Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
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 underperforming 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 be 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
答案与解析 (Answers)
36. [D] protect the rights of ordinary workers.
解析：第二段首句明确指出：“个人申诉程序旨在保护普通工人的工作免受‘无理遣散’（Personal grievance procedures were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from 'unjustified dismissals'）”。因此，该条款的初衷是“保护普通工人的权利（protect the rights of ordinary workers）”，选项 D 完全符合题意。
37. [A] hinder business development.
解析：第三段提到，当这些条款应用于高薪经理时，会“阻碍公司解雇表现不佳、高收入的经理（constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers）”，这就像是“阻碍生产力和整体表现的‘手刹’（a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance）”。既然是提高生产力的绊脚石，自然也就是“阻碍企业发展（hinder business development）”，选 A。
38. [D] Dismissing poorly performing managers.
解析：第五段指出，生产力委员会（Productivity Commission）将“管理能力低下（the low quality of managerial capabilities）”挑出，作为该国生产力增长记录糟糕的原因。既然他们认为表现差的管理者是阻碍生产力的元凶，自然会支持“解雇表现不佳的管理者（Dismissing poorly performing managers）”，从而解除这一限制。选 D。
39. [B] Employees suffer from salary cuts.
解析：第六段分析了 ERA 无理解雇程序的后果。文中指出，因为解雇成本变高，公司雇人更谨慎，并且“公司给员工支付的薪水会减少，因为公司承担了雇佣安排出错的风险和负担（And firms pay staff less because firms carry the burden of the employment arrangement going wrong）”。所以其后果之一是员工遭遇“降薪（suffer from salary cuts）”，选 B。
40. [C] is beneficial to business owners.
解析：最后一段提到，澳大利亚通过“将收入高于特定‘高收入门槛’的员工排除在其不公平解雇法保护之外（excluding employees earning above a specified “high-income threshold” from the protection...）”来解决这一悖论。根据前文，保护高薪经理会像“手刹”一样阻碍企业发展，那么澳大利亚这种排除了高薪经理保护的做法，显然就是去掉了“手刹”，自然“对企业所有者是有益的（is beneficial to business owners）”，选 C。
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无缘由地解雇员工。相反，解雇必须有正当理由。雇主必须既证明有理由，又要在程序上公正行事。个人申诉程序的目的是保护普通工人的工作免受"不正当解雇"之害。其前提是，普通合同法对工人缺乏足够的保障来抵御管理层的任意行为。老板只需根据合同通知员工就能将其解雇的日子早已一去不复返。但当这些条款适用于高薪管理人员和高管时，就给企业带来了麻烦。正如无数董事会和企业主所能证明的，限制企业解雇表现不佳的高薪经理是提高生产力和整体业绩的绊脚索。C级和A级管理者之间的差别很可能就是企业成功与失败之间的差别。也是保住普通工人工作与失去这些工作之间的差别。然而，平庸不再足以构成解雇的正当理由。因此——矛盾的是——为保护普通工人工作而引入的法律可能正在将这些工作置于风险之中。如果不至于将工作置于风险之中，那么就业保护法在限制企业主解雇表现不佳的管理人员时，这些法律就会成为企业生产力以及因此工人工资的制约因素。事实上，在《新西兰生产力悖论的国际视角》（2014年）中，生产力委员会特别指出管理能力的低质量是该国生产力增长记录不佳的一个原因。高薪管理者自身也无法幸免于ERA不正当解雇程序所造成的伤害。由于就业保护法使得解雇员工的成本更高，雇主对新员工的招聘更加谨慎。这使得边缘管理者更难获得就业。而且由于企业承担了雇佣安排出错的负担，公司支付给员工的工资也较低。社会也因过度的就业保护而受到损害。严格的解雇监管法规对生产力增长产生不利影响，并阻碍了繁荣和整体福祉。在塔斯曼海对岸，澳大利亚通过将收入超过特定"高收入门槛"的员工排除在其不公平解雇法保护之外来处理不正当解雇悖论。在新西兰，2016年一项议员个人提案试图允许企业和高收入员工通过合同选择退出不正当解雇制度。然而，所提议的机制繁琐，该提案在当年晚些时候政府更迭后被否决。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 表语从句与介词短语嵌套：
"The premise was that the common law of contract lacked sufficient safeguards for workers against arbitrary conduct by management."
【解析】that 引导表语从句，解释 premise（前提）的具体内容。在从句中，against arbitrary conduct by management 是介词短语作 safeguards（保护措施）的后置定语，表示“防范管理层武断行为的保护”。
【翻译】其前提是，普通合同法缺乏足够的措施，来保障工人免受管理层武断行为的侵害。
"The premise was that the common law of contract lacked sufficient safeguards for workers against arbitrary conduct by management."
【解析】that 引导表语从句，解释 premise（前提）的具体内容。在从句中，against arbitrary conduct by management 是介词短语作 safeguards（保护措施）的后置定语，表示“防范管理层武断行为的保护”。
【翻译】其前提是，普通合同法缺乏足够的措施，来保障工人免受管理层武断行为的侵害。
2. 倒装句与定语从句：
"Long gone are the days when a boss could simply give an employee contractual notice."
【解析】本句是一个完全倒装句，由于表语 Long gone 置于句首，系动词 are 提到了主语 the days 之前。when 引导定语从句，修饰 the days。
【翻译】老板只需给员工一份合同通知就能解雇员工的日子早已一去不复返了。
"Long gone are the days when a boss could simply give an employee contractual notice."
【解析】本句是一个完全倒装句，由于表语 Long gone 置于句首，系动词 are 提到了主语 the days 之前。when 引导定语从句，修饰 the days。
【翻译】老板只需给员工一份合同通知就能解雇员工的日子早已一去不复返了。
3. 条件状语与程度状语的复合结构：
"If not placing jobs at risk, to the extent employment protection laws constrain business owners from dismissing underperforming managers, those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers’ wages."
【解析】If not placing jobs at risk 是省略了主语的条件状语，完整为 If they are not placing...。to the extent (that) 意为“在...程度上”。这句话逻辑严密，指出了过度保护法案带来的连锁负面反应：限制解雇 -> 限制生产力 -> 限制工人工资。
【翻译】如果说（这些法律）没有将工作岗位置于危险之中，那么在就业保护法限制企业主解雇表现不佳的经理人的程度上，这些法律就成了对企业生产力的制约，进而也就制约了工人的工资。
"If not placing jobs at risk, to the extent employment protection laws constrain business owners from dismissing underperforming managers, those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers’ wages."
【解析】If not placing jobs at risk 是省略了主语的条件状语，完整为 If they are not placing...。to the extent (that) 意为“在...程度上”。这句话逻辑严密，指出了过度保护法案带来的连锁负面反应：限制解雇 -> 限制生产力 -> 限制工人工资。
【翻译】如果说（这些法律）没有将工作岗位置于危险之中，那么在就业保护法限制企业主解雇表现不佳的经理人的程度上，这些法律就成了对企业生产力的制约，进而也就制约了工人的工资。