rehctub
That question has been answered before you are just not listening.

I am surprised you would want a system where job security would be so low in the scenario you describe ie. employers allowed to sack anyone at anytime without a reason.

This would just create economic chaos. A nation that invites this sort of low job security will see a huge reduction in spending on products (like meat) so that people can put money aside for a rainy day should their employer decide to sack them for say having a sick day (even if you had swine flu) or a busty blonde walked in that might take the boss's fancy over a older male employee who has a family to raise.

Crime rates would rise - where is the incentive to work if you might be sacked at any moment on an employer's whim. The divide between the rich and the poor would increase with black market employment rising to blackmail people into taking under-award wages just so they keep their jobs.

Yeah great system that. Be careful what you wish for.

I am surprised you would want a system where job security would be so low in the scenario you describe ie. employers allowed to sack anyone at anytime without a reason.

But pelican, don't employees have this right every working day of their lives. The right to leave when it suits them! What is the difference?

Pelican, you havn't answered my question you have simply highlited the rights of employees and the lack of rights for employers.

Now some employers have time lines to meet with certain jobs and, if they loose staff at a crucial point, this can often result in fines for finnishing late.

Do the staff that left them in the lerch have to pay any form of penilties?

Is this fair in your view?

So I ask again. How can you call this system fair when one party can leave at will yet the other can't choose at will?

Can anyone answer how this is fair? That's all I am wanting, is for someone to show how this is considered a better deal for all concerned.

Now I think being able to pay one person more than another was fair, if they earned it.

Or, being able to sack someone who dragged the working standards down seems fair to me. After all, they often get paid the same rate for less input. Is this fair?

rehctub, I really don't know the exact terms of the new proposed unfair dismissal laws. I'm just going on how the system used to work several decades ago.
As I recall, everyone started as a casual. Casuals could be let go with just on hour's notice, or expected to give one hour's notice.
In most awards (that I knew of) there was a time limit on how long a person could be employed as a casual; 3 or six months.
How long does it take, to evaluate a worker?
After the initial period, the worker was made permanent, at which time both the worker or the boss was expected to give one week's notice.
With the advent of Workchoices, permanent employment seems to have become a thing of the past. Casuals are employed permanently, and can be let go at any time. In many situations, Casuals are expected to work long hours without penalty rates, and not complain, or face the sack.
I can identify with your story about working alongside people who aren't pulling their weight, while still getting the same money; we've probably all experienced it in one way or another.
That's why I personally am in favour of cooperatives. Weeding out the non performers could be done democratically.

rehctub
You are the one arguing that people should aspire to more than minimum wage. How can they do that if a condition of their employment is enslavement to one job.

A businessman owns his business. He has to employ people,pay cleaners, maybe pay for some bookwork, for wholesale goods, retail shop fittings etc. He has a vested interest in the business doing well so he can make a living.

Someone who works for the same business does not have the same direct vested interest as they do not share in the profits even if they are the hardest worker in the shop. They provide labour which is part of the costs of business. Their responsibility is to perform well in the job they are being paid for and to follow any IR laws set down by the system or their employment contract such as giving one month's notice (or whatever it might be).

Employees are not slaves and should be able to leave one employer for another. This is sometimes the only power 'labour' has over 'capital' in being able to seek a better wage or working conditions to aspire for all those things you mentioned in another thread about minimum wage.

In an economy where the power is very much vested with the employer there has to be some weighting in favour of the employee. The system just would not work or be fair if the employer had absolute power to dismiss at will

If this does not answer your question to your satisfaction I think any more efforts would be hopeless given your view of the world and how it should work.

pelican, You make some good points in what you say but what you say is not always as it is.

Many employees achieve higher wages through promotions within the same company. Many supermarket managers, some high profile, started with the same company 30 years ago pushing trollies.

Now I understand that we can't have a system whereby the boss can just sack at will, however, this is often the only way to establish a great team, is to keep replacing a portion of your staff when a better worker comes along. In any case, if you are good at your job, usually, you have little to fear.

I employed two 1st year apprentices less than 18 months ago. I have just put them up to 3rd year becasue of their skill levels. Skills which I take most of the credit for as I consider myself well skilled in my indudtry.

Now I am about to sack a butcher as these boys are equal to, if not better than him. Is this fair in your view, or, should I sack one of the boys or worse still take a pay cut myself as a result of my efforts in providing excelent training.

This is where employers need flexability as well. It's my business, I take all the risks, why should I have to justify my actions.

Now I keep hearing about this 'trial period'. Do you realise that once the trial is over, the worker is safe, yet the boss is commited to keeping that employee, even if they slaken off.

Of cause there are systems in place for warning people, but hey, many small businesses will simply not go there. Better to pull your head in than take that type of risk.

Continued
We have simply 'turned back the clock' and trust me, we will be a different world in a year or two, and I will put money on that.

Employees need the freedom to change jobs and employers need the freedom to run their business as they see fit.

One last thing. Casual labour.

Casual labour increased in the 90's as a result of UFD laws.

We also saw more contractors and labour hire placements, all in reaction to UFD.

Besides, casuals are actually better off financially as they receive 20% loading. It is just that they fail to plan and save a portion of this for sick days and holidays. We pay it, it's up to them to save it.

Another cause of casual labour, essecially within retail, is extended trading hours.

None of us can predict when shoppers are going to shop as they have so many hours to decide. So, when you have slack periods you sometimes send people home, or, visa versa when you get busy.

My shop can fluxuate up to 30% at times, without warning or reason. Another reason why we need flexability in our workforce.

You see, for every action, there is a re-action and, in the situation it is unpredictable shopping trends.

A recent change in legislation means that we are meant to tell a casual what time they will be finnishing. How do we know? We may be very busy, or very quiet. Why should we be the only ones effected.

Unfortunately, running a small business can be a nightmear at times and, every hurdel you put in the way can cost jobs and that's a proven fact.

But hey, you got your wish, so now time will tell!