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