Just a small point about the red tape instroduced by, quote, "you lot" over the last four years.
I assume by that that you mean Labor.
So, I just wanted to point out that by far the biggest red tape impost in small business history in this country has been to do with the GST, which, if memory serves me right, was introduced by a Coalition governmnet.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

rehctub, there seems to be something of a structural shift ccurring, away from small business and toward large corporates. The ALP has fostered that shift, since Unions are essentially large Corporates too and large organisations like to deal with large organisations.

Not to mention that small business people are not unionists and are nearly always men...

Anthony, I can't dispute you on that one.

Anti, you are right there.

The unfortunate thing about this shift is that many small businesses are owned and operated by local community based persons and, apart from often employing locals, they also give a lot to charities and sporting groups.

I fear this may well change as many larger businesses ar now unapproachable by t averag Joe, simply seeking assistance for the local events.

I myself, in my 20 + years in business would have supported locals to an amount in excess of $300,000.

Try getting that out of a larger company, as they generally support corporate sporting venues in return fo advertising recognition.

Furthermore, large corps are more likely to go off shore if and when the opportunity arises.

Either that, or they, like in the case of Arnotts, will shed hundreds of staff in favor of multi million dollar machinery.

I remember when tarrifs started to be wound back and imports were
increasing having the thought about if the workers are sacked who will
buy the whatevers ?

I admit it has taken a long time to hit crunch point but it has arrived.
These "Occupy this or that" demos were predicted and are a symptom of
the world wide trade agreements.
I read today that there is a movement in the Qantas (Belly, no U")
dispute for the unions to take over a management role in the business.
I gather from the article that it is a result of the Fair Work laws
brought in by KRudd. It stated that the Work Choices laws removed
such provisions that had been implemented by the previous Labour
government.

Is that a fair summation Belly ?

If such a policy is to be implemented then the wages of the employees
should be tied to the profits of the company by a substantial factor.
My suggestion would be the basic wage plus a percentage of the profit.

Bazz, most wages should be paid this way.

Hourly rates, in conjunction with unfair dismissal laws often means the lowest performing worker sets the bar.

As I stands now, in most cases, an employee gets paid for how long it takes, not how much they get done.

How on earth employees can expect a pay rise, when a business is loosing money is just reckless union thuggery and it may come back to hurt them as, while they may well get thier higher wages, there will be less worked to enjoy such a windfall.

Meanwhile, the union officials jobs ar saf as houses,because thier wages are paid from subscription, not profits and that's th difference.

Rechub said:
Meanwhile, the union officials jobs ar saf as houses,because thier
wages are paid from subscription, not profits and that's th difference.

Ahh you forgot the secret commissions !