The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Unfair law toxic for small businesses > Comments

Unfair law toxic for small businesses : Comments

By Barry Cohen, published 8/4/2009

The Government is placing a burden on small business by not allowing them to employ whoever they wish.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
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
Posted by maracas1, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 12:05:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 1:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 4:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 6:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 8:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?!!
Posted by floatinglili, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:36:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maracas1

While you are right that if you have a decent knowledge of IR laws and ways to get around them, you generally can at some cost.

However many small businesses are mom and pop type arangements, or tradesmen trying to run their own affairs, who without the know how can get themselves in serious financial trouble.

The limit of 15 also includes part time employees and people on contract, so most small businesses do not qualify for the exemptions.

The new laws make it more difficult and more expensive for small businesses to employ people, so many of them won't.

The consequences of this to the 30% of Australian workers in small businesses in this economic downturn is predictable.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 9 April 2009 3:19:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do we make the system fair for both sides?

Prior to Work Choices, unfair dismissal laws were the norm and it did not lead to less employment in the small business sector, in fact there was an increase in recruitment.

The law is to protect against 'unfair' dismissal not fair dismissals. Yes the system may be overly bureacratic and require a system of warnings/written statements etc but this is better than the alternative. Sometimes by choosing the least unfair means that there will be some angst along the way but it is not insurmountable.

Even mum and dad businesses need to be suitably across the law, just as an employee I need to be qualified and skilled to do the job that I am paid.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 April 2009 5:01:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican
I don't mean to be rude, nor do I have an axe to grind with you, but seriously, what planet have you been on. As for the increase, this only came after UFD laws were watered down.

Unfair dismissal was the worst Ir law ever introduced in modern times.

Notwithstanding the fact that many employers were sued, succesfully I might add, for sacking employees for STEALING, and thast's a fact, these laws brought small business to its knees.

What we did see was an influx of 'one man' businesses who dare not think of expanding as this would involve employing staff. In fact, a win for an employer in a dispute usually meant three grand in fees that were un-recoverable from the employee and, although the employee was able to have legal representation at the hearing the employer WAS NOT!

How do we make the system fair for both sides?
Simple. Link wages to throughput or productivity where possible. We need a system that pays a 'basic safety net wage' then individual bonusses based on performance. Being paid an hourly rate is unfair to employers, essecially in the event of breakdowns. A bomb scare is another prime example. The shopping center emptys out, no product is sold but the employees still get paid. Even casual staff have to be told what time they will finnish today and if they get sent home early, often it at a cost to the employer for lack of notice.

You see at the moment employees get paid for the time it takes to do a job while in most cases the employer gets paid for what the job is worth as they have either pre-set their price (retail) or tendered a quote and, with unfair dismissal, the work pace is often set by the slowest worker.

If you work for a small business and I were you, I would be seeking a government job as you are about to see a mass exit of small business employees. And, you can put me on the record for that!
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 9 April 2009 8:04:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub

I have worked as a HR manager (in those days called Personnel Managers before we all became resources). I was involved in the dismissal of two employees and this was during the 80s when the unions had a much stronger hold. One employee continually failed to turn up to work and eventually under pressure bought in a medical certificate that had been obviously forged and another stole from the establishment. In both cases the union and the state industrial body was called in. In both cases the employer's case was sustained.

I agree that there will be some job losses in the small business sector but it won't be because of IR laws it will be because of the downturn in the economy and reduced spending. We won't be as bad as the situation in the US and the government's nation spending (infrastructure) plans should offset some of the damage.

Your solution to make the IR laws fairer sound very unfair to me if you don't mind me saying so. The employer gives his quote to cover all costs plus a profit margin.

Based on your suggestion a shop assistant, for example, would only be paid when they are serving a customer and making money for the business. In other words their time in the shop dusting the shelves or balancing the cash register may not be seen by you as productivity because it is only peripheral to the actual business of making money. Prices are set on the basis of overheads to the business.

It is even harder to dismiss a person in the public service than anyone in business but it is possible if you follow the protocol. There is less dead wood in the government than there were years ago but you almost have to kill someone or commit major fraud to be sacked outright.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 April 2009 9:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The employer gives his quote to cover all costs plus a profit margin.
Yes you are right, however, his costs are not set in many cases.

There maight have been a theft overnight and there are tools missing so someone has to be paid to get some more. While insurance may pay for the lost tools, the cost of wages buying more is lost. How does the employer get this back, or is this part of his profit.

Based on your suggestion a shop assistant, for example, would only be paid when they are serving a customer

You are talking this up. Go back and you will see that I called for a 'safety net wage' plus bonnusses.

Prices are set on the basis of overheads to the business.
Prices are set by the consumer and what they are prepared to pay. When cabbages go to $7.00 each, the consumer stops buying them and that's a fact.

As for cleaning shelves etc, this would all be covered in the safety net wage. Selling over and above what is anticipated, or achieving high outputs would lead to a bonus.

As for your comment on unfair dismissal, it came into effect in the 90's and was not watered down until the early 2000's.

You say these laws won't lead to job losses, I say they will. Let's agree to disagree and whatch what happens.

As always, I will be the first to admit if I am wrong.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 10 April 2009 6:55:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barry Cohen was a minister in the Labor government that gave us both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Australia Act 1986. These two Acts are mutually contradictory. The Australia Act 1986 is an Act with two non compatible ideas in it. One is that we have a binding Constitution and Australians courts. The other is that the eight other States in the Commonwealth are Sovereign. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a statement of the Christian principles underpinning the Australian Constitution and simply the latest declaration of the way an Australian court should operate.

Ben Chiffley was realistic about the way Australians would react to laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth. He said there was never a law made that some Australian could not drive a horse and cart through.

The real enemy of employers is the Liberal Party. Employers would have no trouble getting rid of the types who have offended Barry Cohen, if the Liberal Party was not so keen on jobs for the boys and girls. I am talking about the monopoly created by Liberal Party lawyers in Parliament who have insisted on the appointment of lawyers to the positions of Judge.

With a fully integrated legal system from cradle to grave run by lawyers for lawyers, and no effective competition between the Federal Courts and State courts, it is no wonder employers are regarded by lawyers as a ready resource.

S 79 Constitution says the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such numbers of judges, as Parliament prescribes. It comes in Ch III Constitution. What is federal jurisdiction; The power to settle disputes. What is a court? The evidence is overwhelming that in 1900, it was a Justice and a jury. What are judges? Judges should find facts and seek the truth. One individual was never able to do such a thing, in English law since 1297. A return to Constitutional principles will see good employees protected and bad ones get what they deserve. Bring back the fundamentals of justice
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 11 April 2009 8:38:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,

You say "Prior to Work Choices, unfair dismissal laws were the norm and it did not lead to less employment in the small business sector, in fact there was an increase in recruitment."

I seem to recall that when work choices was introduced, there was a large swing from casual employees to full time employees.

My interpretation of this would be that small businesses felt less threatened.

The recession and new IR laws will give small businesses the reason and excuse to purge their ranks of many full time employees which regulators will find difficult to police.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 11 April 2009 8:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been a small business person for more than 30 years and understand peoples frustration with the current and past systems, my businesses are in a number of areas and each needs to be approached differently when it come to employees.

I've always operated with personal contracts or written agreements with my employees no matter their age, or experience and it has always worked satisfactorily for all concerned. All these laws they bring in, are just to make them look like they are doing something to justify the massive bureaucratic waste and legislative bungling. It's very true our parliaments and local governments are now run by people who have no understanding or experience of real life, or the job they are doing. Just like our education and health systems, so it's no wonder there is confusion as to the right protocol for employing or dismissing someone. We rarely employ people under the age of 35 as below that age, the vast majority have no work ethic, loyalty or knowledge of people skills and you can't teach or tell them.

These new laws don't effect small business if it's written down and adheres to accepted conditions and practises, you have nothing to worry about. A business employing less than 15, should be on individual terms and able to sit down at any time and talk about any changes in conditions. If you have well trained responsible and trusted employees who are happy in their work, know the business situation and know they will benefit with every improvement, you can't loose
Posted by stormbay, Saturday, 11 April 2009 10:13:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay

Your post raised an issue that I had with the Howard government's "Work Choices", and that was an employee (particularly in a small business) had always been free to arrange individual workplace entitlements with an employer. The only difference that Work Choices provided was that employers could fire anyone with impunity and to undermine group workplace agreements such as those made by unions.

Thank you for your contribution.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 11 April 2009 11:49:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that I think about it, Fractelle has got closet to the real issue.

We have laws that broadly define what a "fair workplace" is. The central issue here isn't that, at least no one here seems to be arguing whether practice X or Y should be allowed in the workplace. Thus no one is saying a person slacking off should not be fired, that you should be able to fire a married woman or anything along those lines.

Instead the central issue seems to be about how we enforce those standards. Cohen and some posts here seem to think the impost created by the record keeping and having an independent arbitrator is too high. I notice they don't suggest any alternatives though other than the employers be given free reign, So I take it their suggestion is to abandon the ideal of having a fair workplace entirely.

The current situation seems fine to me. The employer must create an "audit trail" of problems he has with the employee by writing written warnings. On the basis of that audit trail he can fire someone. If disputes arise that audit trail can be given to an independent third party. Yes, it takes some work to create the audit trail. But in my experience it reduces the time and expenses spent in disputes amazingly. One avoided legal dispute over unfair dismissal pays for the time taken to do hundreds of written warnings. My guess is that when you add it up this process is actually cheaper.

The point is most business wouldn't bother with the audit trail if not forced to by law. Yet if they where here, we would instead see whinges about the even bigger court costs of ensuring workplace fairness without them. And yet more calls to dispense with the idea of a "fair workplace" because of it.
Posted by rstuart, Saturday, 11 April 2009 4:20:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“An audit trail of problems”, what are they kindergarten kids who don't have brains. One warning, then out they go, is the only way to operate a business for the benefit of all. “An independent party”, by that do you mean some useless bureaucrats who has no experience of real work, no brains, just a a big pay packet. You need to run a small business for at least 2 years before you can make any from of judgement of how employees should be treated and the balance between the rights of the employer, the business and the employee. What bureaucrat has any experience in running a business, let alone knowing what work is.

An employer should have the right to dismiss anyone who is disrupting the work place, not doing their job or if involved with the public, being offensive or slack. The only time some for of authoritarian intervention should occur, is if the employee has been underpaid or hasn't received their proper benefits on leaving. All we need is a basic set of rules, which maintains employment standards acceptable to the community at the time and in line with maintaining business viability. If it is all put in writing at the commencement of employment, then there should never be a problem at all. No business will get rid of an employee who is working for the business and not just turning up to get a pay packet, which seems to be the norm these days.

Thanks Fractelle, work choices was an abomination, it was purely designed to support the elite and impoverish the people, as is the rubbish put forward by Labor. As for unions, I believe they once did a great job for workers, now many are corrupt, criminal infected organisations which need to be replaced with a better system for those who work in large organisations that properly represents them and not the union or bosses
Posted by stormbay, Sunday, 12 April 2009 8:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay

Respect your straight forward approach. Although sometimes good employees are let go - but workplace bullying is really a topic for another forum.

Take your point about unions too - they did get children out of coal-mines, reasonable working hours and wages, but recent DECADES they have become as corrupted as many of the organisations they were supposedly negotiating with.

A clear paper trail is needed. Mountains of bureaucratic redtape is not.

Perhaps more emphasis on dealing with people in the form of tutorials and training would be a better start than another convoluted piece of legislation. Not all employers are natural leaders - yet they manage to stay in business.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 12 April 2009 10:04:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stormbay,

Somehow you missed the point.

Firstly, my post wasn't about the best way to run a business. I agree that from a businesses point of view being able to give one warning then fire someone would be great.

But as it happens, our society doesn't exist to just to make life easy for a business owner. It is a society for all of us - and most of us don't run businesses. This is the reality you, the small business owner, has to work within. That reality means you can't just summarily fire someone because you feel like it. Yes, being able to do that would make your life easier, but living with the risk of being summarily fired for no predictable reason makes life much harder for the people who work for you - and they outnumber you by a large margin.

As a consequence if your employees feel they have been treated badly by you, rightly or wrongly, they can sue you. If they do, win or loose, it is going to cost you a lot of money.

The question for you becomes what is the cheapest way to live within this reality. I'll give you a tip: giving 3 warnings in writing and keeping the audit trail not a bad way of doing it.

By the by, this talk about the law causing businesses to hire or not hire is just hot air. How much business you get depends mostly on how well you compete against people who offer the same services and goods you do. They are all effected equally by this law. Well not all. Actually to the extent the law imposes any impost, it distorts the market in favour of small businesses - the very people who seem to be complaining here.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 12 April 2009 1:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Fractelle, work place bullying is normally found within large businesses and organisations, in particular the bureaucracy. Bullies in small business get sacked, or their business goes broke. We'd have more success by changing our education system so it represents real life, rather than semi illusionary economic ones.

Leadership comes from developing our understanding of those we lead, most of us have innate ability to discern a personality. Supposed born leaders in the main, are bullies and psychopaths of varying degrees. Leaders attain leadership from respect, trust and acceptance. Without those, no law will help you succeed.

Rstuart, with respect, you don't seem to have a clue about small business or how it operates. Life's never easy for small business owner, it's a 12-20 hour a day job.

Cartels and monopolist business, rely upon predatory political and economic strangulation of opposition, small business relies upon good will, the employees it has and not market control.

People sue if they have a chance of winning, otherwise it costs them a lot of money. Written agreements based on understandable common-sense, fitting with community and award standards, rather than complicated legalese or politically correct babble, then you can't lose.

Employees always make mistakes, when they repeat the same mistake, effecting the business, the owner should have the right to get rid of them. The past, “work choices” and the current garbage, requires the owner to take responsibility for the actions of the employee, rather than the employee taking responsibility for their actions in their employment.

A successful, small business, is a family, conglomerates or bureaucracy are just a job. More paper work consumes time, putting more strain on the owner

If small business has to hire on terms which don't suit the business, which removes the responsibility of the employee and puts it on the business. There is no way I would hire anyone on those terms. If we need staff, we hire people who want to work with us, not those who just want a pay packet.
Posted by stormbay, Sunday, 12 April 2009 7:09:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stormbay: "Rstuart, with respect, you don't seem to have a clue about small business"

That is probably partially correct, as in I don't have a clue how you run a small business. Although I did spend some 24 days working in my businesses, it was always was with the goal of getting out of there. After driving the local competition out of business and them taking other on my terms, I then expanded into other cities. This was possibly because I always had a day job, and thus wasn't physically present most of the time. The employees ran the show - each location had its own manager. Doing it that way turned out to have its advantages - it meant the business could scale the way it did. It also meant I dealt with the employees on a day to day basis in writing.

Now that I look back on it, there was only two ways an employee and I parted ways. One was instant dismissal, usually involving the police. The other way was by mutual agreement. The exact day of departure in that case was at the employees choosing. Occasionally this was inconvenient, but most of the time the employee went out of their way to accommodate me.

So yes, stormbay, I'd agree that if I tried to run a business the same way you or apparently Barry Cohen do I'd be a dismal failure. I am just not hands on the way you and Barry seem to be. However, you two are under the misapprehension there is only one way to run a small business. There are other ways, and in some of them the proprietors don't feel they need the ability to fire their employees on a whim.

The thing that gets me about your protestations of the unfair dismissal laws is the laws are just forcing you to put in place the procedures you need to have if you want to grow beyond a one manager firm. Surely growing bigger is an ambition of most small business owners?
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 12 April 2009 8:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Restuart, you say it is unfair for a business owner to be able to just fire someone as they the employee deserve some certainty in life.

Well, what about some security or certaintly for the employer.

After 4 years we have to give 4 weeks notice. They give only 1 week.

We need to pay severance pay, they have to pay nothing.

We make plans, take on additional work knowing that we have the workforce, they can quit at any time it suits.

Please, we must have a level playing field if you want the respect you are seeking.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 13 April 2009 5:41:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely growing bigger is an ambition of most small business owners?

Well it may well have been. But I can assure you, if what we went through in the early 90's is any indicator, then this will be but just a dream for many.

Don't beleive it! Watch this space!

You have all been pre-warned by people who know FROM EXPERIENCE!
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 13 April 2009 5:50:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,

My wife was for a small time involved in setting up and representing small businesses in IR matters.

One issue with the fair "commissions" is that a disgruntled employee can haul you in front of the commission at no expense to himself. The cost in time and money to attend these sessions and to bring representation is prohibative and entirely non refundable, and the employees know it and are often just looking for a quick settlement.

The process assumes the employer is guilty and has to prove his innocence, which can lead to ruinous costs for a small business.

If the employee were liable for the costs in the event of a negative finding (as per the normal court system), you would see far fewer chancers.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 10:25:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: One issue with the fair "commissions" ...

Its nice to see a comment that deals with the real issues in the system, as opposed to just espousing idealistic rhetoric about what "should" and "should not" happen. Thanks. Its a pity there aren't a few more.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 11:14:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart, I know you don't like hypotheticals, but.

Fairness in the workplace should be a two way street, but it’s not.

Take an employee. Say they like their job but they are offered another job that suits them better. Now they may have been with you for five years.

All they need do is come in one day and say they are leaving. No ifs, no buts and most certainly, no reasons. The employer does not have a legal leg to stand on providing they give the correct notice. Usually one week.

Now let’s say an employer has a job seeker turn up that, for what ever reason, they prefer this person to the current employee so they sack the current employee and give the job to the new guy.

Now here is the tricky bit. You say that this constitutes an unfair dismissal, as the employee has done nothing wrong and the employer has broken the law.

Another example. An employee for what ever reason can’t make it to work, say their child is ill. They get sick leave. On the other hand, let’s say the employers child is ill so they can’t open the business. The employer still has to pay the employees wages. Why?

Now this is exactly why the unfair dismissal system is flawed and tilted towards the employee.

If you want fairness in anything you must have a level playing field.

Now I challenge anyone to explain how this is a so-called ‘fair system’.

Anyone care to give it a shot?
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 6:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So all is quiet all of a sudden hey!

Just remember, I have been in my own small business for over 20 years.

I saw the introduction of unfair dismissal, which back then included EVERY BUSINESS. Then I saw the watering down of these laws to exclude small businesses with less than X employees and now we are set to see these laws tightened once again.

What's the next step, no exemptions perhaps!

Remember, what we have is a radical unionist as the deputy leader who will stop at nothing to see her one eyed ways introduced, even if this means killing off employment.

This woman has an ajenda and she will simply blame someone, or something else when the wheels fall off, and they will!

I employ 8 people myself and there is now way I will even consider expanding now if I have to follow these one sided guidelines.

Now just going back. Someone mentioned 'just do the paper work and you will be ok'.

Many small business people are self employed because they don't have the qualifications (on paper) to land the high paid jobs.

Many of them have failed school and can't even read or write properly, many of their employees are the same.

These people WILL NOT do any additional paperwork and prefer to AVIOD' the situation so they pull thier heads in and stop expanding and ultimately stop employing.

It happened before and it will happen again.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 16 April 2009 6:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having run small businesses myself for more than a dozen years, there's no way I'd ever go back to being just an employee.

For most business proprietors, small business is more a way of life than a livelihood. You don't actually count the hours that you spend at the wheel, because your life and the business are actually one and the same thing. It may sound sad to some, but that's because they don't understand the buzz that you get from creating something that wasn't there before, and building a place where people actually enjoy working.

I get as cross as the next small business owner about the sheer lack of business knowledge that governments have, and the resulting stupidity of the laws they create. For the epitome of idiocy, you don't need to go past Payroll Tax, rapidly followed by FBT - both of which have no meaning to a Government Department, and therefore remain beyond their comprehension.

But IR laws pretty much pass unnoticed at my place. As an earlier poster noted, if you only employ people who actually want to work for you, rather than who only work for money and what they can extract from you, you won't have too many problems. In those dozen years, over four different businesses employing between three and twentythree people, we didn't experience a single departure that wasn't mutually agreed.

But I don't understand this throwaway line, rstuart:

>>Actually to the extent the law imposes any impost, it distorts the market in favour of small businesses<<

How so? My experience is precisely the reverse.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to go and collect the post, after which I can get down to the BAS, then the annual FBT return, sort out last month's Payroll Tax for two States (which is now overdue), make sure the employees' Super has reached their individual accounts, and pay ASIC their dues.

After which I might be able to get some work done.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 April 2009 8:53:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: "small business is more a way of life than a livelihood"

Absolutely. I took the money and ran in the end because it looked like technological changes would be my undoing. Unlike you I don't miss the life style. The freedom is great, but so are the daily hassles. I prefer a more structure in my life.

Pericles: "But I don't understand this throwaway line, rstuart"

The IR laws doesn't apply to small businesses, to the extent they create extra work and costs, they distort the playing field in favour of them.

recthub, it takes me time to put my thoughts together in a coherent way, and I already spend far too much time on this site. Briefly, I lost interest in your argument when I got to the word "fair". Business has nothing to do with fairness. If it did, the baker who starts work at midnight and slaves for 16 hours a day would earn more than the used car salesman - or me, for that matter, the absentee business owner.

The bottom line is business is about making money. You seem to think the chief impediment to making money is paying the employees. In reality it has very little to do with them. The chief obstacle in making obscene amounts of money is your competition. So, for example, you probably think a sharp rise in the award wage (which is what I paid most employees) would have me trembling in fear. Nope. It would have a short term effect, but in the end my competition had the same problem, so prices would change and everything come back into balance.

What did scare me was changing of the rules, usually by the government, so some other way of doing things was better than mine. What do you think the worries the alcoholic drink manufactures more: wages or the alcoho-pops tax?

The bottom line is some arbitrary definition of fairness, be it yours or anybody elses, has no place in business. Business isn't about being fair. It is about putting systems in place that make you money.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 16 April 2009 9:50:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub
You have a different way of looking at things.

For a start if an employer was just able to get rid of an employee anytime a better candidate walked through the door the economic system would collapse.

Why? Because part of the protections to workers is the competition between businesses to retain and attract good staff. If another candidate walks through the door and the employer thinks she is a good sort or that the person might work for less money how is this going to enhance fairness?

An employee is not beholden to any business that it works for in the same ways as the owner. They do not benefit from the profits (generally) and they don't have the investment in the future sale of the business. They are not an equal stakeholder if you like.

If another business is willing to employ them for more money and they have a family to feed of course they will take the higher pay unless they particularly enjoy working for the current employer because other conditions might be better or they love their job.

How can it be any other way? To hold an employee against their will by making it harder to leave is hardly going to help your prouductivity.

I agree that there are many other areas the government has failed small businesses as Pericles has pointed out. The GST is the biggest burden because not only is it a nuisance for business owners but it is has the greatest potential for rorting our hard earned tax dollars. The bureacracy surrounding business ownership is the real problem.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 16 April 2009 10:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can clearly see In the posts whose been successfully involved in small business, knows how it works and those who haven't got a clue yet think they do. The following statement is a prime example.

“The bottom line is some arbitrary definition of fairness, be it yours or anybody elses, has no place in business. Business isn't about being fair. It is about putting systems in place that make you money.”

Small business is all about fairness, as well as making a living on your own terms. But those terms must show fairness to yourself, your family, employee's, customers and suppliers. Small business relies upon providing a fair deal, big business relies upon systems and profit growth, going to any lengths to achieve it and all unfairly for everyone else. Bureaucracy and politics rely upon bullying and pandering to vested interests, so they have to disadvantage small business which doesn't fit in their agenda, other than as a milking cow.

Competition in small business, is all about service and satisfaction, getting a fair deal for your money. It's community orientated, people work for you because they want to and you are fair in your dealings with them and the community.

Twenty years ago, it would take you about an hour a week to get your books together for a small business. Now it takes about a day added up over the week and is getting longer as red tape requirements increase
Posted by stormbay, Thursday, 16 April 2009 12:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bottom line is business is about making money. You seem to think the chief impediment to making money is paying the employees.

Absolutely not. My posts are about fairness for all involved. At no point have I compared a baker to a salesman. I don't have a problem paying wages. It's having to give an employee complete freedom to do as they please, when they please, while I can't, that is what concerns me. This is what I mean when I say 'fairness'.

I recon if they can leave at any time, then we should be able to replace them at any time. Now that's fair.

Then
What do you think the worries the alcoholic drink manufactures more: wages or the alcoho-pops tax?
I am sorry but I see no connection between this and the post.

I can't say I agree with your motivation for business. I employ family people and I get to know thier families, take them out for Xmas dinner etc. My workplace is a happy environment.

Pelican
For a start if an employer was just able to get rid of an employee anytime a better candidate walked through the door the economic system would collapse.

This thread is about unfair dismissal.

Why is it that employers don't have the same rights as employees.

If you recall, my recent post was in response to anothers post about fairness.

It is simply unfair to protect employees rights (unfair dismissal) without giving protection to the employers. They should have the freedom to choose who they want just as employees choose where and when to work. Now that's fair!
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 16 April 2009 7:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stormbay: "Small business is all about fairness, as well as making a living on your own terms."

That's new. I'll add "bringing fairness to the world" to my list of why people start businesses.

Regardless, I doubt your behaviour is very different to mine. Things flow easier when people trust each other. I felt I had to earn that trust by being fair and honest, and also by giving the benefit of the doubt to show people I trusted them. It seemed to me most people operate on the same basis. Maybe that is why it worked out most of the time.

Regarding your assurances of treating everyone fairly - I guess before accepting them it would be prudent to check your definition of fairness matches mine. I am sure you, like me, have been surprised by the behaviour of someone who earlier claimed to be fair and honest in their dealings. Fortunately I don't have to as there is legal definition when it comes to employees, and if your standards are as high as you say they are you won't have any problem meeting them. If you go to the additional effort putting any issues you do have with an employee in writing, and writing down steps will be taken to overcome those problems, and revisiting that list noting broken promises and new resolutions if things go wrong again it is very unlikely the unfair dismissal laws will cause you a problem. They are, after all, designed to catch people who don't treat their employees fairly - and you say you aren't one of them.

recthub: "Why is it that employers don't have the same rights as employees."

If life is so good for an employee, you can always become one. Don't worry about all employers taking that option. When enough of the competition chuck in the towel, the remaining ones will be making so much money I doubt any amount of unfair dismissal laws would make then quit.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 16 April 2009 9:41:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub is absolutely correct. Employers should have every right to dimiss employees unfairly.

In fact, they should also be able to pay them in tobacco and sugar, and whip them if they don't work hard enough.

Those Xmas dinners must be jolly affairs.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 16 April 2009 10:29:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub is absolutely correct. Employers should have every right to dimiss employees unfairly.

CJ, not unfairly, but surely employers must be given the same freedom to choose staff as employees have to choosing who they work for.

I had a guy just the other day who was late by three hours due to attending to his horses.

Now if I were attending to mine and was three hours late opening the shop, then I would be out of pocket for three hours pay as it waould have been 'my problem'.

Please tell me why this is fair?

Also, please understand that I have no problems with my staff, in fact, they all like working for me.

My problem is still the fact that you can't give allowances to one side (employees) but not give the same allowances to the other (employers).

Everyone deserves a fair go. What's good for the goose should also be good for the ganda!

As for the comment about there being no fairness in business as it's all about making money, well, I employ people with names, not just numbers.

Now if you are one to employ only numbers,not people, then that's your choice, but please don't brand me with this style of doing business.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 April 2009 7:00:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "I had a guy just the other day who was late by three hours due to attending to his horses ... tell me why this is fair?"

I imagine you are uninterested in the answer, as you seem to be entertaining yourself by whining about how hard business owners have it.

As I said, it doesn't particularly matter whether it is fair or not. What matters is you don't have to put up with employees that do it on a regular basis. If you do, be assured that if you are up against a competitor like me, they won't be putting up with it and they will either be undercutting you or making more money.

What you have to do is pretty straight forward. You write a simple letter saying the behaviour is unacceptable. You then sit down with the employee, present the letter and discuss it, and ask him what he is going to do the fix the problem. He will of course swear back and blue he won't do it again, or perhaps he will have a sob story that you accept if he gave you advance notice - or whatever compromise is acceptable to you both. You minute the meeting as it happens, and get him to sign the minutes, and file them away. Its all over in a few minutes.

If he does it again go through the same process a second time, but this time hauling out the previous warning, point out during the chat he did didn't keep his promises, ask whether he will be able to in the future, yada yada yada. You also point out if he does it a third time you will fire him.

But it almost certainly won't get to that point. Typically employees who can't turn up on time can't do a lot of other things either. They get a stream of warnings. Remarkably most will adapt, but those that don't can't stand the pressure and resign.

You end up better employees and less staff turnover. And less reason to whinge, which probably kills it for you.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub
Your example about your employee's late arrival for attending to his horses is valid from an employer's point of view. Without knowing the full story - perhaps his horses escaped, or was he a victim of flooding - I don't know. These things sometimes happen as part of real life, work commitments don't reign supreme over an emergency situation.

If his late arrival was other than for an emergency, Rstuart is correct about documenting unacceptable behaviours. As his employer you can sit down with him, document the incident and explain that punctuality is his responsibility and not conducive to good employer/employee relations or obligations. If it was me, I would offer to work an hour extra for three days to make up for it but maybe he won't see it like that. Give him the opportunity.

This may be a one-off incident on the employee's part due to unforseen circumstances, and probably won't happen again, but if it does you have previous documentation of your counselling session.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 18 April 2009 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes pelican, it was a 'one off' and was due to flooding. I have no problem with it, nor did I dock his pay.

No one gets my point though.

If I was late due to tending to my horses, why then should I have to pay wages for staff who had to sit and wait for me to tend to my problems.

This is where the system fails.

All parties must have equal rights or you have an inbalance.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 18 April 2009 6:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart
I imagine you are uninterested in the answer

I would love an answer it's just that no one has given one. After all, my question is on 'fairness' and balance, you have not answered this, rather you say there is no fairness in business. Well that's fine if your staff have numbers, but mine, along with many others, have names.

What you have to do is pretty straight forward. You write a simple letter saying the behaviour is unacceptable.

Remember, many small business people did not finnish school, can't read or write properly and most certainly can't write a decent letter. So then what!

You end up better employees and less staff turnover. And less reason to whinge, which probably kills it for you.
My staff are great and I am a great boss. I fear for others here as I have been through it all before and IT WILL COST JOBS.

Many small business owners will avoid the laws and confusion by not expanding and not employing! It happened last time and it will happen again.

This thread is called 'toxic law for small business' and it is just that!

Now is not the time to go puting 'red tape hurdels' between employers and employees.

With unemployment surging towards 10%, this may well break our backs.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 19 April 2009 7:25:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "Remember, many small business people did not finnish school, can't read or write properly."

If that is the case, the unfair dismissal laws are the least of their problems. The rest of your post consists of assertions of convenient "facts", but without references to back them up and unfounded assertions. It is probably best to leave it there.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 19 April 2009 10:56:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, I am happy to leave it at that with just this last exiting post.

I am willing to go on record to openly state that the reintroduction, or tightening up' of unfair dismisal laws WILL COST JOBS.

Are you willing to state on record that these laws will not cost jobs?
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 20 April 2009 8:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "Are you willing to state on record that these laws will not cost jobs?"

Obviously I don't think it will. The number of people I hired was the minimum I could get away with. I always took the attitude that if I didn't hire them and do the work on offer, someone else would. There were a whole pile of factors that made think twice about taking work on of course, but I don't recall scaling back the workforce if things went bad was one of them. Making people redundant isn't a pleasant task, but if there wasn't work around there are lots of unpleasant things going on.

However, regarding your challenge, the problem isn't making the statement, the problem is holding me (or you) to it. I don't see how you could possibly measure whether it cost jobs or not, there being so many other factors involved. On that level it is just an empty statement.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 8:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,

Apart from showing that the IR laws will not affect whether YOU would employ people, however, with comments like:

"But as it happens, our society doesn't exist to just to make life easy for a business owner."

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of humanity or economics. The simple fact is that when something is made more difficult, less people do it. This applies to all aspects of life from crime to having children.

Make employing people harder, and less people will be employed. This flows from the fundemental laws of economics. That these laws impose a burden on small business is not in dispute, and the consequences are inevitable, and your assertions to the contrary apply only to yourself.

The headlines are that 25% of small businesses are planning layoffs. The question is that when the economy turns around who will re hire?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 9:37:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, I don't wish to go on and on about the same thing so I will leave your comment alone but still maintain my statement as being factual, that is if past history is any guide.

As SH has stated, and it is probobly the easiest way to put it. When you make something harder, anything, many people just tend to steer away from it as they prefeer to avoid conflict rather than have to deal with it.

With the Krud team now addmitting the we are headed for the dreaded 'R Word', now is simply not the time to be placing extra hurdels in front of the countries largest employer group.

Krud and co are about to destroy the lives of many families throughout this country but I guess this may not worry you as you only have numbers on your payroll, not names.

I guess hiring and firing for you is like a game of bingo, spin the wheel and see what number drops. Perhaps a little 'fairness' would not hurt, you should give it a go, you may be pleasently surprised to learn a little about what make your staff tick, out of work!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 7:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "The question is that when the economy turns around who will re hire?"

Going on recent history Shadow, probably everybody. We have after all recently gone through the greatest, longest economic boom I can remember. During that time unemployment fell to record lows. Oddly, these very laws you say will stop people from hiring were first introduced at the start of that period.

Shadow Minister: "The simple fact is that when something is made more difficult, less people do it."

Going on the evidence above economics is not quite as simple as you seem to think, Shadow.

Shadow Minister: "Make employing people harder, and less people will be employed."

The laws don't make it harder to employ people, they operate at the other end - when you dismiss someone. Hence their name - the unfair dismissal laws. I know you said you have dabbled in IR laws, but since you seem to be confused on that point I guess I should ensure you are aware they aren't called the unfair redundancy laws for the same good reason. They don't have much effect on redundancies, and making someone redundant isn't difficult. If it were, that might make someone put off hiring until they were absolutely sure there was enough work to support the new employee. Fortunately that isn't the case. This is possibly why they don't appear to cost jobs.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 7:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "as you only have numbers on your payroll, not names."

Well rehctub, I don't know what you were trying to achieve here, but you did succeed getting a wry chuckle out of me. It's just another example vivid imagination allowed to run rampant on OLO, but there is some part of me that finds this sort of thing amusing.

rehctub: "Perhaps a little 'fairness' would not hurt, you should give it a go"

No thanks rehctub. You probably have an inkling of what I regard as fair. A part of it ensuring everybody understands how things work, how their actions effect those around them and my business. Another part of it is insisting they be responsible for those effects, just as I am responsible for the effects I have on them. Well they are bits I have revealed here.

In what you have revealed here rehctub, it seems your notion of what is fair is oddly aligned with things that benefit rehctub. You insist you are wonderfully fair in your dealing with your employees of course, but I see no actual examples of it in your words. And given what you have said, you seem to have no trouble ascribing the worst possible motivations to peoples actions. If you are trying to judge how someone might treat others, that is never a good sign.

So I will give your offer a miss. It seems likely your definition of fair doesn't align with what my mother taught me it meant, which means I would not be very good at implementing it anyway.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 11:10:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

Aside from your opinions above, have you any substance to back up what you are saying?

Every article I have read indicates that employment would be adversely affected the question are about how much.

The best article I have seen so far goes to some length to quantify the cost to small businesses and the resulting unemployment. The article is not against the laws.

http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/publications/reports/UFD.pdf

“Assuming that wages of Australian workers are not influenced by the unemployment rate together with the assumption of a wage elasticity of demand of 0.7 and the finding that UFD laws raise the average cost per employee by at least $296 per year yields an estimate that these laws reduce employment of workers on the average wage by about 0.46 per cent.3 The effect is much larger for workers on minimum wages (about $20 500 per year) where the reduction in employment is about 1 per cent. Thus another dimension of the inequity caused by UFD laws is that the burden is borne most heavily in terms of increased unemployment by low wage and low skilled workers who are among the most vulnerable in the community.”

The new legislation will result in the following changes:

Businesses will be required to bargain with their employees and the union for a collective enterprise agreement.

If Fair Work Australia believes that the employees in a particular industry are low-paid that businesses may be required to provide wages and entitlements above the award and legislated minimum standards.

Business will no longer be able to dismiss an employee without giving proper warnings to ensure that the dismissal is not viewed as being unfair. After 1 January 2011, the exemption will be based on a strict headcount of businesses with less than 15 employees.

Unions will be given greater power to enter workplaces to discuss and consult with employees.

Unions will be given expanding rights. This means that if one single employee in the workplace is a union member, the union has a right to be involved in the bargaining process and be a party to the agreement.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 4:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oddly, these very laws you say will stop people from hiring were first introduced at the start of that period.

Rubbish. The laws were first introduced back in the arly 90's and it was not until the early 2000's, when the laws were finally watered down due to a majority lib govenment, that our ecconomy boomed.

Come to think of it, they were introduced either just prior to or just after the last reccesion. The one we had to have.

How ironic that we are about to head into another recession and these laws are being tightened by yet another labor government, the first in almost 12 years, 7 or 8 of which have been boom time years.

I think it best that we agree to disagree and let it be.

I have seen what happened first hand as I have been in small business since 1989 and I can assure anyone out there who is sitting on the fence that these laws will lead to job losses.

We now have UFD, super contributions at 9%, payroll tax (how dumb is that, a tax that hurts one for expanding and creating jobs)and the list goes on.

They just keep throwing up the barriers don't they.
Good luck to you all in the future and I hope I am proven wrong and that your jobs are secure.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "The laws were first introduced back in the arly 90's and it was not until the early 2000's, when the laws were finally watered down due to a majority lib govenment, that our ecconomy boomed."

I don't recall any changes to the UFD back then, rehctub. Got a link to show what changes you are talking about?

Shadow Minister: "Aside from your opinions above, have you any substance to back up what you are saying?"

OK, Shadow, I'll play your silly game.

This statement in the report says the majority of small business owners take my side of the divide: "5.9 per cent of businesses were aware of the changes to the law and think that the changes will be good for their business. Finally, 2.1 per cent of businesses were aware of the recent changes to the law but think that those changes will be bad for their business".

The conclusions in the report are based on the 1/3 that responded negatively. His calculations assume the laws will have no impact remaining 2/3, as opposed to a positive impact. He could not do otherwise because his report is based on a questionnaire, and in there he only asked about costs, not benefits.

He also predicted a 1% employment drop. Actual changes in unemployment since the report are (based on ABS figures):

2002..2006: -2.0% (with UFD - 0.50%/year)
2006..2008: -0.9% (without UFD - 0.45%/year)

Ie, no change. Which, despite all the rhetoric, is exactly what the government predicted the effect would be. See "A striking absence is any specific claim that employment is expected to increase" in http://www.ipe.net.au/Work%20Choices.html And when Howard claimed the 0.5% drop in 2006 was due to Word Choices, this is what Dan Howard's Melbourne Institute colleague, Mark Wooden, said:

"We really just don’t know, and certainly the Prime Minister doesn’t have any evidence to support it"
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/construction-and-engineering/dollar-smashes-us83c-.-workchoices-low-unemployment-.-will-employment-push-up-rates-.-coag-action-on-red-tape-.-australian-smes-are-not-competitive-.-new-visa-invites-young-workers.html

BTW, references to hard facts are good. But this is silly. We are quoting opinions of macro economists who are notorious for changing their predictions more often than a woman in a shoe shop changes her mind.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 23 April 2009 9:45:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't recall any changes to the UFD back then, rehctub. Got a link to show what changes you are talking about?

They occurred when the howard gov gained the majority needed to support the changes.

When the UFD laws were first implimented they were applicable to ALL BUSINESSES'.

One of the main changes made was to exempt many small employers from UFD and it is this exemption that is being adjusted to I beleive 15 employees or less.

I can assure you it happened and our nation boomed. Of cause I can't say this created the boom but it is ironic that recessions and employment hurdels seem to go hand in hand with labor governments.

Try these

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/2334.htm
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/11958.htm
http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/issues_papers/Labour_Relations/August%2005%20-%20Unfair%20Dismissal%20Laws.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/11/2271297.htm
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/thefacts/unfairdismissal

Then try this one
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/industrial-relations/20090323-get-ready-now-to-avoid-unfair-dismissal-claims.html

Let me know if you want more hey!

I hate to be nasty, but I would assume this is 'GAME OVER' for your argument hey!

Thanks for the tip. Now I have to go to these and see what I have to do to protect myself, my family and my hard earned assetts from these fools.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 23 April 2009 6:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

I looked at your links. I didn't see anything in the first about limiting the size of the business the unfair dismissal laws applied to. In fact it seemed to be relatively minor common sense style changes, telling the AIRC to dismiss claims frivolous claims before they cost anyone a lot of money and introducing penalties for frivolous claims. The only substantive change was the introduction of a trial period. It was a good idea, but hardly earth shattering. I certainly don't see how it could cause the economy to boom in the way you say. That statement makes you sound like a one man cheer squad for the Liberal Party . Are you a member?

The second link was an amendment that didn't make it through the senate, and the remainder were just political statements of the sort I would hope everyone, even you, wouldn't look to if trying to understand the effects of these laws. (Notice I the links I posted were to sites like the IPE and business sites, places that are sympathetic to your side of the debate but nonetheless the acknowledge problems in Work Choices.)

They got me curious as to where the exemption for small business came from, so I went looking. I can't say I was terribly successful. I ended up reading a lot of Commonwealth and State law, something which I find almost impossible to concentrate on, and something I know from experience I am not very good at.

However, as far as I can tell the only time Howard got substantial changes to the UFD through the senate was in his suicide note - Work Choices. That was in 2006. My guess is the existing small business exemption must of come from Queensland state law. See:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELRRev/2006/11.html
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 24 April 2009 9:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

I never meant to imply that all businesses would cut jobs, only that some would. As no businesses planned to add to the work force because of the laws there is a net loss. Neither did I imply that UFD was the sole cause of unemployment.

The loss of jobs from UFD comes in the various following guises as per the article:

Some 47.9 per cent of small businesses reported that their recruitment and selection decisions are influenced by the UFD laws. These changes, more details of which are in
Table 14, involve the following:
• 11.6 per cent of businesses reported greater use of fixed term contracts;
• 21.3 per cent reported that they employ more casuals and fewer permanent staff;
• 20.7 per cent reported that they employ more family and friends; and
• 26.6 per cent reported use of longer probationary periods.

Finally Mark Wooden said We really just don’t know, and certainly the Prime Minister doesn’t have any evidence to support it other than the employment figures,” (ie. there have as yet been no studies to determine a causal link) Which as the figures had just been released was correct.

I noticed you excised the last part to try and change the meaning of the quote, which is deliberate deception and a sign of desperation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 April 2009 4:28:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "I never meant to imply that all businesses would cut jobs"

You didn't, as Dan Harding wrote the paper not you. Unless of course you and Dan Harding are one and the same?

Shadow Minister: "As no businesses planned to add to the work force because of the laws there is a net loss."

We don't know whether they would or would not, as the question wasn't asked. It is reasonable to assume if the laws saved them money they would. We don't know why the majority of businesses that knew about the laws were in favour of them, but saving them money seems like one possibility.

Shadow Minister: "The loss of jobs from UFD comes in the various following guises as per the article"

Yes, I did read the article. Pity it didn't include what the 2/3's that liked the laws thought would happen. That aside, as I said it is all a bit pointless. I have no doubt Dan Harding did they best he could with the information he had. But what he had was peoples opinions of what they thought would happen, not measures of what did happen. Call me sceptical, but even if I thought the information he collected didn't have an inherent bias I'd still be dubious his conclusions bore any resemblance to reality.

Shadow Minister: "deliberate deception and a sign of desperation"

Possibly it was a sign of that. Possibly since I had already stated that there was a net reduction in unemployment, I thought it redundant. Possibly it just reflected that I was at 349 words. You are fond of jumping to conclusions, Shadow.

Anyway, a question for you both, Shadow and rehctub. Which wage system do you think is best for small business: a centralised system or laissez-faire, where each employer gets to set his own conditions?
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 24 April 2009 5:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart, I think that wages, where possible, should be productivity linked.

Why should the work pace be allowed to be set by the slowest or least productive worker as it often is and, UFD laws will suit these dinosours to the tee.

An employee and employer should be able to negotiate wages and conditions that suits them both.

Hard, productive workers rearly loose their jobs as the boss knows that the next guy will take them on at a hear beat.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 24 April 2009 7:25:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

If you had bothered to follow the track of IR laws you would realise that the UFD laws had been implemented under labor. The election of the liberal gov in late 1996 began to remove the more toxic implications of these laws with AWAs etc.

In the years prior to 1996 under labor the unemployment steadily increased. From 1996 to 2008 unemployment steadily decreased due to the business friendly environment put in place by the liberal gov.

The study was an analysis of existing legislation and its impact on the business environment.

As you are skeptical of anything that disagrees with your view point, I invite you to provide even one independent article that shows that UFD increases employment.

Perhaps you could try not to edit their quotes either.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 25 April 2009 8:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy