AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

The New Zealand Government has recently implemented a 90-day trial period. This claims to be of benefit to both workers and employers, however looking into the mechanics of the policy show that despite claims, the more negative implications of this policy are felt by the worker.  This policy can be examined and critiqued using Foucault’s theory of the panopticon. Applying this theory to the 90 day trial shows the self regulatory impact it has on workers and their behaviour, which works to favour to the employer.

The 90 day trial period was put in place by the government in New Zealand in April 2009 (Cheng, 2010). It was initially limited to work places with less than 19 employees. This policy has now been extended to include all work places. The trial period allows for businesses to dismiss an employee without having to offer an explanation as long as this is within 90 days of the first day on the job. The worker is unable to dispute the termination of their contract unless they have reason to claim they have been somehow discriminated against. Since the employer is not however required to give an explanation for the termination, proving discrimination can be particularly difficult. Not all new employees are automatically on the trial, this is supposedly self regulatory and terms should be agreed and negotiated by both parties on signing an employment contract.

This issue is interesting from a sociological perspective as it is an example of the ongoing historical conflict between the worker and employer. This relationship is analogous to master/slave with businesses expecting the most productivity possible, in order to maximise the company profits at whatever cost to the rights of the worker. This can be seen in the trial period which benefits the employer while making the worker more easily disposable and under constant threat of job loss within the first three months on the job. This lack of job security means the worker will produce more and work harder without complaint in the hope that they will perform to a standard high enough to make it through probation. Proponents of this policy claim that it is mutually beneficial to both employees and employer (Wilkinson 2010) however it is hard to see how this is favourable to workers. While both parties must agree on the trial at the beginning of a contract, New Zealand’s overcrowded job market makes the agreement difficult for the new worker to refuse since the employer can easily find another job applicant willing to agree on these terms. A large majority of workers that are inclined to agree on these terms are youth making up 43 percent of employees under probation (Cheng 2010). The idea that a worker can ‘choose’ to enter into such an agreement is further shown to be policy spin when considering those receiving the unemployment benefit and looking for work: their choice is either to take a job with a trial attached, or receive a cut to their benefit (Fenton 2010). Therefore the worker is being deceived into an impression of choice and are penalised if they do not agree.  

Workers on a trial period can be examined sociologically using Foucault’s theory of the panopticon which is based on Jeremy Bentham’s prison design of the same name (Foucault 1979). This prison design was comprised of a circular building with a tower in the centre. The tower looks over the prison cells on the outer circle, which all have windows that look back at the tower. These windows are placed in order to constantly remind prisoners they are being watched. Inmate’s cells are lit up and the tower darkened, this enables only the guard to watch the prisoners without the prisoner knowing when they are being observed. Foucault explains that just this possibility of being watched in enough to keep the prisoners under control with out requiring any physical restraints. This is because the knowledge of being constantly watched leads the prisoners to self regulate and control their own behaviour (Foucault 1979). Cells are positioned next to each other without any visibility of next door neighbours - this is to prevent any form of collective resistance to the system. Foucault argued that these mechanisms of the panopticon are present in all modern day institutions including the workplace.

The probation period can be compared to the panopticon and the guard in the watchtower. Workers on trial, like the inmates, feel they are under constant surveillance. Foucault explains this as the gaze being internalised, the worker then acts on this by regulating their own performance. Feeling as though they are being watched, the worker over the 90 days will work much harder hoping to perform to a high enough standard to please the boss and be kept on at the end of the trial.

A worker on probation does not need to be watched, they will behave as they are expected to in the work place since the fear of losing their job is enough. Prior to these probationary periods more managers were necessary to watch over staff and reprimand if workers did wrong or underperformed: ‘the major effect of the panopticon; to induce in the inmate [worker] a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power’ (Foucault 1979, 201). This automatic function of power means prisoners no longer required physical restraints to keep them inside their cells, they would automatically keep themselves confined. This is also true of the relationship between the worker and manager. This restructure of power means less managers are required to push workers from above, and the workers conform to their automatic function of power under probation to what they are expected to do without needing the bosses to tell them what to do.

Lastly, the way the prisoners cells are arranged so they are unable to see and interact with each other is to prevent any chaos or plans of escape (Foucault, 1979). ‘This invisibility is a guarantee of order’ (Foucault 1979, 200). This order can also be seen in the 90 day period since workers on the trial will be unwilling to engage in any workers strikes or reluctant to speak out against unjust treatment. This spreads throughout the workplace since some employees will be on probation and some not preventing any collective resistance. 

This new 90 day probation period is not, as the government has argued, beneficial to both employer and employees. As with the panopticon, this trial period has very real effects on the mind of workers, keeping them in a constant state of insecurity which leads them to modify their behaviour for the benefit of the employer but carries no extra benefits to workers under trial.

Bibliography

Cheng, D. “90 – day trial a ‘safety belt’ for employers.” NZ Herald, 17, July, 2010. Web. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10659460

Wilkinson, K. “90 day trial period extended to all employers.” New Zealand Government Website, 18, July, 2010. Web. http://beehive.govt.nz/release/90-day+trial+period+extended+all+employers

Fenton, D. “Minster admits 90 day trial period not voluntary.” Labour party, Press release. Scoop, Independent news. 18, August 2010. Web.  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1008/S00277/minister-admits-90-day-trial-periods-not-voluntary.htm

Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Press)

Matthewman, S. West – Newman, C.L. Curtis, B. (2007) Being Sociological. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan) 

Luscombe, J. “Union unhappy with Key over 90 day trial period.” 3 News.17, July, 2010. Web. http://www.3news.co.nz/Union-unhappy-with-Key-over-90-day-trial-period/tabid/421/articleID/166284/Default.aspx

Mills, S. (2003) Michel Foucault. (Oxon. Routledge)

O’ Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. (London: Sage Publications Limited).

Luscombe, J. “Union unhappy with Key over 90 day trial period.” 3 News.17, July, 2010. Web. http://www.3news.co.nz/Union-unhappy-with-Key-over-90-day-trial-period/tabid/421/articleID/166284/Default.aspx