Pelican, your words, not mine.
I am talking the general period post 1986 marked by the de-registration of the corrupt BLF (namely Norm Gallagher) and moving into the 90s and into 2000s prior to the introduction of WC in 2006 which saw a quiet and relatively calm industrial relations landscape.

I say again. If things were so good from 86 to early 90's, why then was there a need for unfair dismisal laws?

Also, UFD laws were watered down around 99/2000 and, it is no conincidence that business boomed.

All of a sudden, the shackles were unbolted and employers were now able to go about creating jobs without fear of being sued at any time.

Now take a simple UFD claim.

Firstly, the employee could have a lawyer present, but the employer could not.

A win, to the employer generaly cost them about three grand, and that's not including the downtime from their work.

Now as for WC, I am not defending it at all, however, I also had nothing to do with WC as ALL my employees were WELL PAID.

But no one can dispute the link between the axing of UFD and the boom of the early 2000's.

I challenge you to speak to a roofer, a concreter, a brickie, a chippy, a restauranture, in fact, any trades person and ask them a few simple questions.

1. Did you vote for labor at the last fed election?

2. If you did are you regreting your choice?

3. Did WC effect your income or deplete your working conditions?

Hi sharon, still waiting!

Wages have long been understood to be a major overhead in any business. The advantage of an award wage system is that it is an equal overhead for every business in that industry, so there can be no unfair advantage. Businesses must succeed by being smarter and more innovative, rather than just unscrupulous.
I would suggest a much greater threat to many small businesses is the size of their competitors.
How for instance, can the average corner store hope to compete with the buying power of Coles or Woollies? These sorts of trade disadvantages exist in many industries, and continue to grow.
As to unfair dismissal laws, I have witnessed the advantages and disadvantages from both sides. We are in the age of 'ratbag rules'. Laws are made to stop the 1 in 1000 ratbag, and disadvantage the rest of us.
I doubt if the majority of companies, doing the right thing will be severely disadvantaged, although I agree being able to find good employees are a major challenge to any business.

*How for instance, can the average corner store hope to compete with the buying power of Coles or Woollies? These sorts of trade disadvantages exist in many industries, and continue to grow.*

Ah Grim, consumers such as you, are of course a clever marketer's
dream come true!

Have you ever heard of a company called Metcash? This weekends
Financial Review contains a detailed article about them.
Shareholder returns have been around the 1300% mark, if you had
bought them 10 years ago.

IGA is one of their banners, they supply 8000 outlets. Their CEO
prides himself as to how many millionaires he has created, all
corner store owners flogging the "support the little local guy"
story. IGA turnover these days is 11 billion $, with 220 million
in profits and 19% of the grocery market.

Its a great marketing story of course.

Next you will be telling us to support Aldi, who now have 200
stores in Aus. In case you don't know, Aldi is German owned by
a couple of blokes who are right at the top rich list on the planet,
in the top 10 IIRC.

rehctub: <"Flexible work time: Like start work at any time between 7.00 am and 10.00 as long as we work 8 hours.

Yep, great idear. Now who is going to serve the customers between 7 and 10.">

Well that was one of a few suggestions and th application of any of them is where one has to be imaginative. It might not suit your biz, but not every job is focused on customer contact or configured the same way.

So as an example, imagine an organization that employs several people who, amongst other things, provide tech support. Instead of only operating during office hours, the company could have their phones answered from 7.00am until 6.00pm - yet not have to pay any penalty rates. Also, for people with child care costs, being able to get home to care for children after school would be like getting an extra $100 in the pay packet. - and the company is not only more in demand by people wanting to work for them, but is seen as family friendly.

Or, imagine a company whose product depends on the operation of one large machine. The company wants to increase production. Rather than having to buy an extra machine and employ extra people so that both machines can be run at the same time; the one machine can be operational for longer hours using the same staff who choose to work staggered hours and are therefore not paid penalty or overtime.

Using some imagination, every idea I proposed could work for both employees and employers. Just think about it.

*Using some imagination, every idea I proposed could work for both employees and employers. Just think about it*

Ah, but that was exactly what workchoices was all about!

Once again Yabby completely misses the point.
Let me rephrase; How can (for instance) the corner store owner compete with the buying power of Coles, Woollies OR IGA, or any other mega company?
The purpose of Workchoices was to break down the award system, to force Aussie workers to compete with rice bowl economies