Dear Pericles,

Mate, I have owned and operated my own businesses, mostly small in size, for 4/5ths of my working life. During that time I have employed many people. I have had decades in retail, wholesale and manufacturing often running totally different enterprises simultaneously. Not one of those businesses went broke and I paid all my workers all their entitlements.

I have associated with a number of employer groups and I must say thankfully your attitude is rare in the majority of business owners I know. I must admit it is an attitude I see more often in managers. Are you a manager?

Most of those owners would know, as I do, if an employee lasts more than a couple of years with you, especially in manufacturing, then you have struck a good one and they are worth holding on to. Secondly the relationship you have inevitably formed means you care about them and their families.

In manufacturing it is often the ones who do the most tedious work that you feel the most grateful for because you know it would be beyond your own capabilities to face that grind.

So whose sensibilities does it offend? Myself and many others in business I know. I have seen some rouge operators out there and have been involved with others in boycotting them because of the way they have treated their staff. I have even had one shut down.

The biggest shame is the lack of trust their former workers bring to their next workplace.

I will admit some IR laws make my grind my teeth but I recognise that on the whole they do assist in keeping the balance right at least here in Victoria.

Yes Foxy I agree NSW surrendered its powers to the federal system, the right thing to do.
However it is not planned that public enterprise RTA Forests Parks ext will ever become part of the system.
It is however proposed and well underway that # Harmonization# of OHXS [ one set of rules nation wide take place.
Some Labor states have far worse laws than NSW, it is those states who oppose introduction of the better laws in their states.
It is a better way, to have National laws, it is a concern ,increasing costs involved in workplace injury.
Indeed in fraud by both workers and employees in this area.
But do we truly think cutting costs is a safety measure?
Work cover NSW is a fraud.
It is useless and helps no one.
Why not improve safety and surveillance not cut victims rights?
Fraud, deliberate crime, drove car injury pay outs down , so too in personal injury's payouts dropped.
We stand convicted in the workplace we think of cost not, not rights of victims, ruined lives.
Under this new system I [ fully trained ] can drive past a work site and find real danger to motorists and workers.
Today I can walk up and ask to see a traffic control plan and or traffic movement plan.
Ask for it now, not under this system.
I must give 24 hours written notice to see that document.
This morning I could if given it prove danger exists, show how to fix it, see it done and drive on all in less than five minutes.
No fighting, no IR war and no deaths or injury's.
Is it known some who set out these sites are untrained and not lawfully able to do so?
Or that I soon will be unable to challenge them?
In fact by invitation I audit a very big international firms site today, but break the new law too.

So if you open on boxing day or any other day, it is your decision, it is not the law.

Sorry Desmond, but you are wrong.

All shopping centres today have what is refferred to as 'core trading hours' and, as a retailer, you must trade these hours or face fines.

The fair pay commision has deemed 'Saturday' as a 'trading day' and 'Monday' as the public holiday.

What ever happened to the three or four day break at Christmas?

One very simple solution would have been to make Saturday the public holiday and leave trading on this day as 'optional'.

Remember, the majority of businesses are closed for the entire Xmas break, so it is 'retail' that is hardest hit.

I also remind you that my concerns are for my staff as I will be on leave.

My staff don't want to work boxing day, but we have been forced to.

As for experience in the workplace.

Isn't it funny how one can be paid extra if they do a 'first aid course', yet, they don't get recognised for their years of experience.

Now it's all well and good for an employer to pay the experienced person a higher wage. The trouble starts if and when the less experienced challanges that.

And belly, I say again, this will cost jobs. You thought 2008-9 were tough years. Mark my words, 'you aint seen nothin yet'!

Krudd, with his failed employment generation schemes has left a huge hole in the confidence of employers and you can bet very few business owners will have any faith in anything he has to offer moving forward.

Frankly, that comes as a surprise, csteele.

>>Mate, I have owned and operated my own businesses, mostly small in size, for 4/5ths of my working life.<<

From your earlier approach to the topic, I was convinced that you must be a public servant of some kind, with only a theoretical understanding of what it takes to run a business.

>>thankfully your attitude is rare in the majority of business owners I know. I must admit it is an attitude I see more often in managers. Are you a manager?<<

Equally surprising to you must be that I am also a business owner, having started, and managed, four small companies - all successful, all still going.

You and I have no disagreement that a good employee is worth holding on to. Nor that the relationship extends beyond the shop floor. Nor that those who willingly perform the most tedious tasks can be extremely valuable, and often very difficult to replace. The longevity of the vast majority of my own employees stands testimony to these synergies at work in real life, as does the fact that I have not had to fire or lay off a single employee over the past twelve years.

Where we disagree at a fundamental level would appear to be that you feel that various government agencies know better than you how a business should run, and are forever discovering new ways to make life difficult for you.

It isn't a matter of grinding your teeth, csteele. It's the sheer frustration of having to deal with laws put in place to protect people who - just occasionally - have entirely forfeited the right to that protection.

It is punishing the many for the sins of the few.

Give me one example, if you will, of an IR law that is exempt from this description.

Dear Pericles,

I feel after reading your second post I could be talking to a different person.

>>You and I have no disagreement that a good employee is worth holding on to. Nor that the relationship extends beyond the shop floor. Nor that those who willingly perform the most tedious tasks can be extremely valuable, and often very difficult to replace.<<

So why the laissez faire approach to my brother-in-law's situation?

It was obviously a case of the new owners wanting to stamp their authority and the handover gave them the opportunity to negate any unfair dismissal law implications.

I think most people would consider their actions as unfair. They offended my sensibilities of a fair go. Many would be happy that under normal circumstances there is some remedy available.

So if you wanted an IR law to debate lets start with unfair dismissal.

I was also surprised by your statement “I would need to cost this activity into the manufacturing process, and pay accordingly.”

That is not the way it works. I always worked on the award wage plus 25% in my costings for a rough guide to gauge if a process was viable. You seemed to be indicating you let the process drive the pay.

I do prefer Perciles version 2 and I congratulate you on your 12 year record. I willingly admit it is better than mine although I still occasionally have a beer with a bloke I let go because of theft. Life is too short.

Sorry rechtub but you are wrong.
The sky is not falling, jobs will not go.
Rudd has already won the next election.
Now about trading on boxing day? you do own butcher shops?
None will open around here, they say one third of Sydney's population comes to our mid north coast but bet you no butcher shops will open.
Maybe in Woolworth's or Cole's but surely not shop?
One day, maybe now, employers with new ideas will sit down and work out a deal, remember you can , bargain with your workers.
It has to get past the BOOT test, that is better over all test measured against existing agreement.
Look at the last 5 years overtime records, it needs to be individuals as some work much more than others.
Figures will give average overtime per year.
Work out a base rate than includes that amount of overtime, if both sides agree you have a base rate of pay all hours worked.
Good bosses exist, good workers too, some workers gladly would work Saturdays for this inflated rate, and apart from over all pay rises it would cost you no more.
If your average worker worked 100 hours a year overtime, any hours after that would need to be paid as extra, pays would be by exception, changed only if over the average overtime was worked.
Some would want me flogged for saying this, but it has worked and I know some who would not have it any other way.
Annualized salary is its name, and bloke know I do not lie bosses just like you Chase my mob to help in drawing them up, they work for both sides.
Providing excessive overtime is paid or taken as paid leave at overtime rates wages time sheets alone are less work.