It is both the glory and the damnation of the market economy that badly managed companies sometimes survive for a long time, while well managed companies can sink for no fault of their own.

As a consequence we have seen a trickle of reports from badly managed small companies that have sacked people for inconsequential reasons, sometimes to offer them their jobs back at a lower wage. There may be others that never hit the news headlines because no union is involved or because workers are afraid to speak to the press. Such managers never imagine that they are putting their company at risk. Unfortunately, sometimes they aren't.

Pericles wrote, "My company's size gives us the right to fire at will; how do I explain to my people that I do not intend to make use of it?

"Larger companies are envious of our people's skills, and are often sniffing around, trying to poach them. Now they are able to force me to implement salary levels higher than theirs, simply to compensate for the insecurity factor. Double whammy."

Well, you could start by discussing it with your people, putting your integrity on the line and explaining (perhaps reiterating) the rare circumstances in which you would instantly sack someone, and promising measures you will take to help someone whose performance is lagging, before, if all else fails, letting them go. You could also share with them your company's cash flow and P&L, and discuss whether it is growing or shrinking. If you suffer a downturn and your people trust you, they will not head straight for the hills, but will work their butts off to put it right. Get them to understand it's your job on the line too.

People rarely make decisions about jobs on the basis of a few thousand bucks a year. If your people trust you, they'll stay. If they don't, they won't. The new IR laws don't alter this a whole lot. A couple of thousand bucks more in their pockets won't either.

As we wait for the safe rescue of the miners trapped underground I suggest readers of this forum look at the article in www.crikey.com that states that Macquarie Bank bought all the mine's debt and placed the bank in receivership. The receiver gets all operating profits. The article also discussed the November safety report that was commissioned after the October 2005 seismological activity.

Also try to get the Radio National transcript of Mr Comerford's eye witness description of police firing in miners striking at the Rutherford Colliery lock out in 1929, note carefully his description of the government minister who ordered the police to fire.

Kim Beazley is correct to claim that union activity has made the australian workplace safer and we all know that if the mine was in China production wouldn't have stopped when 3 miners we trapped in a rock fall. The new IR legislation stops unions entering workplaces so we can expect workplaces to be a lot less safer in the future.

On the ball Billie boy. Note the crap coming from Howards attack dogs.
This Govt. is starting to get embarrased on a daily basis by this heinous IR law. They continually deny that it allows employers to do, exactly what it allows them to do. Poor employers must be getting confused. LET ME ASSIST THEM.
Employers--- wait till after the next election, then you can start treating workers like disposable commodities. Please wait.

Billie…you’re right in saying that ‘in China production wouldn't have stopped when 3 miners we trapped in a rock fall.’

…that’s the difference in a value system that regards individual human life as a priority and of infinite value…each and every human life…God bless Australia…may it always be so in the land of the Southern Cross.

As for Macquarie Bank...they are also buying up large cotton properties in Northern New South Wales...to lease back to cotton growers on the Bank's terms...who owns Australia now?

This is all part of National Competition Policy and supported by both the ALP and Liberal parties...NPA and other prominent parties too. Cripple individual ownership of land and assets of middle and low income Australians with it...hand it to the transnationals.

Check the electoral donations list to see where policy decisions of government and opposition parties come from...they're not hard to predict.

I'm told reliably that there are influences on the union movement also from softdrink manufacturers who 'donate' profits from sales on mine sites to mining unions with 'strings attached'...sounding more like a banana republic every day.

Beazley has a point here despite the media hype to try to discredit him...and not surprisingly he probably WAS trying to score political points, like the rest of the political spectrum - if we want media scrutiny of politicians we can hardly complain when they are prepared to speak to media if questioned on issues. If we like or don't like what they say we can then judge them on that...It's important that they have the opportunity to speak to media nonetheless.