Some people should never go into business. It is so easy to blame employees when things go wrong regardless of whether or not the fault lay with management inefficiency or ineptitude.

In the first place, when setting out the attributes and qualifications required for a potential employee before an applicant gets a foot in the door, an astute employer must not only be capable of enunciating those qualifications, but actually capable of evaluating whether or not an applicant possesses those requirements.
These days, with the existence of private hiring agencies the task is made so much easier with initial vetting already conducted.

Next is a clear duty statement so both parties know what is expected of them . This should nominate a clear trial period (generally a week) during which time either party may terminate the association on a day's notice.

Following an assessment during the trial period, which should be a serious reflection on performance, a probationary period is established. Termination during this period should require a week's notice by either party or payment in lieu. Instant dismissal would be appropriate in cases of wilful misconduct which should be clarified as to what constitutes such a situation.

Such an approach would be considered a fairer system that should suit most fair minded people
As I stated in my opening remark, Some people should never go into business. That should be considered if you cannot manage recruitment to avoid the catastrophies you described in your articl

Spot on Barry!

My Advice:
# 3 month probation when you can dismiss without notice.
# Followed by further 3 months if any concerns identified and counselled for at review. Eg: Too many instances of lateness, performs in crucial areas but dodges disliked tasks.
# Employ "Casuals" over Part-timers. Easily dismissed if problematic or become surplus.

Some say - yes but they can resign without notice. So what? One staffer worked 18 months, gave 3 days notice because another business offered better pay. Couldn't withold pay in lieu of her 2 weeks notice so what difference? However we could refuse her bonus for that month which amounted to nearly $800. We pay "bonus" not "commission" and subject to compliance.(Our carrot & stick to encourage performance and discourage slackness) By not giving agreed notice she was non-compliant. Went to Industrial Relations but advised her there was nothing they could do. :-) A rare win - of sorts!

One favour this recession might do is attract better applicants for vacancies as lay offs inevitably affect some good people. It might also provide incentive to stay instead of treating the job as a stepping stone to the next better paid/status/hours position.

We've had issues, being in an area (both geographically & industry wise) with lots of opportunities. Poaching has happened but the attitude of many younger workers is they view a full time job as a temporary commitment. Young (18 - 25) people make up the bulk of our employees as they tend to have the techno-savvy required and relate well to the products. It is particularly insulting to catch them trawling Employment sites on store computers. We pay award on probation, higher rate on successful completion plus bonus incentives and look after good loyal staff. Problem is good loyal staff are hard to recruit. They already work for someone else :-)

Current pollies have no idea and we will all pay the price into the future. Meantime tighten your belts and be very careful who you offer 'permanent' work.

I would think that most people would agree, in spirit, with Barry. Small business cannot absorb aberrant staff in the same way that a large one might be able to.

The trouble is that I could write a story, similar to Barry’s from an employee’s point of view lamenting the boss’s insistence on working unpaid overtime or putting up with a pat on the bottom every five minutes for the sake of secure employment.

There are always two sides to many IR issues and generally the protections come down in favour of employees because they are the least empowered to ensure ethical and fair working conditions.

I would imagine most small business employers are honest and ethical but having been a university student for some years, and dependent on a small income from some of these businesses, I can honestly state that not all of them are ethical. And I am pretty broad minded and accept a fair bit of guff in the work environment.

The protection that market forces might provide in the way of competition for good staff are non-existent during times of high unemployment.

However, in saying all that, it is unfair for small business (or any business really) to have to put up with less than acceptable employees.

A three month trial sounds fair in principle, but would an employee have to endure terrible conditions during that time and after just to keep a job? Most of us would choose not to work for such a person but what if there is high unemployment and you still need to feed your family? In some economic climates choice is a luxury.

Let's face it really bad employees are easy to dismiss - there is usually more than enough evidence to convince an IR court or arbitrator. Such as was the case with the drunken girl in Barry's article.

As the first poster said it comes down to an efficient recruitment process. Good interviewing skills, some testing if appropriate and thorough reference checking (both work and character) would reduce the risk of hiring a dud.

Cohen seems to imply the law makes it difficult and expensive to fire people. I have both owned businesses and worked in sized business that had to conform to the unfair dismissal laws. To put it bluntly, it just isn't that hard. We didn't even have to change our procedures when the laws came in.

I guess this is because after repeatedly hearing people complain they were never told, or were told something different, I got used to communicating in writing. It reduced the arguments no end. It also reduced the need to fire anyone - most realise the game was up and moved on without need to force the issue. The other thing that reduced the arguments were clear terms of employment where people were hired, and in particular spelling out the grounds for instant dismissal.

While this process does create some work, it isn't a lot. It only takes a few additional minutes to put your thoughts down on paper. In reality, you have to put more time in hiring someone (the ads, the tax paperwork, the training) than it takes to fire someone even with these laws. Its hardly the impost Cohen makes out.

Well having been in business myself for 20 years I have to say I agree with the author.

One issue that employees have trouble with is what I call 'sharing the pain'. Put simply, if we have to cut hours they look elsewhere. This happened to me recently when one employee, a manager, said, "well if you are going to cut my hours I will be looking for another job" I said, good, go now and find one so I sacked him on the spot.

Severance pay. We have to pay this if we sack someone after a certain period. We also have to give extended notice to full time employees, Why don't they have to do the same?

What employees rarely realise is that we employers often suffer financially while the employye always gets paid. Machinary breakdown, power blackout, phone lines down. All of these can cause a workplace to stop but the employee still gets paid, Why?

As for probation periods, I think all employees should be monitored on camera and if they slacken off after thier probation period you should be able to sack them as they came to you under false pretenses.
Unfair dismissal will cause unemployement and that's a fact!

I think we should be on a level playing field.

The underlying problem is still the fact that employees get paid for the time it takes to do a job, not for the job they do.

Employees live in a parallel universe where they turn up at a certain time, leave at a certain time, and get paid regardless of how the business fares. It's like living at home with Mum - someone else is expected to make the big decisions, cover your *ss, take your attitude on the chin and work the extra hours - smiling all the while - to keep you safe and warm.
Going into small business has been a huge learning curve for me - government money does not grow on trees after all... who would have thought?!!