"But, I desire to have a productive business, hence I want happy motivated employees, who will not be so if they are underpaid. I've always paid at the TOP end of the award structure in contrast to my own former employer who paid at the bottom end. I chafed under the feeling of 3 yrs without a COL index increment, it sucks."

BD if the above statement of yours is actually true, then what the *!#+ were you on about in your hysterical rant previously? You do carry on a bit now don't you?

-"then sell up now"= 'your business should be culled' ? (am I missing something?)>> I repeat if your can't afford to pay employees then you should maybe become one again - 'culled' is your hysterical response.

-"our economy cannot afford.." ="You are the 'master economist" :) No I am not a master economist - never claimed to be, once again you run to extremes. Common sense says that the ecoonomy cannot support unviable businesses - its not rocket science BD.

Now come down to earth you flighty little man and read the following link, because small businesses have more to fear from big business than from employees wanting to earn enough for a roof over their heads and food on the table.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/the-ir-facts-behind-the-pms-truth/2005/07/13/1120934299261.html?oneclick=tru

Small businesses are constrained with unfair dismissal laws - whereby they cannot replace an employee with someone who they think will do a better job.

What would happen if there were similar laws for employees leaving.

Lets call it an unfair resignation law.

With the unfair resignation law, an employee would not be allowed to resign from his or her position unless they had given there boss three written warnings that they were not happy with their job.

They also wouldn't be allowed to use the excuse that they had been given a better opportunity elsewhere because employers are not allowed to sack people just because they think someone else would do a better job.

Of course, you cannot resign just because you don't like your boss. this is grossly unfair.

Would the unions support such an evening up of unfair dismissal laws.

t.u.s.

peter hendy has failed to respond to the challenge after some 18 days to two simple questions will a worker if employed at a workplace with less than 100 employees be able to seek reinstatement for either refusing an unsafe direction or an unlawful direction.

surely everyone must support the rule of law. does anyone support the notion that someone should lose their job and be dependant on welfare for refusing to comply with an unlawful direction.

Examples of which are as follows:-

driving a truck or heavy vehicle for longer periods as prescribed in various Transport Legislation (designed to protect road users)

dumping waste or hazardous material outside of prescribed areas

working in a non-exempt shop and trading outside of lawful hours

why won't peter hendy reassure everyone that workers will be able to have an independant umpire review their case if dismissed for refusing unlawful directions.

if an employer removes a safety guard from machinery to improve efficiency will the worker's job be safe if they refuse to operate the equipment.

or under john howard and peter hendy's system will they have to lose a limb and sue for compensation

oh what a wonderful world we would live in
c'mon pete you must have a view on this.
c'mon liberals or nats what's your views?
do you support the rule of law?