News release

15 Comments
11 March 2009
Government moves fast to help retain jobs

The Government will provide financial assistance to employers to encourage them to retain workers, Prime Minister John Key announced today.

A Job Support Scheme will be aimed at private sector businesses with over 100 full-time employees. Employers, workers and unions will negotiate voluntary agreements to reduce their hours of work to a nine-day fortnight. The government will pay employers $12.50 (the adult minimum wage) an hour per worker, for up to five hours a fortnight.

While workers are in the scheme they cannot be made redundant.

Mr Key says the nine-day fortnight idea received urgent attention after it was identified as a priority at the Job Summit.

“I recognise that some firms are feeling the effects of difficult economic times and I want to move quickly to help save jobs,” Mr Key says.

10 March. Announcement and press conference concerning the new Job Support Scheme

“This is a practical measure that will give businesses some extra time to ride out the tough conditions, and to retain jobs as they do.

“We need to be realistic, however – there will still be redundancies and this is not a silver bullet. I believe it is important to save as many jobs as we can, while we can.

“By reducing hours, employers will be able to retain their workforce and will be better equipped to respond when economic circumstances improve,” Mr Key says.

Along with the Job Support Scheme for employers with more than 100 workers, Mr Key says the government is also looking at how small businesses might be able to benefit from a similar scheme.

The programme for larger businesses:

  • Will be available to businesses with more than 100 employees. There are about 1600 companies which fit this category and they employ 580,000 people.
  • Will be available to businesses from March 27, 2009 through until December 31, 2010 - but only for up to a six month period within these dates.
  • The government’s contribution will be paid direct to employers to give to the workers it has negotiated a voluntary agreement with to reduce work hours to a nine-day fortnight.
  • Will be available to up to 10 employees for each averted redundancy.
  • Will apply to employees who have been full-time for the two months preceding going into the scheme.
  • Is anticipated to be picked up by between 20,000 and 25,000 workers, making the approximate cost $16 million to $20 million.

“We are continuing to work constructively with unions and business as we decide on the finer details of the scheme,” Mr Key says.

“Cabinet will receive a progress update on Monday.

“This is the first idea put forward at the Job Summit that is coming to fruition. I’m sure it won’t be the last,” Mr Key says.

 


Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Jane McDonagh 2009-03-11 13:12 - (Reply)

Fantastic! Well done

#1.1 - ben 2009-03-11 16:22 - (Reply)

John, I think this is deeply misguided and is going to delay the nation's recovery from the recession. The response to a recession is not to pay people to have a cup of tea. Now that cheap global credit is at an end, Western economies are restructuring. Some sectors - finance, construction, and durables - are going to shrink, other sectors will expand. Workers need to be able to move out of shrinking sectors and into growing sectors. This scheme interrupts that adjustment, and delaying it will only add to the pain. You risk permanently expanding the government's mandate. And NZ already has a generous welfare net to help those coming into (temporary, we trust) hard times. Isn't the bureaucracy big enough without this? This is not a cyclic downtown, this recession is a sturctural adjustment and as such there isn't a way this scheme is going to help anyone. It will make New Zealand poorer.

#2 - Helen Morgan 2009-03-11 15:59 - (Reply)

Congratulations, well done! But let's see if you can move as quickly to help the other 96% of businesses within New Zealand i.e. SME's

#3 - russellJeffery 2009-03-11 16:29 - (Reply)

Good on you, About this 9 day fortnight, why not just make sundays , as they used to be a day of rest, this will save , the nation saleris, overtime, days off and electricity and food and beverages for the people, (workers), It would give people time to be at home with there families and save the nation Millions a year

#4 - Ian M 2009-03-12 13:29 - (Reply)

Regarding the new policy to reduce worker's hours down to a 9 day fortnight, how about, in order to help pay for this and as a show of community spirit and that 'we're all in this together', putting an extra tax or levy on people who earn more than $100k pa. These are possibly/probably/more likely to be the very same people who are, or will be, benefiting from the lower mortgage rates that are starting to come into effect now. I can hear the screams now!

#4.1 - Andie 2009-03-24 12:56 - (Reply)

Ian - why penalise those that have worked hard to earn what they do - it's like someone's analogy below re having the efficient companies pay for the inefficient companies - you can make the same comparison to those that earn more (and no I don't earn over $100k, a measley $40k). Good on those people that earn more - they've probably slaved away at further education (at a great cost to them), and can keep the economy going by spending their income!

#5 - Onn Cheong 2009-03-12 20:43 - (Reply)

Mr Key, You are helping the big business with more than 100 employees. You know just too well, that there are many more SME's, especially the small ones with less than 5 staff, and these are the backbone of the business world, and you are not extending the 9day scheme to them??? How come?????

#6 - Ross Drummond 2009-03-12 22:27 - (Reply)

I am curious about how the thresholds are arrived at. My company was too large for the 90 day trial period and is too small to benefit from this scheme.

#7 - Bert Wilson 2009-03-13 11:31 - (Reply)

This policy is counterproductive at best. First of all, it isn't "the government" that will be paying the difference for these union workers, it is the taxpayer! In many cases, it will be efficient competitors subsidizing inefficient large companies to the detriment of the small company. Wouldn't it be a lot more simple, cheaper and benefit all businesses (not just multinational and large business) to allow shorter work week hours instead of redundancy by providing more latitude in employment relations laws? The other problem with the labor laws is the minimum wage. I have teenage workers who are at risk of redundancy if minimum wages are increased again. Eliminate these attempts at soviet style central planning and allow the market to find equilibrium.

#8 - Mike Johnson 2009-03-16 09:37 - (Reply)

Hi John Great start, and I can understand the dropping of the training link to get something on the table. I am more concerned with smaller businesses and believe it is important to get something structured that works for them. One clear option must be to retain training link, as the incentives will then be there for all parties. The government will stump up the cash to help support workers while they train (perhaps to the same extent as in the Job Support Scheme), but in return will have lower costs associated with paying unemployment benefits, and will have both a more skilled workforce and more money circulating in the economy. The employers will probably have to bear some of the cost and certainly have an administrative cost of co-ordinating this, but will save on redundancies, future recruitment costs and again have better skilled workers. And the individuals themselves may well have to take a small decrease in pay, but that is less of a challenge than the prospect of being made redundant and losing it all! But it would have to be able to be done for individual employees - as in small businesses redundancies can be made singly. It may stillbe that a 9-day fortnight option needs to be encouraged because for Small Businesses so much is done as a team that it is difficult to envisage reductions just for individuals. Instead it is likely that the company will simply shut (all or a part of its business) for one day a fortnight. More than that, I see a need for customers and suppliers to work together in scheduling these days as “teams” often transcend corporate borders. So we can look forward to sectors closing on the same day. But without the training link it is possible that employees won’t accept any such proposal. So this will create large potential demand for training on one particular day in each fortnight. This is not something that current training supply is geared for, and so will create a fantastic business opportunity for those in the right place. Given that the need for this is now and may (hopefully) last no more than this year, it will be a great test of training organisations and in particular of Industry Training Organisations (ITOs) to see how fast they can arrange suitable programmes to provide the skill development that people will be seeking. The NZQA should also gear itself up for a significant increase in accreditation applications – as they could be needed very quickly indeed. Good luck.

#9 - Howard Foote said:
2009-03-16 11:43 - (Reply)

Dear Prime Minister Key, As a voter within your electorate I must voice my dismay in relation to your proposed job sponsorship plan offering employers that employ in excess of 100 plus employees the employment subsidy. Firstly we only employ 5 full time employees - Since Helen Clark introduced the extra weeks holiday two years ago we have lost in excess of 23 key business accounts mainly all for the same reason "profitability" plus massive extra "compliance" costs - We have since brought out client base back to some meaningful respectability however with this recent downturn of economic events I just wonder what is the difference between a small employer like us and the 100 plus employer? NONE Its usually companies like mine that keep these big boys afloat by undertaking work for them - however with these companies cutting production we likewise feel the same downturn (currently 25%) - the building & timber industry is in serious decline, due in part to exports of raw logs - the cabinetmaking industry is not producing cabinets due to the building slump, engineering industry is not producing, (due in part to the cheap imports coming in from China) The likes of Fisher & Paykel & others knew what they were doing when they went ofshore for cheap production - well I say whats good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander - if they have stuffed up they should pay the price - not me. Sure people will be made jobless however history will repeat as to what happend in the depression of the 30's - yes even accountants & lawyers were on government job schemes of tree planting or the likes. I have offered our staff an opportunity to take a four day week however I will only impose this only as a last resort to survival. A logical resolve to helping with New Zealands' economic woes - would be to reduce GST by 2.5% back to a flat 10% - this will mean a freeing up of money that everyone in this country would benefit by -yes even the government Kindest Regards Howard

#10 - Allan 2009-03-18 23:12 - (Reply)

Well today the company I work for announced, due to a lack of work, the possibility of redundancies. To save these redundancies we have been given the opportunity to take up this Job Support scheme. This Government incentive of a 9 day fortnight will probably save the possibility of 6 redundancies over the next few months. Hopefully in 6 months time when this sceme will expire for the company I work for the workload will improve. The team of workers do not deserve to lose their jobs as they have learnt skills that will be hard to replace. This scheme will also give those who were most likely to have been made redundant some dignaty .... to be told you are not wanted must be soul destoying. I have seen workmate told they are redundant and it not only embarasses them and makes them feel worthless, It also takes away their income. Allan

#11 - Lynette 2009-04-17 12:43 - (Reply)

As of today, my employer has advised me that to retain my job I need to cut back for 4 day weeks. I work in the associated building trade. I appreciate the option to stay employed, however no one with a high mortage and debt can afford to do this. It doesn't matter how much someone earns, we all get used to living to or above our means. I work 2 jobs to pay the bills, so losing $300 per week is going to hurt. Familys need help NOW, not in 6 months time.

#12 - Sandra 2009-10-04 14:14 - (Reply)

Hi John Key

#13 - John Plato said:
2010-02-08 14:59 - (Reply)

I honestly believe it is far better to drop hours and keep jobs going as the market will always pick back up and you don't want to lose any of that knowledge within your business and try hire more staff when it does pick up.


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.