Unfair dismissal laws are a nonsense.

If your employer does not want you then what is the point in hanging
around in the job ?
Get out and find a job where your efforts are appreciated.

But how do you deal with situations where employees are fired for pointing our safety violations?

I don't quite understand how the author can claim he has an opposition to unfair dismissal laws, then state "The tricky part for the Government is to draw a line between a small number of genuine unfair dismissals and the right of employers to hire whoever they wish to hire". Or is he accepting that "genuine unfair dismissals" are vanishingly rare, and nothing can ever be done to prevent them, therefore there's no use legislating against them?

The onus is already on the employee to prove that a dismissal is unfair, and by all accounts, this is not trivial to do.

Employers who seek to avoid unnecessary angst over the dismissal of an Employee need to take more time in their recruitment procedures in the first instance and then hiring staff for an initial probationary period after which time continued employment is terminated or confirmed.

Where longer term Employees performance is unsatisfactory this simply requires a review process where the Employee is made aware of their shortcomings and a record of the review made available in confirmation with a suitable caution that further unsatisfactory performance could lead to termination if not addressed.

The Award system generally dealt with issues of dismissals and retrenchments until the Howard Government embarked on their award stripping process which made unfair dismissal laws necessary.

Workers are not going to return to the master / servant era

Unfair dismissal just creates a casualised work place and reduces employment opportunities.Having a job is not a right.Small business is marginal at best and with the price of fuel continuing to climb,economic growth will fall resulting in less job opportunities.We will all have to become more self reliant and frugal in our lifestyles.

These days there are ample opportunities to be self employed or run a small business but most don't want to risk it or put in the long hard hours.

"But how do you deal with situations where employees are fired for pointing our safety violations?"
So why would you want to work in a place where there are safety violations anyway?

It always gets me how really lacking in personal pride and dignity someone would have to be if they were to contest a dismissal in the first place. Just how could any self respecting person remain in a place where they are not wanted?
If you were visiting friends and after a few hours you noticed they began to yawn and look at their watch, wouldn't the normal person see that as a signal to immediately get up and say his good-byes?
Isn't it only the most pathetic of individuals who intentionally ignores the warning signs and continues nibbling at the finger food and going on with his boring stories that entertain no one?

If I was an employer I would be very hesitant about hiring someone who had only left his previous employ after a messy legal action whether or not he had "won" the case.

Edward, by that argument you might as well argue against having safety regulations - it should enough that employees won't want to work in unsafe environments purely because they can see their coworkers getting injured and killed.

The reality is that there will always be employers that are sloppy, ignorant or short-sighted. As long as employees feel secure reporting what they see as less-than-ideal workplace conditions, the harm from this can be kept to a minimum. In an environment where employees fear being sacked for reporting safety violations there are no checks and balances. Yes, some employees will realise they are better off elsewhere, but inevitably not all will be in a position to find a better job, or may not even be aware that their work environment is unsafe.

If unfair dismissal laws can help save lives and prevent serious injuries, then they are fully justified even if they do result in slightly lower employment rates.

Wizofaus,unfair dismissal has nothing to do with saving lives and stopping injury.You are confusing it with the OH&S Gestapo.

Arjay, did you even read my line of reasoning? I explained exactly why unfair dismissal cannot be separated from OH&S.

Arjay, you don't seem to recognise that the 'Rights to Work' campaign played a leading role in electing the Rudd Government.
Working people DO have the right to work and it is one of the functions of Government to keep unemployment low.

An inquiry into Workers Compensation in 1984 in the N.T. concluded that to reduce the cost of Workers Compensation, it was necessary to reduce the incidence of accidents. Because of employers poor attention to safety in the work place,it was found necessary to establish the Work Health Act and introduce employers to the issues of safety training, safe work practice. and general OH&S.

In workplaces with large numbers of workers, Union Organisation found it necessary to establish a delegate system where appointed delegates would approach employers with safety issues under protection of the Union from victimisation. It is a fact of life that when production is interrupted, many employers are prepared to place their workers' safety at risk.

This gave rise to the growth of a Risk Management industry where safety conscious employers could obtain Risk assessment of their work environment and introduce corrective measures where necessary.

It's only the rogue employers who refer to OH & S organisations as "The Gestapo"

Unfortunately with attitudes such as yours, the reinstatement of unfair dismissal laws is necessary.

Wizofaus, while I don't disagree with what you say, it's not the full story either.

I've dismissed, sacked, let go guys who do not follow safety requirements too. I work "at heights", in a 9% WC premium industry and one of the arts of employment in the construction industry is to recognise the 'accident prone' and the 'careless' and p them off as quick as you can.

Employment under the wrong Unfair Dismissal rules can become de facto counselling. There are too many who live by a 'you owe me' mentality.

For small business at least, a 6 or 12 month window of dismissal is more than enough.

YES BARRY,I knew a butcher who had a busy shop with about 8 men working side by side and one fellow was "just in the way" he was more trouble to the other blokes too, who asked the boss to "let him go." So the boss very nicely told him he wasn't needed and paid him all he was due.He sued for wrongful dismissal and this entailed the boss in lots of time lost and legal fees to boot.He won the case, but it cost him $16,000, so now he only employs men as casuals,- no one on permanent!No wonder the statistics round the country don't tell the real employment figures.Another second hand story is about a highly qualified woman from another country who wrote well in English but the clients could not understand her accent.Asked to find a more suitable place for her talents, she sued.So the politicians should get around on busses and talk to real people to get a balanced view of the situation.I'm glad Howard claimed a majority in the senate made him a dictator who could bring in any legislation he thought was good for them.Work Choices, HIS way, was not OUR way!

palimpsest - if unfair dismissal laws are holding back employers from sacking employees for repeated safety violations, then I agree there is a problem. But it's hard to imagine how an employee could hope to make a case in this sort of scenario.

The other thing with regard to unfair dismissal provisions is that removing them is no guarantee that disgruntled employees will not make some other attempt to extract money from their ex-employers, through the regular court system. This has the potential to end up being a good deal more expensive for employers. I vaguely recall a study was done in the U.S. showing that companies operating in states where unions were less able to negotiate agreements with provisions such as for unfair dismissal spent far more on legal fees due to employees privately suing companies for particular treatment. Indeed, it's not unreasonable to suggest that part of the reason U.S. is so notoriously litigious is partly the outcome of a general reluctance to arrange collective agreements to protect certain rights and conditions, which are probably not considered to be in the spirit of free enterprise and individualism that Americans so value.

Problem not generally recognised is that we have three types of employers, one being small business that survives or goes to the wall as a result of efficiency.

Small businesses owners never sack a good employee, but must retain the right to sack all employees for what ever reason, just as the employee has the right to leave when it suits him or her for what ever reason.

The second type of employer is big business, managed by employees, who are well known for sacking other employees for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with efficiency or being a good employee. Same applies doubly to type three employers - government.

It is the employee sacking a fellow employee for any number of unethical reasons that is the root cause of the problem.

Employee sacking employee is rife in government departments and all bureaucracies both private and public, it is par for the corse in politics.

Government has no more legitimate or moral right to demand that an private employer continue to employ (pay the employers money in wages to) an individual, nor to demand that the employer explain to government or any other official as to why he is no longer prepared to spend his money on an employee, than government has to tell you and me how to spend our money.

In the end, not being able to sack destroys efficiency, standards, businesses and jobs.

We only need to look at the falling standards of all government run operations, hospitals, education, DOCKS as three examples of almost impossible to sack employees.

One inefficient employee can destroy a business and the jobs of all other employees of that business.

Is it not the inefficiency (justified) of employees that governments are using as an excuse to privatise government operations (not justified? A far better solution would be to sack the inefficient employees.

No right to sack = no control. Effie

Effie, nobody is talking about taking away the right to sack - just to sack unconditionally. And I'm pretty sure employees don't have the right to leave without at least giving adequate notice. Further, in most cases employees won't leave a good employer, unless there are exceptional circumstances involved.

If not being able sack unconditionally leads to a marginal loss in efficiency and a slightly lower employment level, that would a small price to pay for ensuring workplaces remain safe and secure. However surely in most cases safety and security contribute towards efficiency (by security I mean "reasonable confidence that provided you do your job to the best of your abilities, your position is under no immediate threat"). The psychological effects of job security and its impact on productivity and mental health have been quite extensively studied, and most conclude that low job security tends to result in lower productivity and health issues).

Effie, the second para from your opinion below highlights the problem:

quote:
Small businesses owners never sack a good employee, but must retain the right to sack all employees for what ever reason, just as the employee has the right to leave when it suits him or her for what ever reason...Unquote

Under the Award system such issues were covered requiring 'notice' by either party.John Howards tampering with the Award system was what created the need for 'Unfair dismissal laws'

An employers 'right' to sack for 'whatever reason' is the cause of the problem...'Whatever Reason' equates with 'Unfair dismissal'

Bosses DO sack good employees when it suits them as I learned early in my working life in 1950 as a plasterers labourer working with six solid plasterer tradesmen. (These days the ratio of labourers to tradesmen is about 2:1 )

I used to run all day to keep up solid cement rendering a house a day inside and out. I had so much to do,I overlooked cleaning up a bathroom of compo that adhered to the rough concrete floor which took half a day to remove.

I was sacked at the end of the week when the boss employed a strapping big fellow to replace me who looked like he could do the work of two men.I was devastated because I was a hard worker who had given almost 8 months of loyalty which had not been appreciated.

Two weeks later when the new labourer proved unable to carry the work load I had performed, quit. The boss called at my home said he was sorry he had sacked me and offered me the job back.

Although jobs were scarce, I told him I would prefer to remain unemployed than ever work for him again.

Employers DO sack good employees.For whatever reason.

Those with the attitude of Wizofaus need to work for the Public Service.There is a definite disconnect here,between the reality of private enterprise and the ideal world of those who seek to suckle off and denergrate the very system which sustains them.

Arjay, I don't have an attitude...just an open mind. I've read very strongly argued cases both for and against unfair dismissal laws and the effects they have.

Here's one-time Liberal party candidate arguing that scrapping unfair dismissal laws would be great for lawyers and big businesses, but not so good for small businesses:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-costly-solution-for-small-business/2007/10/28/1193555529011.html

Here's John Quiggin commenting on the lack of strong empirical evidence that unfair dismissal laws negatively affect businesses: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/10/28/what-about-the-workers-unfair-dismissals/

It's not my area of expertise, but their arguments seem fairly convincing to me.

Almost any government legislation is bound to leave someone somewhere worse off. It's all a question of weighing the pros and cons.

http://labor.economic.myths.googlepages.com/

Busting the Labor economic myths created by the Howard Government