News today confirms that ACC sees one of its roles as getting rid of long term claimants. It was given a quota by the government, and exceeded it.

At a recent conference a senior ACC manager referred to those targeted so far as “low hanging fruit”.  There is no word about what ACC’s role is supposed to be – the rehabilitation of the injured – just confirmation of a declaration of war by ACC towards some of the most vulnerable.

ACC has every incentive to handle claimants ruthlessly because there are no real consequences: the more roughly claimants are handled, the fewer the number of active claims, and therefore the better the bonuses for the ACC staff members involved. And what if the claimants try to fight back by seeking a formal review? Many of them are beaten down by the process to the point where they just give up. If the claimants manage to stay strong and win their review case, the most that ACC has to pay as costs is a paltry few hundred dollars – nothing really when you see what they save by throwing the injured in the scrap heap.

Can you be terminated before you have started work at a job?

The answer is yes because the definition of employee includes “someone intending to work”. We have many times come across this distressing situation where people have accepted a job offer, given notice at their current job, and then the new employer says, “Sorry, we don’t have a job for you anymore.” As you can imagine, this can be very harmful to the employee whose career and finances can be badly damaged by being left high and dry.

Most employers don’t realise that someone who has accepted a job offer with them, but not yet started work, must be treated in the same way as a normal employee, if they intend to make a decision that affects their employment. Usually, this means that the not-yet-started-employee cannot be dismissed, or any other changes made, without good cause and without the proper procedure being followed. The situation is likely to be different for someone who has accepted a job offer that includes a 90 day trial clause, but even then if something goes wrong, it’s a good idea to run your scenario past us to see what can be done.

It’s not uncommon to get the feeling that your employer doesn’t want you there any more. When you’re caught up in the worry and stress of a bad employment situation it can be difficult to know what to do next. These are some suggestions:

• Keep, in a safe place, copies of email, memos, and other communications, that raise issues or concerns.
• Take notes of conversations, or things that happen, that cause you concern. The notes should include the time and date.
• Discreetly look for other jobs. Knowing that you have a job to go to gives you more options. If you do find another job, please do not resign until you have spoken to us, as resigning without first taking the right employment law steps, will lessen your bargaining power and may make it more difficult to obtain a reference and compensation.
• Remember: HR is not your friend. The HR department works for the company – not for you. In many cases they can help to resolve smaller HR type issues, but when it becomes you versus the company, they will take the company’s side and you may find that things that you have said to them are used against you. Be careful.
• If the situation becomes too stressful or heated, go home sick. Any of these symptoms are commonplace when people are dealing with stressful workplace issues: depression, high blood pressure, headaches, insomnia, tearfulness, and women’s issues. Going home sick is genuine.
• Seek help sooner, rather than later, so that you know where you stand and what your options are. We offer thorough initial advice for $150, and having this information will in itself make your situation more manageable. Sometimes, clients just want us to remain in the background and the employer never needs to know that you have sought help. Other times, consulting us leads to the client asking us to approach their employer to find a professional resolution to a difficult situation – in 90% of cases we can obtain a fast, professional resolution that will usually include compensation, satisfactory references, an apology and closure.

If you want to ask us a question about your situation please contact us at no cost. We are happy to be contacted by email or phone.

Requiring full funding of ACC is an outrage.

Full funding is when ACC holds enough funds now to satisfy the lifetime cost of claims. So for example, if someone has an accident that will require 30 years of ACC help, ACC will need to hold enough money in its reserves right now, to cover the full 30 years of costs, not just the costs for this year. If we all had to live like this, life would be impossible – you would for example have to earn enough money this year to cover your lifetime costs of living. Obviously, this is ridiculous. In the case of a powerful Corporation, it is not only ridiculous, it is dangerous.

The fully funded mentality contributes to the harshness with which claimants are handled and it is unnecessary. We believe that ACC needs to hold funds now for its projected costs for this year plus about 6 months in reserve, in case of a major disaster like an earthquake. But there is no justification for it to hold enough funds now to cover decades of future claims.

In 2009 Nick Smith used the fully funded excuse as justification to cut claimants’ entitlements and increase levies. The huge funds retained by ACC were also a useful tool to cover up the shortfall in the government’s accounts from the tax cuts granted to higher income earners in 2008. In other words, the richest part of society has benefited at the expense of the broken and the poor.

Evidence that ACC has lost its way can be seen from its own admission that it is one of the largest investors in NZ companies through its nearly $2 billion in reserves. ACC is supposed to provide rehabilitation, not to be focused on the financial markets.

Refocusing the Corporation is long overdue, but what hope is there of any convincing change when so much money is at stake?

One of the reasons advanced for allowing 90 day trial periods for new employees was that the employer takes a risk in taking on a new employee, and being able to dismiss them easily within the first 90 days makes it easier for an employer to justify that risk.

We agree that there is a risk for employers when they take on new employees; but there are also risks for the employee.

If the employee was unemployed before starting work under a 90 day trial period, the harm to them from a dismissal within that time frame is less, as they’ll end up in a similar position compared to where they were before. But for employees who are giving up good, secure employment to take on a new job there are substantial risks. During that 90 day period the employee can be dismissed and have no personal grievance against the employer.

The employee can be put in the situation where they have given up a good income and job security, to end up being dismissed, merely because someone doesn’t like something trivial about them.

If you are an employee considering a job offer, we suggest trying to have the 90 day trial period clause excluded from the employment agreement. Your new employer must negotiate the employment agreement terms and conditions in good faith, and given what’s at stake for you, it’s worth a try.

We’ve helped hundreds of employees to exit gracefully from difficult workplace situations. Our experience has enabled us to produce a list of the common warning signs that you are being forced out of your job. This is our list of the most common warning signs for employees:

• Managers finding fault with your work – especially if the fault finding is increasing in frequency and pettiness.
• A new manager has been appointed and they start bringing in former colleagues from the place they worked before. It might not be long before they think that they would prefer to replace you as well.
• Unexplained changes in the organisation chart. Sometimes there is a pretence of consultation, sometimes not, but concerning alterations relate to a negative change in reporting structure, status, or responsibility, that affects you. If you raise your concerns, the response may be dismissive. Organisational chart changes are often an early step in the process that will lead to your exit.
• Meetings and communications from which you are excluded, especially when you were included in the past. It could be that they are talking about you, or that they have already emotionally separated you from the workplace.
• Discussions about you behind your back. People who do this think that you don’t know, but most people can sense that something is going on.
• Undermining the chain of command. For example, if you’re the chief executive of a company, the board might start interfering in day to day decision making, undermining your authority and sending a clear signal to the rest of the staff about how they view you. For less senior employees, your direct manager may suddenly start giving instructions directly to someone who reports to you. 
• Someone at the same organisational level is treated more favourably than you. There can be genuine reasons for a temporary disparity in treatment, but if the disparity can’t be explained then it may be a warning sign that you are on your way out.
• Applying work rules unevenly. Take for example, the ban that most workplaces have on using the computer for personal use. Most employee contracts won’t allow you to look up your Facebook page or send personal emails during work time but everyone knows that most people break the rules and that a blind eye is turned. If you are given a warning for this kind of thing, that everyone else is doing, something is wrong. The employer is entitled to apply work rules fairly, but when somebody is singled out there is usually something else going on.

The last warning sign, and the most important one, is: Trust your gut instinct. If you have a feeling that things are not right at work, you’re probably right. Often it’s hard to put a finger on the details, but regardless of the vagueness of your feelings, listen to yourself.

In another blog we will talk about what you can do if things are starting to go wrong at work.

Please comment (below) with your stories, and any other warning signs that you have experienced (comments can be anonymous).

Let’s hope that the resignations of top ACC officials isn’t just an easy out. With the resignations in place, the government can claim that it has dealt with the issues raised by the Bronwyn Pullar affair, and move on with business as usual.

The real issue is that many thousands of claimants are treated like Bronwyn Pullar, or worse. Most of them don’t have friends in high places to help them get justice. As ACC specialists we often hear about people who have been worn down by the ACC machine to the point where they just give up. When broken people languish on sickness benefits for years and years because they can’t get the help they need, we all lose, both economically and from a humanitarian point of view.

When ACC has plenty of money to splash around on public relations consultants to get them out of their own mess, and its political rulers remain focused on a cost saving/surplus producing mentality, there can be little hope of a real change for the better.

In 2010/11 ACC  recorded a surplus of $3.5 billion. We say that this surplus is a disgrace and it shows that the Corporation has forgotten the reason for its existence. 

The money ACC receives is for the purpose of paying and rehabilitating people who have been injured. There are many people who have not been fully paid for their necessary treatment, or who have been worn down by harsh ACC practices and who just give up on pursuing their entitlements. How many of these people are unable to get back to where they should be in life because ACC won’t pay?

ACC needs to be paying more to get their clients back on track. If after making those payments, ACC still has a  surplus then this means they have sucked far too much, in ACC premiums, from hard working individual New Zealanders and businesses. A surplus of this size is tangible proof that ACC is letting down its injured clients, or the people and business who pay its levies – or both. Either way: it’s obscene.

An item in today’s news caught our eye: Tex Edwards, the founder of 2 Degrees, is suing his company in the Employment Relations Authority. 

We have acted for quite a few people who have founded successful companies, and even charities, who have subsequently found themselves pushed out or disadvantaged by the board that they chose. Because the founder has an emotional engagement with their creation and because they thought of the board members as friends, these kinds of employment disputes can really hurt. When this type of thing happens, it is common for the employee/founder not to seek help as soon as they should have because they can’t believe what is happening to them. Unfortunately, these types of unfair and poisonous situations don’t usually get better by themselves.

We aren’t privy to any of the details of the 2 Degrees case, but it does serve as a reminder for those found companies, to be careful who they choose to help them with the governance of the company, and to be watchful if they start to feel that something isn’t quite right any more.

The Bronwyn Pullar/ACC fiasco keeps on rolling on.  

Bronwyn Pullar was emailed the personal details of over 6,000 ACC clients when she sought to obtain benefits from ACC. ACC laid a complaint of blackmail against her. Pullar has now been cleared of the criminal allegations. One thing that made a difference for her is that she recorded her meetings with ACC. There is a lesson here for everyone who needs to deal with ACC – take notes of every meeting and phone call. Even better – get everything in writing or take someone with you to meetings. As Bronwyn Pullar discovered, doing so can save the day when a big, bloated Corporation tries to squash you and your entitlements.

But what about the other 6,000 victims of the case? Their personal details were disclosed inappropriately. They seem to be the forgotten victims of this case and are another example of the lack of accountability surrounding the Accident Compensation Corporation.