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 > Lawyers will turn Howard’s industrial nirvana into employer hell > Comments

Lawyers will turn Howard’s industrial nirvana into employer hell : Comments

By Irfan Yusuf, published 2/6/2005

Irfan Yusuf argues that John Howard has not considered the legal implications of his new Industrial Relations policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Two things worry me here, first of all in small business it too hard to find good employees and a long and expensive process to train them. Why on earth would a small business dismiss them unfairly? Seems a HUGE amount of red tape is created that succeeds in little but creating loopholes for expensive vexatious claims.

Secondly, I have a great fear of the government when it says it is going to "simplify" things. Our "simplfied" tax system has blown the tax act out to four times the Melbourne phone book. My Business interests now require 20 tax returns per year instead of 4. They must have a different dictionary to me.
Posted by Skipper, Thursday, 2 June 2005 9:05:57 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
Skipper,totally agree.Perhaps we should protect the ducks,and have open season on lawyers.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 5 June 2005 1:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't seem very smart to set your sights on lawyers. It's the legislators (voted in by Australians who imagined they'd be in better hands under PM Howard), who got us all into this godforsaken deluded state - in which everyone is asked to accept that:

* 20 is less than 4
* people who do just 1 hour of paid work in a week should not be (and aren't!) counted as unemployed
* refugee detention at the cost of $100,000 per person per year is better value than community placement, and
* sorry is to hard and too pointless to say.

And people vote for this man, his party and coalition partners. Unbelievable!
Posted by Fiona, Sunday, 5 June 2005 12:51:05 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
So Fiona ,what do you prepose?An open border policy whereby illegal immigrants can come here and reduce basic wages to that of third world countries from which they are escaping?It is happening in the USA and they are lamenting the social disentergration that reduces human beings to the lowest common denominator and the end result is creating humans who are in constant survival mode,with no time for learning,creativity or family interaction.

It is a recipe for for poverty and violence.Your wealth is in your people who want to be both autonomous and creative in securing their own futures.

Our small population cannot solve the world's ills,and the best we can do is to care for those in our own realm of responsibility,and realise the limitations our our own power and influence.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 5 June 2005 7:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, fortunately neither you and I, or even our politicians get to call people "illegal" without trial. Not validly or truthfully at least, this being one of the civilised aspects of our system (well, of those parts that operate with integrity and consistently with our founding principles).

Refugees and migrants who end up living in Australia ADD to our economy as workers, consumers, taxpayers and by growing the population. Consider how much the Vietnamese (like, the old 'boat people') have contributed in the last couple of decades.

Anyway, the biggest fan of USA style social order is here already, in the person of our very own PM - whose IR platform is pure, ancien regime Darwinism dressed up in new clothes, and ready to drive social disintegration. (Not that some would notice or care - not until the economy gets shaky. Perhaps it'll start with the housing sector - after all, the banks are already reluctant or refuse to give loans to people in casual employment and jobbing contracts - you know, those 'flexible' employment arrangements).....
Posted by Fiona, Sunday, 5 June 2005 9:08:25 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
Well Fiona,we are sick to death of lawyers selling us our rights.We have a symbotic relationship between lawyers and insurance companies.The lawyers create the need for public liability through rampant and unbridled litigation.They have created the victim mentality of "poor me,how can I get a free ride?"They have appealled to the most base of human motivation and live in denial by pretending to save the oppressed.

Lawyers create the need for insurance and feed off it like parisites.They deserve all the public derision they receive.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 6 June 2005 8:28:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona, nice list. Unfortunately with a 350 word limit and only two posts per day per topic the list for the other major political option (Labor) is not going to appear here.

They all do things we don't like. The decision to vote for the coalition has problems, it only becomes easy when you compare it to the track record of the left of politics in running this country.
No need to be insulting about people who make a different choice to yourself, one of the joys of democracy is that we can make different value judgements. I get the impression reading posts to this side that few of us are entirely happy with any major political party, we support the one's which best reflect our values and lobby for change on the bits we don't like.

Now back to the topic. Interesting article. I am still trying to work out a viewpoint on the proposed changes and this was a perspective that I had not seen before
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 9:55:31 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
Arjay stop chasing Fiona around the forum, she always has legit postings even if you don't agree with them. Good article Irfan, of course little JH hasn't considered any legal outfall, he wants to get it away from the union movement as fast as possible and into the hands of the lawyers becasue it is less affordable to the common man. (Unions, whatever their faults may be, don't have the meter running). If the govt isn't about to put the old dog union down (which has been on its last legs through a lot of its own fault), workers themselves may just as well shoot it. Either way, the worker is potentially between a rock and a hard place. The govt is out to supress the unions, representative perhaps still these days, of the worker. The unions are only as strong as their members (the workers). If the govt "wins" the workers have lost anyway, the unions are obsolete. Whilst being a union officer for a long time of my working life, I just shake my head. We've been here before. But, let the games begin! It's always been about the power struggle and you don't necessarily have to bring the country to its knees. I'm a pluralist out of reality, not a unitarian or a marxist by the way, and GUESS WHAT! Now I am an insurance agent! That's another story however. By the way Robert, those thigh high stilleto boots look just great with your safari suit. (Being cute, not offensive)
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 7 June 2005 9:07:40 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
Di, the boots should look better on you than the safari suit on me. Always cute.

I agree that workers are in for a rough time. Just not sure what the best way to deal with it is.
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 11:27:12 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
Di,Fiona instigated the challenge,I merely replied.I call it as I see it.Unfair dismissal has to go,we need to give employers a reason to employ people instead of looking upon them as the enemy.

Good employees are treasured people,however under NSW industrial relations private enterprise is laying workers off because of Govt regulation and interference.The present down turn in NSW economic activity is due to the Carr Govt taxes,over regulation and red tape.

We make up 40% of the Aust economy,and if we go under ,so does Australia.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 8 June 2005 7:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, no challenge on unfair dismissal that myself or Fiona instigated. What is the bugbear employers have with sacking? It's still one of the easiest things to set an employee up to if you know how to play the book. Mass redundancies scare me more, especially coming from banks, they justify it till the cows come home and the employees get natch. the sacked CEO always take home some nice money. And that is always going to be my bitch. On the day Corby was sentenced, the govt gave themselves a cool $8000 each per annum increase. Wish my boss did that for me when I wasn't looking. Buried nicely amongst the Schappelle stuff. Less than a week later, they're screaming again at the ACTU and the (soon to die) AIRC about awarding the lowest paid workers a $20 odd dollar increase. The Sky is falling! So who's big fat snout is in the trough? The workers!? Hardly! The small employer's? Not! All animals are equal, but it helps if you're strutting along on your hind legs in the Paris end of Collins Street in a pinstripe suit.
Posted by Di, Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:28:33 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
Robert, always relieved that you are still un-safari suited, and hopefully unbooted, but sensibly shoed. Re what workers will face in the New JohnnyCab laws, I can only quote from Bette Davis in "All About Eve' (if you haven't seen it, get it on DVD or Video, great old movie with Marilyn Monroe's debut) Anyway, great line from Bette as she swigs a martini before going upstairs to powder her nose before hosting a party with swags of guests is "Fasten your seatbelts. We're in for a bumpy ride tonight" Or words to that effect. Then swanned up the stairs (as you do) with her gown swishing. Can't do that in safari suit. Or bike pants for that matter! getting back to what the Howard Govt is doing with the industrial laws is a total dismantling of rights that workers take for granted. As an industrial law backgound person that has worked on both sides of the fence and not necessarily agreed with the unions on a lot of things, I will always argue that workers need a safety guard which employers drag their feet at, such as OHS, WorkCover, super, et al. The union is now a toothless chiauau rather than a doberman, but it should really should be a kelpie.
Posted by Di, Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:58:41 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
Arjay, you primly tell Di that I "instigated the challenge" and you "merely replied... as [you] see it.Unfair dismissal has to go...."

I have not uttered one word about unfair dismissal. It is lazy debating to posit straw arguments, and illegitimate to then falsely attribute one that you've concocted to another person. And it does nothing to enhance a website of this kind. Perhaps your arguments will attract an actual sparring partner on the subject of what an employee or contractor should or should not be able to do if dismissed, Arjay, but it ain't me babe.
Posted by Fiona, Thursday, 9 June 2005 8:51:13 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
unfair dismissal is a cheap efficient remedy for employees and employers. lawyers are often not involved because the forms are easy to fill out and the commissions are very user-friendly.

if we remove unfair dismissal, we are not attacking the problem.

john howard's policy is fantastic on paper. but you don't have to be a brilliant industrial lawyer like peter costello to realise that getting rid of unfair dismissal merely sends workers to pursue other remedies.

as for lawyer fees, there are plenty of lawyers preared to run many of these cases on a speculative (no win ne fee) basis.

i think employers have been poorly served by their umbrella representative organisations. further, i think that when job security is compromised, the economy suffers.

in short, i think mr howard is implementing an illiberal policy. it seeks to take away safeguards protecting individual workers. i am all for freeing up the labour market. but to do that in a way which encourages employers to reduce their standard of HR practices is bad for business and bad for the economy.
Posted by Irfan, Saturday, 11 June 2005 5:34:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put, Irfan.

As a very small employer myself, I believe a safe, secure and supportive workplace is conducive to high productivity. Its a balancing act, but I don't regard my employees as fodder for the mill they are as much a part of my small business as I am myself - if they aren't happy I want to know why. While most employers try very hard to be responsible, there are plenty who will see the IR changes as open slather on exploitation.

The final outcome will be that the lawyers will be the ones to gain from the removal of unfair dismissal laws - Howard has opened a can of worms with this one and the economy will suffer.
Posted by Ringtail, Saturday, 11 June 2005 7:59:18 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
Unfair dismissal has little impact in the corporate realm, since an false claim can be a tad harmful for your next job prospect.As we move down the food chain it becomes more profitable to claim unfair dismissal or claim for workers comp.

I say we more than double the basic wage to include work insurances,put everyone on contract,dispose of workers comp,have a new insurance scheme that covers workers both at home and work.Workers who put in a claim will pay an excess just like any other insurance.This will reduce false and trivial claims.Employers who are clearly negilent pay an employee an extra compensatory amount.Have Govt tribunal which determines neglience and exclude the lawyers.If everyone has personal injury insurance,there would be far less need for huge public liability payouts.

It won't happen since we don't have the courage and vested interests like lawyers and insurance companies have too much power.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 11 June 2005 12:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, yu don't have the unfair dismissal thingy. Don't leave it up to govt to decide, that's why the AIRC is alive (before it's taken out the back and shot in the head). You can't make every employee take out liability and not expect the employer to not take out WorkCover. We can't leave it up to the market forces, we are apparently lacking in metal workers and welders, that may have something to do with what they have done with the apprentice/training system in Oz over the last twenty so years... and now we have to import them. Call me Conspiracy Cate, but isn't it funny now we are calling all overseas skilled workers to address our shortage. Along with a dismantling of IR in this country. Talk about paving the way to setting up a new minimum wage! Let;s just see how this little mongrel whelps the litter.
Posted by Di, Saturday, 11 June 2005 7:33:41 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
The purpose of unfair dismissal laws is to protect workers from arbitary dismissal. It is naive to say that employers do not sack good workers just as it is naive to suggest that every unfair dismissal claim is legitimate. You don't fix the system by abolishing it. I have acted both for employers and employees. By the simple steps of keeping records, communicating with staff and being fair - an employer can obviate most unfair dismissal claims. Just as not as not all employees are good, not all employers are nice. I'll give you just a few examples as why, in my opinion, protection is neccesary for workers:- The truckie who was sacked for being admitted to hospital and ringing in sick after working 48 hours straight; Another Truckie sacked for not falsifying his log books so as so hide his last 20 hour drive (be glad you were'nt on the road when he was); sacked due a compo claim after getting a finger cut off (the boss's removal of guards on machines made this worker work faster); sacked for being pregnant;..sacked after getting brain damage because the boss failed to provide training or safety equipment. These are all people I, scummy bottom dweller lawyer that I am, worked for. None of these people had the skills to deal with their claims without help. I ask..what do you suggest happen to such claims ? I know what would have happened to their claims if they occurred after 1/7/2005.
Posted by aniko, Saturday, 11 June 2005 10:08:36 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
Wow, great post aniko - could feel the rage. And you are right. However, when the IR changes take place I predict you will be very busy. The abolition of unfair dismissal is without doubt anti human.

Arjay
"Employers who are clearly negilent pay an employee an extra compensatory amount."

Who do you call to prove negligence?
Posted by Ringtail, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:55:39 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
Aniko, so with you also, I worked at Trades Hall doing workcover for union employees (and often we'd take on non union employees pro bono so to speak) Of the odd 250 workers I dealth with (health, teachers and metalworkers) there was only a handful of members that I felt were rorting the illness/injury. To a worker, most would have given their eye teeth to have not had it happen to them (and most lost a lot more). You are absolutely right about workers vs employers, some are not nice, or fair on both sides of the fence. However, safety guards should be there between the employee/employer relationship re OH &S , rights on both sides, sexism, racism, et al. and to dismantle the system, is to open it up to a slather of lawyers. What's wrong with the AIRC? Like you, I've taken cases of unfair dismissal (on both sides of the fence) and seen the commissioners deal rather equitably and fairl (even if i haven't agreed) and the whole point of the AIRC was to make it a layman's commission, where one didn't need a lawyer. If one needs a lawyer as a worker to defend oneself under little Johnny's IR laws, it doesn't exactly smack of "fair go" for the workers.
Posted by Di, Sunday, 12 June 2005 6:36:47 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
Is it only me who has been constantly bemused at a perceived constituency for this government among those who would remove laws aimed at preventing unfair dismissal of employees by their employers?

I am obviously missing something basic here. I thought we Aussies were all about giving each other a "fair go".
Posted by garra, Sunday, 12 June 2005 9:27:09 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
Irfan Yusuf agrees that we have to free up the labour market to be more competitive.Before keating this country fuctioned well without unfair dismissal laws.It's administeration has been appaulling with judges of the left persuasion favouring the worker.I've of too many anicdotal cases to know that it must go.

Let's get things into perspective.We have enormous economic problems facing us in the next 15 to 20 yrs.We are a country laden with too much Govt and bureauracy.Over the next 15yrs the Commonwealth has to find $126 billion for unfunded super liability.[Ref Telegraph 26/4/2005]Now the States also have unfunded super liabilities and they employ far more people.Many people in private enterprise have no where near enough to survive.As the "Boomers" retire we will have less tax and more people wanting to take super that has been spent by past Govts.

Our economy only has a GDP of $8 billion.We have 1.5 million public servants in this country and at least 33% will retire soon,if it is unfunded our economy has nowhere near enough.Just for Commonwealth public servants we have to find $8.4 billion per yr for 15 yrs.How much of our country can we flog off?

Could someone please find out what the unfunded super liabilities for all the states is.There is certain info that they make hard to find.We are in deep do do.We need a lot more than industrial reform.Perhaps a miracle or two.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 13 June 2005 1:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, we're talking unfair dismissal here, not super. Two different beasties (and yes, you can thank Mr Keating for introducing both). Your stance that unfair dismissal worked well prior to Keating was that there was not very good (if any) protection for workers prior to this. Anecodotally, one always knows someone who employed the worker who claimed "workcover" due to a "mediterrainian back", who was later filmed on "A current Affair" picking up a planted $50 note. And the slackest worker in the world who was sacked and then claimed unfair dismissal and got squillions and got reinstated! I suggest you go to the AIRC website and have a look at some transcripts of cases, some cases of assault and harrassment where the employer has either instigated it/condoned it/ or ignored it are up on a par with any worker who has falsely taken his/her claim.
Posted by Di, Monday, 13 June 2005 6:56:07 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
Di,if we have a more fluid workplace whereby employers don't feel threatened,more jobs will be available to those who don't like their bosses.Bad bosses will not survive in a fluid jobs market.We have now a system that punishes employers for taking on workers.How insane is this?Many people of lesser ability ie those my age are now excluded from the the work place because of our workplace regulations ,Govt red tape,bloated Govt bureauracies,taxes paying many abled people not to work and litigious mentality.Many businesses are saying it is just too hard and are either moving off shore or shutting down.

This coupled with our Govts super debacle,spells disaster for our country.I'm looking at the bigger picture for this urgency for industrial reform.The mal-administration of this country over the last 30yrs could be worse than anyone could have imagined.

The Howard Govt, no doubt to your glee,has let unfunded super liability blow out from $15 billion to $90 billion in the last ten years.This means that all their so called budget surpluses have been a lie.Having learnt this today,I have lost faith in all Govts in both their honesty and so called good intentions for the common good of our country.I don't think you or many others, understand the gravity of these numbers.Unfair dismissal isn't even a blimp on the radar screen by comparision.

If those like yourself in private enterprise ,cannot see the reality,then we will become just another" banana republic "in the South Pacific,and Keating's snipe will become a reality.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 13 June 2005 9:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, your reference book (almanack?) may be a little out of date.

"Our economy only has a GDP of $8 billion"

Last time I looked, which must be five years ago, Australia had a GDP in the region of $500 billion. I'm sure it hasn't shrunk that much in the meantime.

You would do yourself - and all of us - a favour by being more specific in your criticisms and more temperate in your ranting. As the owner of a small (10 person) business myself, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I suspect the message itself is getting lost in the foghorn tones you use to broadcast it.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 11:32:55 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
First of all I don't have any glee in anything the Howard govt does, not that I am scoring points from one govt to another. But fluidity in letting employees choose to leave a boss because they have a choice? In this industrial climate? Get real, Industrial Cinderella! Fluidity is another way of saying that employers should not give a reason to sack people. Yes, they should have a good excuse and yes, employees should not have unfair dismissal laws all in their favour. As they don't. Refer to my previous post of AIRC case listings if you want to get a snapshot of what happens in Aust workplaces, big, small or unionised. Unfair dismissal laws in this country have not empowered the worker to take their employer to the cleaners regardless of how slack they are, it's just that employers have been terrified of their perception of how to go about it and therefore use that as an excuse to hire "black money workers" or casuals because they haven't wrapped their heads around it. If any small employer can wrap their head around the GST and BAS statements, surely an "Unfair dismissal" of an unsatisfactory worker should be a walk in the park. And where exactly, has all this legislation led to you or your generation to not being able to be employed? I'm interested in that statement.
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 9:15:24 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
Di, open up your own small business in fast food or manufacturing and after 2yrs I challenge you to re-interate this errant nonsense.

We survived unfair dismissal prior Keating and we all will prosper more without it.

Everyone I know who is a good worker is paid way above award wages.
Very few small business are doing well.My prices haven't gone up in 3yrs.I've absorbed the GST due to increased competition.Small businesses have small margins unlike insurance companies or some lawyers on $20,000.oo per week.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 10:13:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Pericles,it is now closer to $800 billion Aust.My mistake but the other stats are correct.We are ranked about 18th in the world for GDP per capita depending upon what formula is used.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 15 June 2005 11:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aniko, I totally support your work for those wronged by greedy employers, at the same time, I watch with monotonous regularity the blatant profit mongering of Salter and Mordon (changed name) who seem to sniff out anything where there are big and opportunistic bucks.
We have lousy employers and lousy lawyers. Good to see u appear to be one of the goodies. Keep it up.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 June 2005 7:51:55 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
Di.... I notice you have a habit of defending Fiona. If its not me ur suggesting who is bugging her its Arjay.... a bit of a pattern there mate. Fiona says some rather 'out there' things at times. You better take her for a walk on the real side and introduce her to the things of life that you seem to be more familiar with than her.
Maybe then we won't find any reason to annoy her because she will be talking sense for a change :)
Fiona. *peace*
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 June 2005 10:27:42 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
Arjay, I have worked in small business (in one at the moment) where I had to sack an unsatisfactory employee. And I've had an ex employee who claimed unfair dismissal, which didn't get past conciliation as he had no legs to stand on. I can see your point about how hard it is with small business, (and not only about hiring and firing) but to call a small business less than 100 employees is a bit rich. It will be extremely easy for larger employers to loophole this change and branch off into smaller companies so the "business", no matter how big, can come under this umbrella. Calling anything a "fair go" does not make it necessarily so. When this govt starts cleaning up the big end of town and all the rorts and the obscene wages/payouts, then I'll start to consider whether they have the little guy's interests at heart.

David, I don't think I make a habit out of defending Fiona. WHatever your opinion is of her opinion, don't be so snide about it.
Cheers,
Posted by Di, Sunday, 19 June 2005 12:37:02 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
Well i am a employee and I am scared. I have been employed the past 6 years with same company of a 130 people (75 permanents). I have had a couple of run ins with management because of their workplace bullying tactics. Thankfully we have a union. If these laws are abolished my job is gone and others for sure with out a dout. My wife and I are very worried as how we will cope with the mortgage, not to mention the stress and pressure that will be placed on myself at work and home. I feal dark days are ahead :(
Posted by Dirtydog, Sunday, 19 June 2005 12:47:53 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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