New IR laws...

[Greg Ward]

In the real world, really small businesses are fearful of hiring employees, which limits employment.

So, really small businesses work 7 days a week and as many hours as necessary to produce or sell whatever they have to offer. They use family members as unpaid labour for as long as they can, but their growth is stifled by their (not unwarranted) fear of the hidden costs in hiring a poor employee and their fear of the legal professsion is also not unwarranted. These changes may encourage some to actually hire staff to enable them to grow their business. Is this a bad thing?

Unfair dismissal laws have been a disaster for many really small and medium sized businesses and a huge disincentive to employment. They must never come back again. If my house is on the line, I should be entitled to employ whomsoever I wish. I shouldn't have to pay go-away money to get rid of someone who I don't want to work for me.

Larger businesses will use the law to seek to become more profitable, but if that means that some of these businesses actually remain in Australia rather than move their source of supply to China, is that really a bad thing?
Employees still have award protection, so wages will never reach Chinese levels and those who state this is the aim of these changes are really very foolish.

There are entrenched work practises that are not productive. If these changes mean that they can be removed and that an abattoir (for example) can therefore become profitable and remain open, is that really a bad thing?

If I wish to open my business at the weekend or after hours, there is a huge disincentive for me to do so as I have to pay penalty rates. I don't get double the cost for my goods on Sunday, but if the the cost of doing business on weekends is too high, I won't open.
If I can reduce my operating costs on the weekend, I may employ someone who otherwise may not have a job. Is this a bad thing?

Regards
Greg

[bitingmidge]

But you ARE able to claim the legal costs against tax.

Wooo hooo!!

Make no mistake, IF you are making a profit, claiming "against tax" means a 30% discount, the other 70% comes out of your pocket. Actually it all comes out of your pocket.

In my case, no profit for 18 months, so didn't have to pay tax! Trying buying Christmas presents with what was left "against tax"!!

Cheers,

P

[Exador]

Wooo hooo!!

Make no mistake, IF you are making a profit, claiming "against tax" means a 30% discount, the other 70% comes out of your pocket. Actually it all comes out of your pocket.

In my case, no profit for 18 months, so didn't have to pay tax! Trying buying Christmas presents with what was left "against tax"!!

Cheers,

P

I didn't say it was right, merely that some of it is defrayed. If the employee doesn't have the union, none of it is defrayed for them. Anyway, I reckon that unfair dismissal is a small part of the package that I can somewhat agree with. I think it's a bit too sweeping, but the previous effort went too far the other way. Time will tell, I guess.

[Daddles]

I shouldn't have to pay go-away money to get rid of someone who I don't want to work for me.

That's really nice for you Greg. However, I've been on the other end, small businessmen like who believe they are gods, treat their workers like #### and dump them when they feel like it. Yes, it has happened to me, twice from small 'family' businesses and once by a giant who had a management change and decided to change the staff by stealth.

Conversely, I've also worked for similar businesses, small and large, who looked after and valued their workers. Strangely, they never had a problem with bad employees and had workers stay there for many years (myself included).

Look after your workers and they'll look after you. For the scumbags, there needs to be protection - for BOTH sides. I'm not saying the balance has always been perfect, it hasn't, but to remove protection for one side, whoever it may be, stinks.

Richard

[bitingmidge]

To remove protection for one side, whoever it may be, stinks

Hear hear!!

So who (apart from the press and the histeria mongering union advertising campaign) says protection is being removed?

I would have thought it was more like, providing a modicum for the other side? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the "protection" is still there.

P

[echnidna]

Agree with Midge.
The laws should be fair and reasonable to employers & workers.

[Toolin Around]

I've set out all the stuff on "less income" (including references as I recall) in the original thread, so won't do it again, BUT the "no disadvantage" test STILL stands.
P

Having just tried a search for IR laws on the forum and getting a squizillion pages could you point me to the thread you were reffering to...

[bitingmidge]

Hmmm I see what you mean...

Might need a long chat one evening!

Feel like a coffee??

P

[Toolin Around]

Hmmm I see what you mean...

Might need a long chat one evening!

Feel like a coffee??

P

Starbucks - my treat

[Daddles]

Fly me up there and I'll drink your coffee Midge. Hell, I'll even sand your latest boat

Richard

[Exador]

Hear hear!!

So who (apart from the press and the histeria mongering union advertising campaign) says protection is being removed?

I would have thought it was more like, providing a modicum for the other side? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the "protection" is still there.

P

The right to take your employer to court if you don't like being ripped off is certainly still there, but the right to go to the commission and ask for a (relatively) cheap and quick hearing is gone. How many employees do you reckon have the desire or even the wherewithal to take on their boss in court? How many bosses want to be tied up in court instead of earning a living? How many people want to remain working for someone they have had to take to court to get a fair shake out of? I reckon the whole thing's a dog's breakfast.

As to Union scaremongering, I've heard very little. What I've heard is employers trying it on to reduce employees wages and conditions, quite egregiously in a couple of cases and I suspect there will be many more. I've also heard a lot from employer groups telling us the unions would use scare tactics.... Who do I believe? Neither, but I have a deep and abiding distrust of this Government that tells me that anything John Howard wants is probably something that's going to hurt the little man. I hope I'm wrong.

[bitingmidge]

As to Union scaremongering, I've heard very little.

Surely you jest? Before the legislation was passed, one couldn't turn on a television without seeing an advertisement, and one of the things that really got up my nose was that not one of the ones I saw actually related to the legislation.

Who do I believe? Neither.

Well we agree on that entirely!

BTW I have a deep and abiding distrust of both sides of parliament.

Cheers,

P

[Exador]

Surely you jest? Before the legislation was passed, one couldn't turn on a television without seeing an advertisement, and one of the things that really got up my nose was that not one of the ones I saw actually related to the legislation.

Yep, before the legislation was passed there was a lot of posturing on both sides. I think the union movement, however, has woken up to the fact that whatever they say will be characterised as scaremongering, so they're now pretty much letting greedy employers (a la Spotlight) show off the flaws themselves. There'll be many more. This legislation is a gift to those employers who want to rip off their employees, make no mistake.

BTW I have a deep and abiding distrust of both sides of parliament.

Cheers,

P

Actually, so do I, but some are worse than others and John Howard sets the benchmark as the least trustworthy politician in the last 20 years in my view, especially on anything to do with workers' rights.

[outback]

I like Greg Wards take on things. As a really small business, I WON'T employ anyone. It simply costs too bloody much. Start with wages, add workers comp, then super, lack of sleep because if you hire the wrong person you are stuck with them.
I am afarid I can't see where Daddles is coming from, if you got "dumped" from two small family businesses, so what. They didn't want you to work for them, for whatever reason, and I don't give a damn what it was, sure as an employer it is their right to decide who works for them and who doesn't.
I think at this stage large scale companies are testing the waters, a bit like a gambit claim, just start out silly, and see where it all settles down.
The facts are, if you are being employed, if the company goes broke because of poor employees and too higher wages, you are out of a job. Perhaps half of something is better than all of nothing.

[Exador]

I like Greg Wards take on things. As a really small business, I WON'T employ anyone. It simply costs too bloody much. Start with wages, add workers comp, then super, lack of sleep because if you hire the wrong person you are stuck with them.

I'm not worried about being "stuck" with them, just about finding enough for them to do. My business is small enough that I can handle it on my own with some help from my partner. If I needed another person, I'd hire them, laws or no laws.

I am afarid I can't see where Daddles is coming from, if you got "dumped" from two small family businesses, so what. They didn't want you to work for them, for whatever reason, and I don't give a damn what it was, sure as an employer it is their right to decide who works for them and who doesn't.

Quite so, but there are ways and means, wouldn't you agree? Simply saying "you're sacked cause I don't like you" is going to get anyone's nose out of joint, I would have thought?

I think at this stage large scale companies are testing the waters, a bit like a gambit claim, just start out silly, and see where it all settles down.

The problem is that there is nothing to protect those workers who are screwed down while the situation "settles down". I know that when I was an employee, losing $90 a week would have put a massive hole in my budget and that's a hole some won't dig themselves out of if the situation goes on too long. On top of that, there is the whole sense of how much you are valued by your employer. I know I wouldn't want to work for a business that all of a sudden decided I was worth 20% less to them.

The facts are, if you are being employed, if the company goes broke because of poor employees and too higher wages, you are out of a job. Perhaps half of something is better than all of nothing.

A company doesn't go broke because of those things, it goes broke because of poor management. Even under the old laws, if a business could demonstrate that it was downsizing, there was no penalty applicable or claim possible. As both Midge and I have said, there is a great deal of misinformation being peddled by both sides.