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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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