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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.