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.
36. The personal grievance provisions of the ERA are intended to ________.
37. It can be learned from paragraph 3 that the provisions may ________.
38. Which of the following measures would the Productivity Commission support?
39. What might be an effect of ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedures?
40. 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:
【整体分析】
来源:The New Zealand Initiative网站于2021年6月21日刊登的文章Nothing Costs Nothing—Why Unjustified Dismissal Laws Should Not Apply to the Highly Paid(凡事都有代价——为什么不正当解雇法不应该适用于高薪人士)。
主题:文章指出新西兰《雇佣关系法》(2000)中防止普通员工被不正当解雇的个人申诉条款不应该适用于高薪经理和高管。这些条款可能会使普通员工的工作面临风险,并制约企业的生产力,最终损害员工的工资和社会的繁荣。
结构:
【选项释义】
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词personal grievance provisions可以定位到文章第一段第一句 “新西兰2000年《雇佣关系法》(ERA)的个人申诉条款禁止雇主在没有正当理由的情况下解雇员工(prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause)”,接着第二段第一句说到“个人申诉程序旨在保护普通员工的工作不受‘不正当解雇’的影响(were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from “unjustified dismissals”)”,说明个人申诉条款的目的是保护普通员工的权益,避免其受到不正当解雇。因此D选项“保护普通员工的权利”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“惩罚可疑的公司做法”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“改善传统的雇佣程序”,由“禁止雇主在没有正当理由的情况下解雇员工(firing an employee)”可知,个人申诉条款规定的是解雇程序,而不是雇佣程序,属于反向干扰;
C选项“豁免雇主的某些义务”,由“相反,解雇员工必须有正当理由(dismissals must be justified)。雇主必须表明理由并以程序上公平的方式行事(show cause and act in a procedurally fair way)”可知,个人申诉条款规定了雇主的义务,而不是豁免其义务,属于反向干扰。
第2题:
【选项释义】
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词paragraph 3可以定位到文章第三段,本段第一句说到“当这些规定适用于高薪经理和高管时,就会给企业带来困难(create difficulties)”,接着分析了具体会带来哪些困难“限制公司解雇表现不佳、收入高的经理,是提高生产率和整体业绩的一种阻碍(a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance)。三流经理和一流经理之间的差异很可能关系到企业是成功还是失败(between business success or failure)。关系到普通员工是保住工作还是下岗(preserving the jobs of ordinary workers or losing them)”,说明这些规定可能会阻碍企业的发展。因此A选项“阻碍企业发展”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“损害管理者的权威”,C选项“影响企业的公众形象”和D选项“恶化劳资关系”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Productivity Commission可以定位到文章第五段第二句“事实上,在《新西兰生产力悖论的国际视角》(2014年)中,生产力委员会指出,管理能力低下(the low quality of managerial capabilities)是该国生产力增长记录不佳的原因之一”,说明生产力委员会认为企业的管理层能力低下阻碍了国家生产力的增长,由此可以推断生产力委员会应该会支持解雇那些表现不佳的管理者。因此D选项“解雇表现不佳的管理者。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“施加合理的工资限制。”,由“即使没有将工作置于危险之中,在限制企业所有者解雇表现不佳的经理这个层面上,这些法律也会限制企业的生产力,从而限制员工的工资(those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers’ wages)”可知,限制员工工资是企业生产力受限的结果,而不是生产力委员会支持的做法,属于曲解原文;
B选项“强制执行就业保护法。”,由“在限制企业所有者解雇表现不佳的经理这个层面上,这些法律也会限制企业的生产力(those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity)”可知,强制执行就业保护法会限制企业的生产力,所以生产力委员会不会支持这种做法,属于反向干扰;
C选项“限制企业所有者的权力。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词an effect of ERA’s unjustified dismissal procedures可以定位到文章第六段最后一句“公司会降低员工的工资(pay staff less),因为公司承担了雇佣不当的责任”,说明不正当解雇程序的影响是会降低员工薪资。因此B选项“雇员遭受减薪。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“高薪的管理人员失去工作。”,由“这使得无足轻重的经理更难获得就业机会(makes it harder for the marginal manager to gain employment)”可知,不正当解雇程序是让管理人员难以得到工作,而不是失去工作,属于曲解原文;
C选项“社会整体福祉的上升。”,由“严格的解雇规定会对生产力的增长产生不利影响,阻碍繁荣和整体福祉(hamper both prosperity and overall well-being)”可知,不正当解雇程序会阻碍社会整体福祉的上升,属于反向干扰;
D选项“雇主需要招聘新的员工。”,由“由于雇佣保护法使得解雇员工的成本更高,雇主在雇佣新员工时更加谨慎(more cautious about hiring new staff)”可知,不正当解雇程序使得雇主不会轻易招聘新员工,属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词high-income threshold可以定位到文章第八段第一句“澳大利亚应对不正当解雇悖论的方法是,将收入超过特定‘高收入门槛’的员工排除在其不正当解雇法的保护之外(excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws)”,说明澳大利亚为了解决雇佣保护法所带来的问题的做法是规定超过一定高收入门槛的员工不受雇佣保护法的保护,因为这些高薪却表现不加的管理人员会阻碍企业生产力的发展,由此可以推断出澳大利亚的高收入门槛是对企业有利的做法。因此C选项“对企业所有者有利”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“保证了管理人员的收入”,由“将收入超过特定‘高收入门槛’的员工排除在其不正当解雇法的保护之外(excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws)”可知,高收入门槛不保证管理人员的收入,属于反向干扰;
B选项“产生了不理想的结果”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项“难以付诸实施”,由“在新西兰(New Zealand),2016年的一项私人法案试图允许公司和高收入员工签约推出不正当解雇制度。然而,提议的机制难以落实(unwieldy)”可知,难以实施是新西兰法案的结果,而不是澳大利亚高收入门槛的结果,属于张冠李戴。
【重点词汇】
grievance /ˈɡriːvəns/ n. 不平的事;委屈;抱怨
provision /prəˈvɪʒn/ n. 规定;条款
dismissal /dɪsˈmɪsl/ n. 解雇;开除
arbitrary /ˈɑːbɪtrəri/ adj. 任意的;武断的
attest /əˈtest/ v. 证实;是……的证据
handbrake /ˈhændbreɪk/ n. 手闸;手刹车
mediocrity /ˌmiːdiˈɒkrəti/ n. 平庸;普通
stringent /ˈstrɪndʒənt/ adj. 严格的;严厉的
hamper /ˈhæmpə(r)/ v. 妨碍;阻止;阻碍
paradox /ˈpærədɒks/ n. 矛盾;悖论
unwieldy /ʌnˈwiːldi/ adj. 难控制(或操纵、管理)的;运转不灵的
constrain sb. from doing sth. 限制某人做某事
at risk 处于危险中
act as 充当;担任
single out 选出;挑出
be immune from 不受……的影响;幸免于
vote down 投票反对;投票否决
【长难句分析】
1. 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.
【结构分析】
主句:constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers(主语)is(系动词)a handbrake(表语)
方式状语从句:As(引导词)countless boards(主语1)and(连词)business owners(主语2)will attest(谓语)
【补充分析】
① As引导方式状语从句,表示这种阻碍是如何证明的;
② on boosting productivity and overall performance是handbrake的后置定语,表示是提高生产率和整体业绩的一种阻碍。
【参考译文】正如无数的董事会和企业所有者证实的那样,限制公司解雇表现不佳、收入高的经理,是提高生产率和整体业绩的一种阻碍。
2. 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.
【结构分析】
主句:Australia(主语)deals with(谓语)the unjustified dismissal paradox(宾语)
【补充分析】
① Across the Tasman Sea是地点状语,表示澳大利亚的位置在塔斯曼海对岸;
② by excluding employees from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws是方式状语,表示澳大利亚应对不正当解雇悖论的方法;
③ earning above a specified “high-income threshold”是employees的后置定语,表示收入超过特定“高收入门槛”的员工。
【参考译文】在塔斯曼海对岸,澳大利亚应对不正当解雇悖论的方法是,将收入超过特定“高收入门槛”的员工排除在其不正当解雇法的保护之外。
【全文翻译】
新西兰2000年《雇佣关系法》(ERA)的个人申诉条款禁止雇主在没有正当理由的情况下解雇员工。相反,解雇员工必须有正当理由。雇主必须表明理由并以程序上公平的方式行事。
个人申诉程序旨在保护普通员工的工作不受“不正当解雇”的影响。前提是,普通合同法缺乏充分的保障,使员工免受管理层的武断行为。如今老板可以轻易地给员工发出解除合同通知的日子已经一去不复返了。
但当这些规定适用于高薪经理和高管时,就会给企业带来困难。正如无数的董事会和企业所有者证实的那样,限制公司解雇表现不佳、收入高的经理,是提高生产率和整体业绩的一种阻碍。三流经理和一流经理之间的差异很可能关系到企业是成功还是失败。关系到普通员工是保住工作还是下岗。然而,能力平庸不再足以成为解雇的理由。
因此,自相矛盾的是,旨在保护普通员工工作的法律可能会将他们的工作置于危险之中。
即使没有将工作置于危险之中,在限制企业所有者解雇表现不佳的经理这个层面上,这些法律也会限制企业的生产力,从而限制员工的工资。事实上,在《新西兰生产力悖论的国际视角》(2014年)中,生产力委员会指出,管理能力低下是该国生产力增长记录不佳的原因之一。
拿高薪的经理们自己也不能幸免于ERA中不正当解雇程序所造成的伤害。由于雇佣保护法使得解雇员工的成本更高,雇主在雇佣新员工时更加谨慎。这使得无足轻重的经理更难获得就业机会。公司会降低员工的工资,因为公司承担了雇佣不当的责任。
社会因过度的就业保护受到损害。严格的解雇规定会对生产力的增长产生不利影响,阻碍繁荣和整体福祉。
在塔斯曼海对岸,澳大利亚应对不正当解雇悖论的方法是,将收入超过特定“高收入门槛”的员工排除在其不正当解雇法的保护之外。在新西兰,2016年的一项私人法案试图允许公司和高收入员工签约推出不正当解雇制度。然而,提议的机制难以落实,该法案在当年晚些时候政府换届后被否决。