Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Don't rush back to unfair dismissal laws

By Barry Cohen - posted Monday, 7 January 2008


The difficulty with unfair dismissal is prescribing in legislation the thousands of possible disagreements that can occur in the workplace.

At present the legislation is loaded overwhelmingly in favour of the employee. With the assumption by many union officials that everyone in business is rolling in money, what's a few months' extra wages to the "rich" boss?

And what of the employee who is doing a good job but the employer finds someone who can do it better? Unfair? No. Unlucky? Yes. An owner is entitled to make decisions that can mean the difference between success and failure. Providing the employee is given adequate notice and full entitlements, there should be no argument.

Advertisement

Reverse the situation and imagine the reaction if a long-term employee who has been paid and treated well for many years walks into the boss's office and says, "I've been offered a better job." Should the employee be penalised for unfair departure?

The tricky part for the Government is to draw a line between a small number of genuine unfair dismissals and the right of employers to hire whoever they wish to hire. If you think that's easy, try drawing up behavioral rules for married couples.

What the Government needs to turn its attention to is the Howard government's casualisation of the workforce. Genuine casual workers are easy to define. They are retirees, students, housewives and the like who only want a few hours' work a week. Increasingly, however, full-time workers are being designated as casuals and losing all their entitlements.

They may receive a slightly higher rate of pay, but when business is slow they can be stood down or sacked without notice. Consequently their average take-home pay is much lower.

It is reasonable for an employee to be given a three-month trial period as a casual, but after that any worker who works more than 25 hours a week should be considered permanent.

If the Rudd Government wants to help low-income workers, this is the area in which it should concentrate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on January 2, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Barry Cohen was Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment in the Hawke Government from 1983 to 1987. He currently runs an animal sanctuary in Calga, NSW.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Barry Cohen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy