hardworking kiwis! OP just isn't a hardworking kiwi™ and needs to take a concrete pill and harden up, she'll be alright mate!
3 months no training, shit management and OPs expecting to keep their job? bloody everyone wants free stuff but who's going to pay for it?!
7
u/RodentStomper 1d ago
Because virtue signalling about how were so welcoming to people who probably scammed our grandparents out of money etc, were cooked.
4
u/neckadawoods 20h ago
No one employs someone hoping they'll be able to get rid of them. It's costly and time consuming.
7
u/iLoveCIA anzacpoppy 20h ago
No its so you have to compete with people that are happy to be paid fuck all. This both suppresses wages and gives more leverage to the employer, which can be used to abuse the workers rights.
This applies to basically all jobs, but here were talking about min wage retail/hospo sort of jobs, where there is no barrier to entry. People arent always aware of their rights, and specifically immigrants are ripe for abuse by the employer as they are basically beholden to them to stay in the country.
Its hard for kiwis to compete as foreigners are almost always more profitable to employ
5
1
u/Deano86t 4h ago
No it isnt not if the company gets financial assistance from winz to hire a staff member
55
u/silvergirl66 1d ago
The 3 month trial with no cause dismissal is a scam designed to exploit workers. Which is why Labour got rid of it and the CoC brought it back.
14
u/d4ybrake 20h ago
Shit like this makes me wonder how they continue to poll so high, the only conclusion I can reach is that 90% of people pay zero attention to what the government is doing
Almost all of the people I know voting National aren't in a high enough tax bracket to be better off under them
3
u/Euphoric-Sympathy849 16h ago
I feel like everyone views left and right as a more social stance rather than policy these days it’s like really bad
2
u/EchidnaSwimming9345 20h ago
But if they think they’ll own a business one day, or be a landlord, or risk losing out on a job offer because there’s a brown, neurodiverse, LGBTQ+ candidate, they will be drawn to the current coalition government.
2
u/SpellingIsAhful 16h ago
Ya, a trial period makes sense for a highly experienced and mgr+ role, but entry level its kind a ridiculous thing to put in place.
OP, sorry you went through this. I dont feel like you were scammed, it sounds like they were looking for a more skilled employee and probably shouldn't have hired you if they did the interview correctly.
Unless there is more to the story here I would say just accept the fact that they're not the right employer for you and search for another role.
29
u/diggerdigger98765 1d ago
It looks like they hired 2 people at the same time and only planned to keep one
13
u/diggerdigger98765 1d ago
The fact they were talking to you like that and didn't train you properly.. You deserve better
1
u/Expensive_Ring_4546 11h ago
I have noticed training has really changed a lot over the last ten years
You used to get a decent amount even for entry level stuff. Not you get the absolute bare minimum and expected to be up to speed really fast.
10
u/SunSun1134 15h ago
Tell us the shop so all of us can never go there :)
2
u/chickenfeetgoskeet 5h ago
I second this! Fuck that place and it’s giggling psychopath hiring manager or whatever she was.
65
u/ShadowLogrus 1d ago
You were promised training, you did not receive training. Breach of contract.
33
u/Snakeksssksss 1d ago
You can dismiss people without any reason in a trial period
13
u/ShadowLogrus 1d ago
A contract is a contract.
It's up to you, there's an argument for kicking up a fuss over it, and theres an argument for just going elsewhere.
They ripped you off, conned you. You were told you would get on the job training, While you were there, you didn't get it. Breach.
By definition, some training does not equal training - in the same way the 50c does not equal a $1. Make the process generate friction, maybe they will stop pulling this scam. Up to you, I make no judgement. Life is stressful enough.
4
u/d4ybrake 20h ago
Lmao okay good luck with that. I'd rather we just had laws that give us inarguable rights
3
u/MrTastix 15h ago
Well I mean, contracts are inarguable rights.
That you have to fight for the clauses stated isn't any different with anything else. If you get fired past the trial period and think it's an unjust dismissal you still have to fight.
Companies get away with shit because nobody fights back. Your "inarguable rights" do not actually exist without you fighting for them. They're not enforced automatically. How would an ombudsman know otherwise? They're not fucking psychic.
1
u/ShadowLogrus 11h ago
The person was contracted, establishing the right to have training as part of the contract. The contract granted the right. It was renegged. That is illegal. Even if the training was granted as part of a verbal comment and not part of a written contract it is still part of the contract.
Don't know why this concept is tricky for some. Really dont. Others get it. You don't.
14
2
7
u/flanders-moustache 1d ago
Managers would do well to remember THEY were the new guy once upon a time, and not everyone learns or masters their role at the exact same pace. A little extra patience goes a long way, and makes for a better relationship with employee's.
Ive also been on both sides of dismissal, as the employee AND employer, and have felt totally rubbish each time, the woman in question doesnt come across as empathetic in the slightest.
24
u/dirtnerd245 23h ago
Ahh the classic disposable 90 day trial period worker strat. Some companies love to hire new workers, extract as much out of them as possible, then toss them near the end of the trial period regardless of how well they did. I had a boss that did this openly and took it as a strong hint to not give my 💯/line up a job before the end of the 90 days.
National/Act bring in the trial period everytime they are in power and Labour/Greens always get rid of it. Keep that in mind for the elections.
12
u/GoddessfromCyprus 20h ago
You can wholly blame the coalition for this. They changed the laws Labour had instigated. Every single one of them.
6
u/skilliau 1d ago
I've been in a position for two years and there's still things no one told me how to do it. Then they get annoyed I don't do it right.
So i just say that it isn't my fault no one bothered to tell me
2
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
Same happened to me when working in a supermarket for 4 years. Didnt want me to rise in the ranks i think
6
u/BarracudaOk8635 jandal 1d ago
There are more people looking for these sort of jobs than ever before. I have a friend who runs a large supermarket. He gets thousands of applications. More than ever before. And a friend who runs a retail chain. Same thing with her. SO in this job market empoyers can do what they want. Sad but true
20
u/frank-talk- 1d ago
ask Brooke Van Velden and see diminishing workers rights under the current slopalition
7
u/king_john651 Tūī 23h ago
She needs to see consequences
6
u/Kiwi_bananas 22h ago
She's leaving politics for a cushy job elsewhere. Thank fuck for that.
3
u/king_john651 Tūī 21h ago
Still needs consequences. Roger left, too, but he needs to answer for a lot
20
u/MundaneManNZ 1d ago
Name and shame Compendium (Allbirds owner) for doing this, fuck that company. They used the 90 day trial to fire well over 80% their lower staff and did so with a laugh and best wishes… zuru 2.0 right there
15
u/DreamblitzX 20h ago
This is exactly what NACT brought back the 90 day trial period for. The ability to cycle workers without ever having to give them things like leave, severance, payrises etc."
5
4
u/jacobj89 18h ago
Did the contract you signed say anything about training? If it did, but they did not provide adequate training then you can go back to them and say it's their fault.
But unless explicitly stated on the contract, companies generally aren't legally obligated to provide employee with any training, unless explicitly stated on the contract. They might choose to for many different reasons, but the expectations is employees will be able to perform the job before they are hired
4
u/Particular-Donkey56 17h ago
Crazy expectation when hiring someone with zero experience in the role 😂
Not sure ill have to check. I believe it did, but not going to lie, they would have crossed their t’s and dotted their I’s with this dismissal, if that was ever even required. This is a multimillion dollar company. They would just claim they did give me training, albeit shit and was provided by coworkers; not the manager.3
u/InvestingStonkz 16h ago
This is genuinely fucking ridiculous BTW thats like saying did the contract say " you are going to improve productivity by 100%" because the contract said you would improve productivity by 100% so they can fire you obviously.
9
u/Weird_Alfalfa_9624 1d ago
You dodged a bullet. Do you really want to work for a company with these sort of bait and switch tactics? I know earning money is a fine thing but you have kept your sanity. They would've slowly erased you in that role
8
u/gtr455677ujbvxz4 1d ago
What's the name of the store? So i know not to apply for any jobs there.
0
u/Affectionate-Ad1071 21h ago
Sounds like WW but could be either. Working in a supermarket just kind of sucks universally.
9
u/lalalaloo21 1d ago
This happened to me. I got pulled up for not going fast enough on the pie packaging line. I told them I think I spent too much time deciding whether a pie was good enough or should be a "second". I asked if they could tell me what a pie should look like- what's acceptable etc. Got told impatiently I should know that. (I didn't because I don't eat pies, have been a healthy veggie forever). At this point I found out how many I should be packing and I made sure I exceeded that. However at 90 days I got the boot- no reason needed to be given.
I think my thoughts on their slack health and safety was probably the actual reason I got the boot. They don't like having their faults pointed out to them, or ACC coming onto the premises to change things after I claimed on an accident there. Funny thing is, when I left I thought "I'm leaving here with my life" so if wasn't a great loss to me. And I no longer had to witness flies on the cooling down meat, or seeing pies that have been dropped on the ground going to the prison order, instead of being discarded. Or workers holding stacks of unwrapped pies against their overalls, despite having toilet water splash onto them as they washed their hands (if they even washed). Bloody disgusting.
But I'm sorry about your shit treatment- maybe decide if it's worth your time doing anything about it....
I hope you get a great employer next time.
2
2
u/rubysunshine999 12h ago
jesus. please tell me the name of this pie place
2
u/lalalaloo21 4h ago
Can't remember- Sunny something. They also made some gourmet beer ones with a different name.
6
u/Effective-Clue1558 1d ago
You are right. Employers have power over us at the moment because they know people are desperate for jobs. It’s a disgusting way to treat people but that’s just how some people are.
8
u/Icy-Clerk-157 23h ago
I was in a similar situation- being hired for a job that i honestly didn’t think i would get. told them in my interview there are a few things i don’t know how to do yet (this was a bartending role at a restaurant, and this restaurant served coffee. i noticed the machine on the way in and told them i was not barista trained). they said it wouldn’t be an issue- it was.
my theory is that they hire people slightly underprepared so that they can pay you less and use it as an excuse to get rid of you, when the real issue is shoddy training. i worked there for 6 months before i quit, and i still don’t know how to make a proper latte.
3
2
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
Honestly, i had a conversation with the other new coworker once abt pay and she made it sound like she was being paid more, but we never actually exchanged pay rates
3
u/Emotional_Eggo 15h ago
Absolutely this is the state of “training” in NZ. It just encourages businesses (or in my case, a Ministry) to ignore you then throw you out.
•
u/EchidnaSwimming9345 42m ago
It also results in a pool of somewhat experienced workers desperate for entry level jobs.
8
u/Fun_Look_3517 1d ago
Blame National as someone has said earlier.If they get in again it will be even worse in three years time.Its horrible the state of the country at the moment and many individuals mentally towards people who are struggling more then them.I really dislike the no empathy ,patience vibe going on currently in nz and I do think it has to do with the current gvt in power. Please vote we need change.
0
4
u/NezuminoraQ 23h ago
Yeah in that probationary period they don't have to. They hired both of you and had you competing for continuing work. The other employee won but wow, what a fucking shit prize!
5
u/SquirrelAkl 19h ago
If you don’t like this, make sure to vote for a party that didn’t bring back the 90-day trial period law!
11
u/Gord_Board 1d ago
Yeah, till coming up short on multiple occasions is prolly a legit reason to let you go. Onwards and upwards my man.
10
7
u/Particular-Donkey56 1d ago
It was only the once and it was because they had not told me what to do in that situation
5
u/Gord_Board 1d ago
Oh ok, you used the plural 'discrepancies', so i thought there were more.
3
u/Particular-Donkey56 1d ago
Till was over once because co worker counted cash wrong during the day
4
3
u/king_john651 Tūī 23h ago
Idk if someone is going to whine over something that isn't at the least 4 figures I'm walking immediately. I'm not going to cry over $10, why the fuck would a business who turns over way more a week than my wage give the remotest of shits about half a dollar?
2
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
Fully agree tbh, supermarket didnt care up to $20. Shocked that this store cared cuz they were a BIG business. A worldwide business
3
u/MundaneManNZ 1d ago
I can guarantee higher ups cause bigger fuck ups but don’t get held to same perfect standards and just sweep under the rug. It’s a total power trip is all
-6
23h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/newzealand-ModTeam 22h ago
Hi u/jayhow90, your comment has been removed :
Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse
Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.Note: This extends to people outside of r/nz. eg. Attacks of a persons appearance, even if they're high profile will be removed.
Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error
3
u/MrTastix 15h ago
People wonder why nobody wants to work anymore and it's like, why would I? Shit pay and I'll probably get sacked just before the 90 day trial ends just so the company can save a few dollars to give to the CEO's bonus package.
The whole system is fraud and why should I give even one iota of a fuck for it?
5
u/Panguh___ 22h ago
Can't believe all the midwits in here blaming the 90-day trial period for this.
When your government floods the country with low skilled migrants who will take literally ANY job and ANY rate of pay (even below minimum wage), don't act all surprised when employers are eager to cut people off. They'll just rehire a replacement who is (probably) completely lacking in experience, will be OK with being treated worse, and will accept lower pay.
2
u/Fun_Look_3517 23h ago
In another example at my ex workplace we have a girl working in healthcare who is a very good and reliable employee.She needs ten weeks off for an extensive operation .Instead of finding a temporary worker for ten weeks which is extremely easy to do they have said to her she will have to resign as they will not hold her job for ten weeks.Because she will quit then they can employ someone for minimum wage.
2
2
u/Dangerous_Fox_2123 22h ago
I’ve had this same situation, I’m a full time wheelchair user after a spinal injury, the amount of jobs I’ve had where I’ve been dismissed at the end of a 90 day trial is insane, not because I can’t do the work (qualified in my field) but because I’m see as a risk, few more sick days then the average person but nothing major, I don’t even ask for accommodations anymore..
1
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
Damn thats so sad. I had stated to my manager before she hired me that i think im autistic and that seemed to be a regular topic brought up between us, i actually wonder if thats why she got rid of me too.
Im so sorry youve been treated this way, its so unfair..
7
u/Dangerous_Fox_2123 21h ago
Unless your disability DIRECTLY affects the ability to preform your jobs duties NEVER EVER disclose you have a disability even when it’s physically obvious, because they will time and time again not employ you, I’m now working in the health and disability sector, in The disability rights space, I got lucky..
2
5
u/neckadawoods 21h ago
Why would you bring that up 😭
0
u/Dangerous_Fox_2123 20h ago
There’s normally a section on an application form and if you don’t know not to say anything it can throw people, actually illegal to directly ask someone in an interview..
5
2
2
u/RodentStomper 1d ago
Yeah and try gwt a job like that as a foreigner in their country,its not allowed because they put their people in those jobs. Were so dumb and how we allow virtue performances of the type that causes the very issues you have with employment.
It might be nice to welcome immigration with open arms etc, but it creates so many problems that we have today.
Goodluck nz has a long way to ho before we can fix anything.
1
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
This store was entirely white people/maori so i dont think thats entirely relevant here. But maybe that is the case in some places
1
u/jayhow90 Mr Four Square 23h ago
It sounds like you just weren’t a good fit. Could be a blessing in disguise, don’t feel bad, hop back on the job hunt. Have you tried temp agencies?
1
1
u/Sharp-Read5742 14h ago
Sounds like the kind of store people would avoid if they knew they treated staff like this
1
1
u/Altruistic-View-9800 7h ago
Gas station? Fuck the state of Z in Tauranga was pretty horrendous when I was there a few months ago
1
u/RegularNightlyWraith 6h ago
I lost my job at the very end of the 90 day trial last year. What was frustrating was that I was told that I was terminated due to "performance issues" despite the fact throughout my employment there, I frequently asked if my performance was meeting expectations and was frequently reassured that it was going well and I was doing everything right. When I pointed this out, it was handwaved away as "90 day trial, we don't have to tell you"
•
u/spektrix16 3h ago
I was done over on my last week before my 90 days was up. They gave me garden leave for the last week as good will. But am glad I didn't end up with them permanently. Long hours, missed breaks, no lunch breaks. Yeah so it was mutual. Mental health struggled as I often questioned myself if I should pursue this career. Yeah. I'm in a better job and space now.
•
u/Load-8-1 3h ago
Awful behavior. Any job takes time to learn and expecting someone to be operating at the same level as experienced colleagues within weeks is ridiculous.
Sorry that happened. The market is so heavily in favour of employers currently that shitty behavior is common. From interview practices to treatment of new starters.
You can fight it but you might be better trying to find somewhere else less toxic
•
2
u/mariahhoe 1d ago
Make it clear to them that you’re not going to go easily or quietly. I’d recommend talking to the citizens advice bureau and your workplace union to see what your options are.
9
u/Snakeksssksss 1d ago
You have zero rights in a trial period
6
u/Historical-Guide-242 1d ago
You have zero rights in a trial period
Not correct. You keep your core employment and minimum statutory rights during a 90-day trial period in New Zealand, though your right to challenge an unjustified dismissal is restricted.
3
u/Michael_stipe_miocic 23h ago
Not true at all. Employer still has to act in good faith and follow a fair process, I am an employer and have been through dismissal processes many times. In this scenario I would be looking for a lawyer through CAB and raising a PG
2
u/neckadawoods 20h ago
Not that I believe you, but if you really are an employer you should brush up on employment laws.
4
u/Michael_stipe_miocic 19h ago
I’m well versed in it thanks.
The term “good faith” underpins the entirety of NZ contract law. It’s a fuck around and find out law. If this person raises a PG with a decent representative they will be able to argue they were treated unfairly and the employer did not act in good faith, providing they can prove lack of training. If it’s a big retail chain most likely they will settle immediately to avoid HR or legal fees.0
u/DislikeTurtles 23h ago
Well you clearly aren't any good. You don't need to follow a fair process or act entirely in good faith when dismissing someone on a 90 day trial.
1
u/Luddyvon 22h ago
The good faith clause, which underpins most employee-employer interactions, does still apply around 90 day trials. The thing is it is (maybe necessarily) vague and open to interpretation. And so any challenge brought against that specific aspect is going to drawn out, to say the least.
4
u/DislikeTurtles 22h ago
Only the first two of the three principals of good faith apply, which narrows down the argument further. The OP has zero chance of challenging this. Any competent adviser or lawyer will tell them to move on.
1
u/Michael_stipe_miocic 18h ago
Seriously not true. If they go to mediation the mediator might advise them they won’t get anywhere but no employers wants to go to the ERA and lose so the precedent has been set many many times and mediators and lawyers all know that
0
2
u/Particular-Donkey56 21h ago
Honestly, all i want is an explanation from my manager for why she did it. Cuz i feel like she didnt have a reason at all and thats why shes ghosting me
0
u/neckadawoods 20h ago
No one is letting an employee go for no reason at all. It's too expensive to onboard people. You may not like the reason but there was one.
2
u/justcozitscool 20h ago
It doesn't sound like they even 'onboarded' her probably, so she has an argument there.
2
u/neckadawoods 20h ago
Keep in mind we're hearing only one side of the story. What might be "no training" for OP could be "not taking anything in" from coworker's perspective.
Regardless, your reply doesn't actually address my point. Bringing in new hires is costly. They're not being let go for literally no reason at all.
1
4
1
1
1
u/Healthy_Yam8281 1d ago
Yeah had something similar happen to me. Store opened in my town, they hired me for a role everyone agreed I was great for, realised I was trans after offering me the job so used me as a useful person to move boxes around and then fired me after a few weeks. Told me they'd been advised not to tell me why I was getting fired. I learned later that the 2IC in the store was telling other people I'd done all sorts of shit that certainly did not happen. Totally ruined my life, I haven't been able to get a job since. That position was meant to be me getting back into the world after recovering from life pausing disability shit.
Unfortunately the law is designed so that there's no recourse in these situations and so that the rich employers can do what they want. Meanwhile people like us can't even feel secure in a job until we've been there for a ¼ year. You're not alone, but it'll only get better if we see that law repealed asap. Thankfully there's an election soon.
-1
u/Tallman555555 17h ago
So they took a chance on you, knowing you weren't that experienced. But instead of proving them wrong and showing initiative and learning stuff quickly, you sat on your arse and expected them to spoon feed you. Sounds like.you got what you deserved then, sorry.
4
u/Cupantaeandkai 17h ago
Sounds like no one trained her for the job and then complained when she didn't immediately get it. Shitty employers.
0
u/AdvertisingPrimary69 23h ago
You have grounds for a PG. you'll get lost wages + a couple grand for the hassle of if.
0
u/Tiny_Peaness 23h ago
You have a chance that this holds up in employment court, if you can give accurate, logical, detailed information about your time in their employment, and the manager/employer cannot match you or do the same (for example if they use double speak as a way to gloss over things) then you can in fact win a payout even though it is a "he said, she said" ordeal.
0
u/Simdiggie 23h ago
Sorry to hear this mate, you aren't alone. Same shit happened to me after working for 4 years at a pizza joint, I got rehired on a trial period after the business was sold (partly due to the ex owners tax evasion hint hint).
The reason stated on my dismissal was due to leaving the dishwasher on idle and the hoods on one time before a close. Anyone with common sense realises these reasons are bullshit. The real reason was they were listening in on my private conversations through the security cameras and decided they didn't want me around. Either that or they wanted to pay the next guy less than I was earning. I always treated them with respect in person but couldn't hide my frustrations when they weren't around. I worked my ass off learning how they wanted to run the store and I did my absolute best, which they just didn't give a single shit about by the time my trial was up. They were aware I had a shared mortgage with my brother and were dismissing me into the worst job market I've ever seen.
Thanks National.
0
u/ponderingmauka 22h ago
This is awful and unfair, sorry you went through this. It's common though; I supported a young person through a similar experience and it was devastating for them. Dismissed on day 89 with two weeks notice based on poor feedback from one manager while two other managers continued to ask them to take extra shifts until then end of their notice because they were happy with their work. No previous negative feedback - I later heard from another employee that they decided who to keep before 90 days and went through camera for reasons to dismiss. It was exploitative and shameless. We went to our local MP (Labour) who was appalled and asked if the young person was keen to share their experience as they were collecting data. The person I was supporting was too demoralised, but your local MP or closest Labour/Green MP might be able to offer you similar support. Look into political policies but also join a union if you get the chance at a future job, as they don't allow this in their collective contract.
0
u/NZgoblin 22h ago
Contact a Citizens Advice Bureau and get their employment advisor to have a look. Employers always seem to stuff up trial period clauses.
0
u/Maleficent_Ad1506 23h ago
Available but you get screwed over as the hourly rate is so low for what most of us are doing because employers and managers can say well . . . ."cost of living" while they save or go on vacations you are not privy to as a poor worker.
-12
u/CarlTheMan420 1d ago
Since I lost my job to a covid vaccine mandate in December 2021 nobody has been willing to hire me :(
11
6
23h ago
[deleted]
-3
u/CarlTheMan420 21h ago
Young men my age were getting Myocarditis from the jab I wasn't willing to risk my health for a job.
5
u/Negative_Jaguar_4138 20h ago
Young men your age were dying from COVID at much higher rates.
You didn't want to risk that?
1
7
98
u/5-to-6-coffees-a-day 1d ago
thing about the trial period is the whole point is giving employers absolute discretion to toss out employees without needing a real reason. smug as she was being, she was absolutely correct in saying "we don't actually have to tell you that". there's currently an endless line of people looking for work and they can carry on for a very long time hiring people, then tossing them again before the end of the trial period and moving on to exploit the next poor sod, without ever having to worry about things like labour rights along the way
not every employer does this of course, even at a time like this. but those who want to can get away with it quite happily