After all the small business used as an anecdote above only had four employees.
I was a supporter of the first two variations of the reform to unfair dismissal laws but I am not a supporter of what is currently in place.

As for the separate but related topic of dismissing a person because they’re not performing – which I think is fair enough – but that may be the business fault for not providing adequate training too. Whilst in most cases I think that is unlikely, it is a possibility and should be considered.

As for the effects of the current laws, we wont know them for 10, 20 or 30 years and (if its bad) by then it will be too late.

trade currencies , stocks and bonds.

Most terminations are not because of violent acts or theft. In most cases a person is not performing well.

In any event we’ve had Workchoices operating for about 18 months now and the number of unfair treatment is underwhelming at best.

“no wonder Hendy has been called a Liberal Party stooge by Keating”

Of course Mr. One Termer has always been a good judge poltical of bias or otherwise. Did he lace his criticisms with references to the guy’s look’s and appearance just to make the crticism more “valid”. He’s good at doing that.

I notice that Peter Hendy, chief executive of the ACCI is arguing in todays Australian that small businesses should be able to address poor performance, poor sales, poor customer relations or inability to integrate into a small workplace without being liable to unfair dismissals charges. But in bona fide cases, employers had this power under the pre-WorkChoices rules and no doubt will continue to have it (note too that businesses will not be subject to the dismissals laws during the first twelve months of employment).

What is disgraceful in Peter Hendys article is the implication that all small business owners are persons of high integrity whereas there are many lying, wrongdoing employees who will abuse the system. This is simplistic and unfair (no wonder Hendy has been called a Liberal Party stooge by Keating). Both small employers and employees need protection and we will see if Labor has achieved this when one gets the details.

However it’s a different situation when a tribunal can award monetary compensation to an unfairly dismissed worker. It’s simply a form of alternative dispute resolution when there’s a disagreement about the way in which a contract was terminated. It recognises the intangible losses that a worker incurs upon dismissal, that they can’t recover even if they get another job straight away, and compensates the worker accordingly if the dismissal was without sufficient cause.

So there’s a good argument for the remedy, but if it’s going to work fairly and effectively it has to be implemented by tribunal members with appropriate skills and impartiality … something that was not always the case with the old Industrial Relations Commission.

Only the quotes should have been on bold script.

I love how good employees are so valued and loved that any form of regulation is unnecessary, or else an insult to the inherently superior knowledge of those who can confidently speak on behalf of all employers and employees.

Well yes, good employees don’t need protection. Let me ask you why they would?

It’s not superior knowledge, it’s understanding that a free labor market provides the best outcome and no amount of obfuscating can make a dent in that premise. All else is emotive, economic and socials quackery.

I think Cs needs some serious sensitivity training.

————————–

Denmore

I agree with BBB. Don’t bail the fuckers out. That’s fine with me and almost all libertarians I could tbink of. We wouldn’t have these problems if our monetary policy wasn’t run by a bunch of amateur public employees and we allowed free banking that would remove moral hazard. but that’s just by the by.

What you and the other increasingly marginalised, frothing-at-the-mouth libertarians ideologues behind Howard really crave is no law at all. No protection. No rights for labour. Only for capitalists.

Well I wouldn’t say libertarians are in support of Howard. He does as a semi-social democrat have his vices that most of us find troubling. But I do agree that most of us “frothers” would support no labor laws at all with the possible exception of safety standards. You don’t need them.

I m afraid you don’t seem to appreciate the dependent relationship both capital and labor have to each other. One can’t exist without the other as they are both two of the three production inputs.

I am getting to love deregulation so much I think we should abolish laws against general assault. I mean, the idea that unless there were laws people would just go around bashing each other just shows how out of touch with the way real people conduct their ordinary interpersonal relationships. I mean there has to be some trade offs between busybodying interference and the efficiency of unmediated personal relationships!

BTW, Fred, you haven’t said what you think about reporting allegations of theft or assault to coppers as a sufficient and adequate ground for immunity from review, irrespective of the actual truth of the allegation? What do you think? Fair enough in the circs? I guess the low paid and the generally unskilled would be used to having some contact with law enforcement, and on those grounds it wouldn’t matter much to the kind of people that work in bars and shops eh? After all, plenty of those kinds of jobs going round, thanks to the shift to the flexible exciting and infinitely varied world of mass service sector jobs. Not like Professors, IT professionals and of course all those fabulously lively, engaging and thoroughly efficient people who work in finance (high end of course) media advertising and PR? After all, if they can afford to spend a lazt ten thou in the District or Supreme Court, they are free to do so.

Cheers
BBB

bet that most people supporting these restrictive laws are either journalists or public sector employees for the most part who have never had any experience in the private market.

Jeez, you really have a hard-on for the “private market” don’t you? As if it were some God-given state of nature. Have you forgotten that the market exists only because of man-made laws?

Look at all the market libertarians currently getting bailed out by central banks (those public servants you so despise) after their Frankenstein-like experiments in the derivatives market blew up in their faces.

What you and the other increasingly marginalised, frothing-at-the-mouth libertarians ideologues behind Howard really crave is no law at all. No protection. No rights for labour. Only for capitalists.

You’d be more at home in a jungle. But some of us prefer civilisation.

In these circumstances, is there a case for unfair dismissal laws? I mean, laws that prevent unfairly dismissing the boss? If the underlying rationale for IR protection is power imbalance, then shouldn’t our laws take full account of any power imbalance that favours an employee over an employer, however rare or unlikely? If the response is: no, because the worker will give notice and that notice should be enough to find a replacement, then doesn’t that equally apply to the dismissal of a worker, so long as notice is long enough to find alternative employment?

BBB

You know the last comment makes you sound like the Homerster, don’t you?

Cs, how could make such a insensitve comment in this day and age! I’m offended and feel you are creating a hostile work environment. Off to sensitivity training with you.

Get a job.

I don’t want one. I am very happy with what i do now. Notwithstanding that, why would I subject myself to periodic whippings and bashings that you allude goes on in the sweat shops of the private sector.

That’s not the half of it.

I bet that most people supporting these restrictive laws are either journalists or public sector employees for the most part who have never had any experience in the private market.

Can any of you offer evidence of how endemic this is in the private sector. How about some facts and figures to prove this quite astonishing assertion.

We also seem to hear about about, but we’re pretty short on good evidence that it is a rare oacassion than not.

You have a business. how important is it to treat good employees like they were valued in diamonds?

It seems there are lot’s of people who think good workers grow on trees.

Fred, based on comments youve made previously, I didnt think you were much of a fan of unfair dismissals laws.

AS I recall, Fred prefers active labour market programs to labour protection, but will settle for a degree of labour protection as second best.

…if the masters fear that unfair dismissal laws will be abused by pernicious staff deters him or her from hiring in the first place, it doesnt really help, does it?

No, but this principle doesn’t trump the principle that workers should have some protection against capricious employers. Given that we have two competing principles, the challenge is to find a workable compromise, based on as much evidence as possible — not to establish one or the other as plainly overriding on the basis of a priori reasoning.

The Democrats grasped this, and I think the ACTU did too. This briefing paper gets it right in my view.