> FYI > Ian > ---------- > From: Louise May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Subject: RE: Employment Statement > > > Some Concerns About Employment > A Statement from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference > > > > In 1991 when the Employment Contracts Legislation was being promoted, > we stated that: > > As Bishops of New Zealand we must speak against this proposed > legislation, > as its underlying ideology is contrary to the social doctrines > of the Church. > > The underlying ideology of the new individual legislation is > unacceptable, we argued: > > because it emphasises free choice without balancing this concept > with concern > for the common good ... and because it emphasises the rights of > the individual > without their accompanying duty to act in solidarity, and > without giving any > corresponding rights to the group. > > One of the concerns expressed in our 1991 statement was that not only > does the legislation appear to emphasise the concept of free choice at > the expense of the common good, it actually fails to give workers a > genuine freedom of choice. A solitary worker facing negotiations with > an employer is often not free to choose anything other than between > unemployment and that which is offered. > > This concern has become a reality in the changing working environment > under the Employment Contracts Act. A market survey in October 1992 > showed that 37% of employees said they did not feel free to choose the > type of employment contract covering them. Deteriorating work > conditions since 1991 reflect this lack of ability of workers in > setting the standards and conditions under which they are employed. > In 1996 it was found that over 43 % of workers had either lower or > unchanged ordinary time wages since 1991. Around the same percentage > of employers had cut overtime rates and reduced allowances and other > penal rates. This is despite economic expansion in this period and > high levels of profit growth for business. The introduction of the > Employment Contracts Act, along with other related employment reforms > since 1991, have clearly led to the overall deterioration of worker > conditions by tipping the balance of power in the employment > relationship even further to the employers' advantage. > > Worker Representation > One of our fears which has come to pass is that the legislation has > resulted in a weakening of organisations whose purpose is to protect > the rights of workers. Statistics reveal a dramatic loss in union > membership since the implementation of the new employment legislation. > There has been an overall decline in union membership, which reckoned > across all unions, is calculated to be 44% between the years 1991 and > 1996. It also concerns us that the Employment Contracts Act > legislation results in lessening accessibility of unions to workers > and the workers' rights to be represented by a collective bargaining > agent in employer-employee negotiations. > > Catholic Social Teaching is very clear on the matter of worker > representation. It tells us that workers have the right to be > represented by unions, as they can "not only protect the just rights > of the workers but - as an indispensable element in modern, > industrialised societies - are to be a mouthpiece for the struggle for > social justice". This implies that the employer must be bound to > recognise and accept the workers' representative, something which the > Employment Contracts Act does not guarantee. Such undermining of the > rights of workers in relation to negotiations is in direct > contravention to Catholic Social Teaching. > > Equal Pay > As predicted in our original statement, the burden has fallen > especially on women. The pay gap between men and women gradually > reduced between 1986 and 1991, but since the repealing of the > Employment Equity Act, and the introduction of the Employment > Contracts Act, the pay gap has stabilised, with women presently > earning between 80.5% to 81.5% of men's pay. It is obvious that the > marketplace alone is not able to deliver pay equity for women. > > Hours of Work > One of the results of the legislation of 1991 is that many low-paid > workers have to work (sometimes at an additional job) at night or at > the weekend while workers in more highly paid jobs are often expected > to work almost limitless hours. As a consequence many workers are > denied the opportunity to spend adequate time with their families > through "over-employment", that is, by working more than 50 hours a > week. In 1995 it was found that over 130,000 people were then > routinely working more than 60 hours per week, and more than 50,000 of > these people were working over 70 hours per week. The average weekly > hours worked has increased each year from 1991 when the Employment > Contracts Act took effect. The number of paid hours on overtime has > actually decreased alongside the rise in hours worked. > > The lack of worker protection under the new legislation, and the > materialistic values upon which the legislation is based, effectively > ignore the wider values and responsibilities of society, including > family responsibility, and have led to a situation where many, either > directly or indirectly, are pressured into working longer hours often > with no accompanying remuneration. We are concerned that workers are > coming under increasing pressure to work longer hours than is > appropriate, and that there is now little real protection against this > situation under the current legislation. We believe the expectations > and freedoms of employers, balanced against the relative lack of > freedom of employees, have fostered a new working culture that is > detrimental to the health of the individual, families and society. > Policies which promote such situations gravely weaken the family unit > which a just and wise society should foster. > > It is important that the existing (quite minimal) legislative > protection of some free time for workers be retained. It would, > indeed, be easy - and socially progressive - to legislate for more > free time at weekends. > > Unemployment and Underemployment > In addition to the problem of overworking of those with employment, > there has been a rise in the numbers of those who are underemployed. > The number of people employed in part time work who would like to > increase their hours has risen substantially, by 140%, since 1991. In > fact, the number of part-time workers has increased by 4.6% in the > year 1996 to 1997 to the highest level ever recorded. Currently > part-time workers make up 23% of the work force. These figures are > disturbing because underemployment is linked to poverty. Foodbanks > and charitable missions indicate that a growing number of those who > rely on their services are employed but either do not earn enough to > provide the basic necessities for their families, whether because they > are low-waged or because they can only secure part-time employment. > The Church's Social Teaching tells us that people have the right to > work that enables them to support themselves and their dependents - > that is, they have the right to full and adequate employment. > > Although one rationale for the Employment Contracts Act was to reduce > unemployment, the unemployment rate is still relatively high: the > official unemployment figure is now 7.1%, but the "jobless" figure is > 12.1%. For Maori and Pacific Islanders, the level of unemployment, > with its attendant stresses and disadvantages, is higher than for > other New Zealanders. In March (1998), the unemployment rate was > 18.3% among Maori and 16.4% among Pacific Islanders, whereas it was at > 5.5% for New Zealanders of European descent. > > Further Erosion of Workers' Rights > Many now believe that the time has come to amend the legislation in > ways which protect the poor and the vulnerable. However, some Employer > groups and Government spokespersons, far from letting up, are > signalling further attacks on the rights of workers. Specifically, > these involve: > > * Changes to the Holidays Act which will jeopardise the absolute > right to annual paid time off work for many workers. > * Downgrading the status of the Employment Court which, to the > annoyance of employer interests, has ruled that employees have rights > in addition to those contained in particular contracts. > * Further erosion of pay and conditions of employment, especially > in the state sector. > * The reduction or elimination of minimum wage rates on the > grounds that minimum wages lead to unemployment - a belief which is > founded on inadequate and selective research, and which is being > disproved by contemporary economic research. > * Hardening attitudes to the granting of unemployment benefits and > other welfare entitlements. > > Church Teachings on the Role of the State > Since we brought out our statement in 1991, further expressions in the > Church's social teaching strengthen our stance in opposition to the > Employment Contracts Act. Three features of this teaching are > particularly relevant in the current context; (we quote freely in the > following section from Pope John Paul's encyclical Centesimus Annus, > section 15.) > > 1. The State has the obligation to provide a juridicial framework > which ensures "a > certain equality between the parties, such that one party would > not be so powerful > as practically to reduce the other to subsistence". > > 2. "The State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance > of the worker and family, including a certain amount for savings ... > The role of trade unions in > negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is decisive > in this area". > > 3. Humane working hours and adequate free time need to be > guaranteed in order that that workers' well being is not jeopardised. > > > The Church teaches that the State has an important and central > function: it is bound not only to create conditions for the exercise > of economic activity but also to > > "defend the weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy > of the parties > who determine working conditions and by ensuring in every case > the > necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker" > > Paid Annual Leave Entitlement > Currently, leave entitlements in New Zealand are amongst the lowest in > the developed world. Out of eighteen nations in the western world, > New Zealand ranks in the bottom four in terms of paid annual leave > entitlement alongside Japan and Canada, which also have a three week > entitlement, and the USA where there are few legal rights in this area > and where leave entitlements exist on the basis of custom or by > negotiation. The United Kingdom and Ireland are moving to a four week > leave entitlement which will place them alongside Australia, Greece, > the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland. Austria, Belgium, > Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden all have either five or six > week entitlements. A move to open up part of the existing entitlement > for negotiation will be going against international trends and will > place New Zealand even lower down the ladder. > > The proposed changes to the Holidays Act, we believe, will seriously > jeopardise the existing right of people to adequate annual paid time > off work. There is a very clear message about working hours and free > time in the Church's teachings. The Vatican Council II Pastoral > Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 1965, > stated that workers "should be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to > cultivate their family, cultural, social and religious life". > > The Employment Court and Tribunal > Current proposals to weaken the status of the Employment Court and the > Tribunal are based on the belief that the worker does not need > particular protection; but it is very clear that in recent years the > balance of power has tipped further in favour of employers and, > therefore, workers require the specific protection of the State. The > focus on freedom of choice in the employment legislation is actually > enabling employers in effect to dictate employment conditions and the > contents of employment contracts. The only real choice many workers > are being left with is to choose between unemployment or accepting > what is offered by employers. It is vital to retain the Tribunal and > the Employment Court as they are very good ways for the State to > ensure quick and affordable access for "the weakest" to impartial > consideration of their complaints, and so provide some kind of > protection for workers from exploitation. > > Benefits > It is also Catholic teaching that those who are unemployed must be > supported financially and that society and the State must act together > in assuming responsibility for protecting the worker from > unemployment. These are not privileges to be given or taken back at > the will of the State but a right in justice. While the State may set > reasonable conditions for the granting of benefits, it should not do > so in a way which threatens the dignity of the person or undermines > the family unit. In the USA, certain types of "work fare" programs > have been criticised by some church groups as stripping recipients of > their dignity. The adoption of such a program in New Zealand is of > grave concern to us. Whether work is provided through Government > schemes for the unemployed or not, it must be decent and productive > work with fair wages and working conditions. > > Wages > According to Catholic Social Teaching, wages are to be determined not > only by the bargaining power of workers but also by their absolute > right to a just participation in the fruits of their labour. The > traditional role of the State in New Zealand in ensuring a basic > minimum wage is utterly consistent with the teaching of the Church on > "the just wage". We would recommend that the Government introduce a > minimum wage which is adequate for the needs of workers and their > dependents, which enables them to live in health and with dignity and > recognises the right of workers to a just remuneration for their > labour. > > New Zealanders are aware that while some labour on minimal wages, > others are paid very high salaries and that the gap between rich and > poor in New Zealand is increasing. The average income of the lowest > 10% of the population dropped in the 1991 to 1995 period by over > $2000.00 from $11,318.00 to $9,134.00, yet during the same period the > average income of the top 10% of the population rose by over > $12,000.00 from $65,873.00 to $78,226.00. In the 1991 to 1996 period > there has been an increase in the 'working poor' during a time when > both the economy and unemployment grew. It is time that our country > had some guidelines as to desirable ratios between the highest and the > lowest paid within industries. Those at the bottom of the scale must > receive a fair rate of pay which enables them to realise their needs > and to live with dignity, and the pay gap between these workers and > those at the top levels should not be so vast as to encourage either > the greed of top executives or the dissatisfaction of those below > them. > > Conclusion > In recent years there has been much talk about the economy, especially > the need to be economically competitive. We recognise that as a > nation we must be efficient and effective and use our resources well. > However, the State and the economy exist for the well-being of the > people. The people do not exist for the well-being of the State and > the economy. Policies and legislation regarding the economic life of > the country must be shaped with this in mind. > > Many claim that, as a result of Government policies, the economy is in > better shape than it was some thirteen years ago. Yet the working and > living conditions of many have declined. It is timely to remind > ourselves that according to the Church the worker is always more > important than capital, for the workers are human persons. We wish to > remind all New Zealanders of the rights which belong to all who work > and those without work, and call on them and on all people of > integrity to resist further erosion of the dignity of the worker, and > the unemployed. We ask all to ensure that the fruits of reform are > made available to all citizens and that all members of society have > access to the goods which ensure a life consistent with human dignity. > * P J Cullinane > Bishop of Palmerston North, > President, NZ Catholic Bishops' Conference > > * L A Boyle > Bishop of Dunedin > > * D G Browne > Bishop of Hamilton > Vice President > > * J J Cunneen > Bishop of Christchurch > > * J A Dew > Auxiliary Bishop of Wellington > Secretary > > * O J Dolan > Coadjutor Bishop of Palmerston North > > * P J Dunn > Bishop of Auckland > > * R W Leamy SM > Emeritus Bishop of Rarotonga > > * M T Mariu SM > Auxiliary Bishop of Hamilton > > * Cardinal Thomas Williams > Archbishop of Wellington April > 1998 > > > > > > >
