The Forum > Article Comments > An economist’s view of the proposed workplace reforms > Comments
An economist’s view of the proposed workplace reforms : Comments
By Fred Argy, published 8/11/2005Fred Argy looks at the new industrial relations reforms from an economic perspective.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
-
- All
Sorry, my mistake. When I was talking about industrial relations and what is good for Australian business the allied invasion of Iraq two and a half years ago somehow slipped my mind.
The cost of maintaining one frigate and two hundred (?) land troops in Iraq when they would otherwise be maintained in Australia must be absolutely enormous.
That verbal and written warnings you talk about is only for those who are blatantly incompetent or belligerent. (and even then, if an employee has made two cock-ups or twice talked back to the boss, why should management have to wait for it to be done a third time rather than just getting rid of the problem asap and moving on with a new worker) The main problem is those in the grey area who are not overall worth their cost to the company (in efficiency or inability to get on with others) but don’t engage in any specific action that would justify warnings. As a rank and file delegate are you going to tell me that you’ve never heard or a case where management has tried but failed to dismiss someone, unless they also paid out a redundancy package.
The mere fact that management wants to get rid of someone is evidence in itself that they are not of value. It is only incompetent management that gets rid of good workers and in time that company will go kaput anyway under the weight of its own negligence and stupidity.
With regards to regulation there is difference between making a company answer for intentionally selling harmful asbestos and telling them who they can or can’t hire and fire.
With some minor exceptions all the government has to do is just maintain the basic criminal and civil law where anyone (whether individual, business, non- profit association or whatever) must answer for all crimes or tortious actions such as fraud, perjury or negligence. Recently the law in Victoria was changed so that executive directors of companies can now be held criminally liable for the actions of the companies.