2. 考研
  3. The personal grievance provisions of New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employ

The personal grievance provisions of New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employ

admin2022-04-28  48
问题     The personal grievance provisions of New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause. Instead, dismissals must be justified. Employers must both show cause and act in a procedurally fair way.
    Personal grievance procedures were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from “unjustified dismissals”. The premise was that the common law of contract lacked sufficient safeguards for workers against arbitrary conduct by management. Long gone are the days when a boss could simply give an employee contractual notice.
    But these provisions create difficulties for businesses when applied to highly paid managers and executives. As countless boards and business owners will attest, constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers is a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance. The difference between C-grade and A-grade managers may very well be the difference between business success or failure. Between preserving the jobs of ordinary workers or losing them. Yet mediocrity is no longer enough to justify a dismissal.
    Consequently—and paradoxically—laws introduced to protect the jobs of ordinary workers may be placing those jobs at risk.
    If not placing jobs at risk, to the extent employment protection laws constrain business owners from dismissing under-performing managers, those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers’ wages. Indeed, in “An International Perspective on New Zealand’s Productivity Paradox” (2014), the Productivity Commission singled out the low quality of managerial capabilities as a cause of the country’s poor productivity growth record.
    Nor are highly paid managers themselves immune from the harm caused by the ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedures. Because employment protection laws make it costlier to fire an employee, employers are more cautious about hiring new staff. This makes it harder for the marginal manager to gain employment. And firms pay staff less because firms carry the burden of the employment arrangement going wrong.
    Society also suffers from excessive employment protections. Stringent job dismissal regulations adversely affect productivity growth and hamper both prosperity and overall well-being.
    Across the Tasman Sea, Australia deals with the unjustified dismissal paradox by excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws. In New Zealand, a 2016 private members’ Bill tried to permit firms and high-income employees to contract out of the unjustified dismissal regime. However, the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy and the Bill was voted down following the change in government later that year.
It can be inferred that the “high-income threshold” in Australia ______.
选项 A、has secured managers’ earnings
B、has produced undesired results
C、is beneficial to business owners
D、is difficult to put into practice
答案D
解析 本题为细节题。根据题干关键词the “high-income threshold” in Australia定位到第八段①句：Australia deals with the unjustified dismissal paradox by excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws(澳大利亚应对不正当解雇悖论的办法是，将收入超过特定“高收入门槛”的员工排除在该国不正当解雇法的保护范围之外)，该句无法解题，需继续看下文。第八段③句指出However, the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy and the Bill was voted down following the change in government later that year(然而，上述提出的机制太过复杂，难以实行，新西兰的法案也在当年晚些时候在政府换届后被投票否决)，D项is difficult to put into practice(难以付诸实施)是对③句中the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy的适度推断。所以本题选D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/m2mZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)