Boaz, I'm sooo relieved.

On the issue of compulsory union membership, I'm a bit divided. It's a bit like compulsory voting. I used to be dead set against that, it interfering with freedom of choice. I set out to proof my strongly held belief one semester doing a lot of research for a paper I had to present, but to my chagrin (I don't really like to be shown to be 'wrong'!) I changed my mind.

Thuggery, vandalism, intimidation or any kind of stand-over tactics by any party - Union or Employer - I think is disgusting.

Ideally every worker should be able to negotiate a fair deal with an ethical fair employer. Sadly most humans are wired to 'win' and to get the 'best' for themselves. In the case of the vast majority of workers it is not an equal competition. Not even now with high employment prospects. That's why unions are necessary. To balance the competing interests.

Your point on justice goes for both parties. A Union ready to 'break' an employer and to demand what is not possible will soon lose employment for their members (and membership numbers!) with a business going bust. That this does not often happen goes to show how much pressure many businesses do need to do the right thing by their employees.

I'd say more small businesses have been brought to their knees not by employees, but by other unethical business practices within the business community that said business had to deal with.

My husband and I have had several very successful businesses, we've had our employee from Hell, but we've had more danger from unethical practices from other businesses, least of them being shopping centre owners.

"My husband and I have had several very successful businesses, we've had our employee from Hell, but we've had more danger from unethical practices from other businesses, least of them being shopping centre owners."

A good point, one rooted in real experience, that not many people talk about. Reminds me of what the Frank Lowys of this world do to small businesses. It just goes to show that, in the capitalist system, if you're big enough, you're untouchable.

What's the saying: if you owe the bank a million dollars, it's your problem, but if you owe them a hundred million, it's the bank's problem.......

RobP, yes, lots of personal experience. That's why when I hear business owners whinging about greedy selfish employees causing hardship I have to laugh.

We've had our run in with IR in regards with an employee, but we've found that yes, it is tough and so it should be, but if you are above board, honest and ethical issues can be resolved. Even if it means that an issue becomes too much a 'he said, she said' a decent comprise can be reached to resolve the issue.

It is too easy for business owners to point the finger at employees for the failure or lack of success of their business. It is more likely lack of business planning, knowledge/experience and shocking (often expensive) 'professional' advice.

I have never been able to fathom why a business needs some special type of protection from employees like the unfair dismissal clause. Why should you be able to dismiss an employee unfairly? Workers are generally not working because they are bored but because they depend on the income to survive.

A business is not there for some altruistic reason, neither is the employee.

What the business community needs to do is become honest in regard with what is tolerated between businesses in the 'name' of business. The only ones coming out laughing is the legal profession and the business that is bigger.

Is there such a thing as ethical standards of behaviour in business? Once upon a time a handshake used to be enough. Now even a complex legal document will not necessarily cover you if one party does not have the intention of abiding by it.

Focus on employees seems to be a method of focusing all business on a supposed 'common enemy' so as to limit focus on practices within and between businesses.

Yvonne, the problems you point out all boil down to human laziness. Businesses put all the blame on bad employees because the businesses have been often unwittingly drafted into supporting even bigger businesses in their war against unions. As you say employees are made the bogeyman. Why them and no one else? Simply because they're the easiest targets.

Then you have the big businesses like Westfield that, to stay on top of the heap, have to play the game harder than anyone else. Eventually standards slip, people take shortcuts and good, smaller businesses get unfairly treated.

While I've never been in small business myself, I couldn't resist having a swipe at Lowy. This guy's company is one of the worst in the business, yet he always seems to pop up smelling of roses when leaving his legacy in the world of soccer etc. Speaking of ethics, the popular media needs to have a good hard look at itself as well. And in particular, how it promotes people like Lowy - the Jew who worked hard and made good.

You're right that the spotlight needs to fall on all aspects of ethics in business. The elephant in the room is the way the size differential between businesses is becoming the sole determinant in who wins. As we all know, this is morally wrong.

Despite being united by superstition the Catholic Church is essentially a business, its primary purpose throughout its history from the very begining was the accumulation of capital. The "church" gained its wealth by exploiting a union, the Catholic people. This enables those who apologise for the excesses of the church to argue from either camp as either the exploiter or the exploited. Even though the overlords of the superstition follow the same taboo's and rituals of the cult they are also the ones speaking as Jesus and so amke up the rules to benifit the church at the expense of the members as they go along.

This article was to be expected, under the Liberals Pell wrongfully interfered with the lives of Australians through cult members within the party. The Catholic church and indeed the Pentecostal Church through its political arm Family First who swupported the anti Australian and Anti Family work chioces owe Australia an apology for their attempt to influence Australian lives to be within reach of exploitation.

The recent Popes are responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS amongst their cult members as well as encouraging rape in Central America. Nobody even the self claimed great Christian Crusader George Bush or the Islamic pop idol Bin Laden can claim to match the death and destruction encouraged by the Popes. \

I for one dont accept the authors argument. I read it as an attempt to try and mask history. I would have thought with the defeat of Howard and his cultural revolution those days should have been over.

The Catholic and Pentecostal Church should formally apologise to all Australians and families and never become involved with politics again. I believe only this could begin the healing of Australia in the post Howard era.