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.