The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Unfair law toxic for small businesses > Comments

Unfair law toxic for small businesses : Comments

By Barry Cohen, published 8/4/2009

The Government is placing a burden on small business by not allowing them to employ whoever they wish.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Pelican,

You say "Prior to Work Choices, unfair dismissal laws were the norm and it did not lead to less employment in the small business sector, in fact there was an increase in recruitment."

I seem to recall that when work choices was introduced, there was a large swing from casual employees to full time employees.

My interpretation of this would be that small businesses felt less threatened.

The recession and new IR laws will give small businesses the reason and excuse to purge their ranks of many full time employees which regulators will find difficult to police.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 11 April 2009 8:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been a small business person for more than 30 years and understand peoples frustration with the current and past systems, my businesses are in a number of areas and each needs to be approached differently when it come to employees.

I've always operated with personal contracts or written agreements with my employees no matter their age, or experience and it has always worked satisfactorily for all concerned. All these laws they bring in, are just to make them look like they are doing something to justify the massive bureaucratic waste and legislative bungling. It's very true our parliaments and local governments are now run by people who have no understanding or experience of real life, or the job they are doing. Just like our education and health systems, so it's no wonder there is confusion as to the right protocol for employing or dismissing someone. We rarely employ people under the age of 35 as below that age, the vast majority have no work ethic, loyalty or knowledge of people skills and you can't teach or tell them.

These new laws don't effect small business if it's written down and adheres to accepted conditions and practises, you have nothing to worry about. A business employing less than 15, should be on individual terms and able to sit down at any time and talk about any changes in conditions. If you have well trained responsible and trusted employees who are happy in their work, know the business situation and know they will benefit with every improvement, you can't loose
Posted by stormbay, Saturday, 11 April 2009 10:13:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay

Your post raised an issue that I had with the Howard government's "Work Choices", and that was an employee (particularly in a small business) had always been free to arrange individual workplace entitlements with an employer. The only difference that Work Choices provided was that employers could fire anyone with impunity and to undermine group workplace agreements such as those made by unions.

Thank you for your contribution.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 11 April 2009 11:49:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that I think about it, Fractelle has got closet to the real issue.

We have laws that broadly define what a "fair workplace" is. The central issue here isn't that, at least no one here seems to be arguing whether practice X or Y should be allowed in the workplace. Thus no one is saying a person slacking off should not be fired, that you should be able to fire a married woman or anything along those lines.

Instead the central issue seems to be about how we enforce those standards. Cohen and some posts here seem to think the impost created by the record keeping and having an independent arbitrator is too high. I notice they don't suggest any alternatives though other than the employers be given free reign, So I take it their suggestion is to abandon the ideal of having a fair workplace entirely.

The current situation seems fine to me. The employer must create an "audit trail" of problems he has with the employee by writing written warnings. On the basis of that audit trail he can fire someone. If disputes arise that audit trail can be given to an independent third party. Yes, it takes some work to create the audit trail. But in my experience it reduces the time and expenses spent in disputes amazingly. One avoided legal dispute over unfair dismissal pays for the time taken to do hundreds of written warnings. My guess is that when you add it up this process is actually cheaper.

The point is most business wouldn't bother with the audit trail if not forced to by law. Yet if they where here, we would instead see whinges about the even bigger court costs of ensuring workplace fairness without them. And yet more calls to dispense with the idea of a "fair workplace" because of it.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 11 April 2009 4:20:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“An audit trail of problems”, what are they kindergarten kids who don't have brains. One warning, then out they go, is the only way to operate a business for the benefit of all. “An independent party”, by that do you mean some useless bureaucrats who has no experience of real work, no brains, just a a big pay packet. You need to run a small business for at least 2 years before you can make any from of judgement of how employees should be treated and the balance between the rights of the employer, the business and the employee. What bureaucrat has any experience in running a business, let alone knowing what work is.

An employer should have the right to dismiss anyone who is disrupting the work place, not doing their job or if involved with the public, being offensive or slack. The only time some for of authoritarian intervention should occur, is if the employee has been underpaid or hasn't received their proper benefits on leaving. All we need is a basic set of rules, which maintains employment standards acceptable to the community at the time and in line with maintaining business viability. If it is all put in writing at the commencement of employment, then there should never be a problem at all. No business will get rid of an employee who is working for the business and not just turning up to get a pay packet, which seems to be the norm these days.

Thanks Fractelle, work choices was an abomination, it was purely designed to support the elite and impoverish the people, as is the rubbish put forward by Labor. As for unions, I believe they once did a great job for workers, now many are corrupt, criminal infected organisations which need to be replaced with a better system for those who work in large organisations that properly represents them and not the union or bosses
Posted by stormbay, Sunday, 12 April 2009 8:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay

Respect your straight forward approach. Although sometimes good employees are let go - but workplace bullying is really a topic for another forum.

Take your point about unions too - they did get children out of coal-mines, reasonable working hours and wages, but recent DECADES they have become as corrupted as many of the organisations they were supposedly negotiating with.

A clear paper trail is needed. Mountains of bureaucratic redtape is not.

Perhaps more emphasis on dealing with people in the form of tutorials and training would be a better start than another convoluted piece of legislation. Not all employers are natural leaders - yet they manage to stay in business.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 12 April 2009 10:04:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy