Text 4
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.
1、The personal grievance provisions of the ERA are intended to________.
2、It can be learned from paragraph 3 that the provisions may________.
3、Which of the following measures would be the Productivity Commission support?
4、What might be an effect ofERA's unjustified dismissal procedures?
5、It can be inferred that the “high-income threshold” in Australia________.
问题1选项
A.punish dubious corporate practices.
B.improve traditional hiring procedures.
C.exempt employers from certain duties.
D.protect the rights of ordinary workers.
问题2选项
A.hinder business development.
B.undermine managers' authority.
C.affect the public image of the firms.
D.worsen labor-management relations.
问题3选项
A.Imposing reasonable wage restraints.
B.Enforcing employment protection laws.
C.Limiting the powers of business owners.
D.Dismissing poorly performing managers.
问题4选项
A.Highly paid managers lose their jobs.
B.Employees suffer from salary cuts.
C.Society sees a rise in overall well-being.
D.Employers need to hire new staff.
问题5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.
第1题:D
第2题:A
第3题:D
第4题:B
第5题:C
第1题:
首先,根据题干关键词“personal grievance provisions of the ERA” 定位到第一段,且题干“intended to”,表明题干问的是目的。最直接给出答案的是第二段的第一句“Personal grievance procedures were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from ‘unjustified dismissals’”. 即:个人申诉程序旨在保护普通工人的工作不受“不正当解雇”的影响。对应到【D】选项。并且从第一段中“prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause ”(防止雇主在没有正当理由的情况下解雇雇员)、“dismissals must be justified.”(解雇必须要有正当理由)等也能看出来这个法案是为了保护普通工人的利益。
A 项与原文不符,文章中并没有说到要【惩罚】公司的不良行为。B选项,改进传统的招聘程序,原文中只涉及“解雇”,没有提到任何关于招聘程序的内容。 选项C 免除了雇主的某些责任,与文章内容相反,文章中强调的是雇主不能随意解雇,这很明显是增加了雇主的责任,而非“exempt“免除。
第2题:
首先,根据题干关键词”paragraph 3 the provisions may ” 定位到第三段,且题干问的法令带来的结果/影响。回到第三段,根据第一句“create difficulties”以及第二句中“constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers is a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance. ”(限制企业解雇业绩不佳、收入高的经理,是提高生产率和整体业绩的一个手刹。)即:这个法令会给企业造成很多麻烦,其中之一就是他会影响企业提高生产率和整体业绩,对应A选项,其中hinder是对handbrake的同义替换,development是对productivity and overall performance的概括。
B 项与原文不符,文章中没有提及任何和“管理者权威”相关的内容,更谈不上破坏。C选项,影响公司的公众形象,原文中只涉及“解雇”没有提到任何关于公司形象的内容。 选项D 工人和管理者之间的关系恶化,无中生有,文章中没有提及任何关于“labor-management relationship”的内容。
第3题:
首先,根据题干关键词“Productivity Commission ” 定位到第5段第二句的后半句“the Productivity Commission singled out the low quality of managerial capabilities as a cause of the country’s poor productivity growth record.”(生产力委员会指出,管理能力的低下是该国生产率增长记录不佳的一个原因。)根据此句话内容,我们可以知道,选项应该与managerial capability有关,且为负面态度,综合应该选择D选项,解雇表现不佳的管理者。
A项 施加合理的工资限制。首先,A项不在定位范围内。其次,文章第五段第一句结尾提到了有关wage的内容,但是原文的意思是“这些法令会带来不好的影响,将会限制生产力和工资”,并不是Productivity Commission同意的内容。B选项,实施就业保护法律。同A项,不在定位范围,且内容不符。 选项C 限制企业主的权力,无中生有,文章中没有提及任何关于“the powers of business owners”的内容。
第4题:
首先,根据题干关键词“ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedures ” 定位到第6段,且题干问的是“effect”即影响。第6段说到了三个影响,即“ employers are more cautious about hiring new staff”、(雇主在雇用新员工方面更加谨慎)“This makes it harder for the marginal manager to gain employment.”(这使得边际管理者更难获得就业机会)“firms pay staff less”(公司降低员工薪酬)。选项B是对第三点的同意改写。其中选项的salary cuts对应原文pay less。
A项 高薪管理者失业,针对第二点的干扰选项,原文说的是“marginal manager ”不是“Highly paid managers ”。选项C,社会的幸福感有所提升,与第7段“hamper both prosperity and overall well-being”(阻碍繁荣和整体福祉)内容相反。选项D,雇主需要雇佣新员工,针对第一点的干扰项,原文说的是“employers are more cautious about hiring new staff”(雇主在雇用新员工方面更加谨慎),与原文不符。
第5题:
由题干关键词“high-income threshold” in Australia 可定位至第八段①句,该句指出,澳大利亚为应对“不正当解雇悖论”,将超过特定“高收入门槛”的员工排除在“不公平解雇法”的保护范围之外。联系上文“不正当解雇法应用于高薪管理人员会阻碍企业发展”,可反推知,澳大利亚政府的“高收入门槛”有利于保障企业主的权益,确定答案为C项。C项 is beneficial to business owners契合澳大利亚政府设置“高收入门槛”的目的(deal with the unjustified dismissal paradox)。
A项,保护了管理者的收入,与第八段①句语义相反;B选项,产生了不好的结果,文章中没有提到这两项法案带来的结果,只是说被否决了。D项,难以付诸实践,源于第八段③句“难以运作、被否决unwieldy、was voted down)”,但第八段③句论述的是新西兰法案而非澳大利亚的“高收入门槛”,D项张冠李戴。