So still nothing hey. What a pitty you have no reasonable comeback hey!

Anyway, there is no reason why you can't slug public listed companies with PRT as it is just another expense before the shareholders get their bit, but I say again, leave the mums, dads and family run businesses alone as it only discourages expansion in many cases.

rehctub
Just because someone might not respond to you immediately does not mean they do not have a comeback.

Some of us have jobs to go to and families to raise and are not on OLO as often as we can to be able to respond to you in the required time limit that you have set for us. :)

Frankly, I think it is pointless to argue with you about industrial relations. Correct me if I have misread you, but you appear to see things only from the employer's point of view.

Can you understand why the union movement grew - due to low wages for very long hours, in some cases children forced to work in coal mines. Can you see why protections might be needed for employees? Why should employers be the only group allowed to have a voice?

I agree with you that we are over-taxed in this country and we have too much red tape. Even the GST which pulls in millions for governments is easily rorted and there are little resources to stop the rorting.

I also agree that payroll tax is a burden for smaller business enterprises but do you really think that reducing it or eradicating PRT will create jobs in those larger business enterprises. I don't think so.

Particularly not in this economic climate where business are more likely to reduce overhead in the event of the threat of reduced spending.

Those who hold the power will rarely make the sacrifices in difficult economic times it will be the lowest paid who will suffer most. Even our illustrious politicians have given themselves a recent payrise despite telling the rest of us to pull our heads in and tighten our belts.

Frankly, I think it is pointless to argue with you about industrial relations. Correct me if I have misread you, but you appear to see things only from the employer's point of view.

Well no, I can see from both sides. My staff work well and get paid and treated accordingly. I have no problem with employees earning their worth, never have.

Can you understand why the union movement grew
I have no problems with the unions being there. I do however object to them trying to protect un-realistic wages and conditions, most of which have been achieved through high growth periods.

PRT. The problem with it is that it stops businesses expanding. Many will not expand due to being on the edge of the PRT threathhold.

As for employer V employee. All I ever want is a fair deal for both. Equal rights would be nice.

Can you understand why the union movement grew - due to low wages for very long hours, in some cases children forced to work in coal mines. Can you see why protections might be needed for employees? Why should employers be the only group allowed to have a voice?

Just a little more on this toppic as I ran out of time yesterday.

What you are reffering to happened decades ago, children working in coal mines etc.

What I am talking about has happened recently, esspecially some of the 'over the top' pay rates and conditions, all caused by an in-balance in the labor field. 'More work than you could poke a stick at' as such. This is what I object to with the unions. Wanting to protect these unrealistic conditions.

All I want as an employer is the same rights that an employee has. If you change your mind or get a better offer then a weeks notice is all that's required.

Now tell me, what is wrong with that?

Now it is no coincidence that our ecconomy boomed once the UFD laws were watered down and the union movement was surpressed.

Many caffes etc WILL CLOSE on weekends and staff WILL LOOSE THEIR JOBS as a result of what Krud and the unions are proposing to do.

Now all the stimulus in the world won't make any difference if you put more hurdles in front of employers, which is what Krud is about to do.

rehctub
Prior to Work Choices cafes weren't closing down and people weren't being laid off left right and centre. The system worked fine and there were very few industrial disputes. Why on earth was Work Choices developed during such prosperous and peaceful times will always baffle me.

There will be job losses due to the financial crisis - that is inevitable but it won't be due to the proposed changes to IR which from what I have seen are not all that disruptive from a business point of view.

You ask for equal rights for employers and employees in regard to termination.

So a boss who might change his mind because someone better comes through the door can just sack someone at will

You may not like the result if you get what you wish for. Can you imagine the insecurity in the economy - on spending - if job security was low and employees knew that at any minute they could be replaced even if they worked as hard as they could.

You may be a fair employer and I am sure you get on with your staff but not all employers are fair. Some may use such insecurity in the job market to get away with unpaid overtime, change in working conditions, no breaks, no attention to OH&S with the potential to cause a fatal accident (say on a building site).

What you suggest would in my view cause chaos and unrest in the end and that is never good for employers or employees.

I agree with you about some of the red tape and how much time it takes and the cost to small business. This is an area where governments can butt out a bit more.

You ask for equal rights for employers and employees in regard to termination.

So a boss who might change his mind because someone better comes through the door can just sack someone at will

Yes, point taken, but can't an employee just up and leave if and when it suits? This is my issue, not job security. Security must work for both sides.

Take an enginering plant. Say they are the middle of a major job and say they employ 5 tradesmen. The deadline is looming, they may even be behind. Then, two of the five hand in their notice, then what!

During the recent mining boom this was a fact. Often guys would go to the pub, meet up with a mine worker and never return to work as they had a chance to earn big bucks driving a water truck or similar.

This is still my point. I don't have a problem with job security, never have, it's just that security should work both ways. But it doesn't!