Fired- well that was unexpected.

[Sylvester]

OK, seeing as you asked and all Ill do the short version.

pinkboy

as an employer, what proof did you have for strike 3?

I see employees all the time trying to blame work for their chronic back pain, when they've had a life time of poor posture, poor diet, poor fitness.

Work Cover, being an agency governed by disconnected and naive elites most interested in feathering their nests (think Maxine McKew), while relieving their guilt about being better off, pander to those devoid of self responsibility and a penchant for spinning it thick and fast.

Tough love is something "this country" (Australia in this case.....why do elites say "this country" more than they say Australia?) needs to grow up about.

Too many school of soft knocks uni graduates dictating it thick and fast at the rest.

Anyway, point is, THIS COUNTRY has contracted a hell of a lot of jobs out to people being paid <AUD5/hr. And THIS COUNTRY thinks that justifies the CLEVER COUNTRY title.

The Germans, Brits, Chinese, (and Indonesians even) just look on and LOL.

 

[onetwothreefour]

I was made redundant when I was pregnant (16 weeks), 10 days after I notified my PM of my pregnancy and request for a week leave to attend my grandma 80th bday reunion (interstate). PM told me, I could only take a day of leave because I was needed for the project. 10 days later I was made redundant. My grandma passed away a month later.

The payout was not much (only a few weeks pay), and the stress and the confusion of whether to look for another job or not because I was pregnant was a lot.on top of that, my grandma passed away.

I asked for a confirmation letter from them that I was employed by the company etc, so I can use it to look for another job. They refused to give it to me. I had to lodge to a govt agency and claimed the discrimination case against me. The government staff told me, they would not help me to get big payout. She arranged a meeting between the company and me. The company sent 3 people ( a bully tactic, to outnumber me).

They offered a month pay settlement, which I did not want to take. But the government staff told me to take it, and told me if I don't take it, I had to find a lawyer to deal with my case.

I said I will take it, but they have to write me a recommendation letter, regarding my employment with them. It took them more than 3 months to send me the letter (after lots of reminder) and it was not the proper letter that I needed.

It was a French company with Telstra as their biggest and only customer.
It's very sad that the government agency (dealing the discrimination case) that should be helping me, actually helping the company.

 

[pinkboy]

as an employer, what proof did you have for strike 3?

.....how about 1. I witnessed the burnout and movement of the car right next to the employee and 2. His medical certificate said no driving was to be undertaken whilst his foot was in the cast.

I also know how the casual employees play the system. Recently on a shutdown (and this has happened >5 occasions in the past as well), last day with about 4hrs to go, I had an employee ask me what work I had coming up for him in the coming months. As he was as useless as a chocolate teapot, I said that I would only call him when job opportunities came up, and nothing workwise was in the pipeline for him. All of a sudden I get a phonecall half an hour later, with said employee supposedly on the ground in complete agony with back spasms. No witnesses, no explanations!

Off to site doc for painkillers and ice. Doc gave him the all clear to go back to normal duties for the next day...which was not a scheduled work day for this employee. He was asking the site doc for 2 weeks and workcover forms etc, but I think the doc was cottoned on to this type of stuff. Said employee was carrying on about it in the ute home and saying how he was trying to get some funds as he had no other work to go to. Not smart in a ute with 2x my permanent employees in there listening to his dribble. 1 of the guys doesn't listen to that type of crap, and I actually wonder how he held back for 3hrs listening to that crap without throwing him out the car.

Work Cover, whilst a good protection for both employer and employee, is open to abuse, and some doctors are a little liberal with injury types and recovery times, whilst some are quite reasonable. Sure, there should be zero accidents in the workplace, but the type of physical and dangerous work we do, which is largely only protected by PPE, there are sure to be more numerous and more major injuries than paper cuts at the office. I guess that's why we pay $tens of thousands for the 'privilege'!

pinkboy

 

[china]

Then maybe don't be an employer? Since you are one, you're clearly still getting the better end of the deal. I'm not sure anyone would be silly enough to waste their time and effort running a business if that wasn't the case.

But we could be so much more competitive, profitable and efficient if it weren't for current industrial laws. We need better ability to fire and hire, to determine wages and no provision of endless excessive leave entitlements.

 

[china]

Actually John Howard's laws added considerably to my expenses as an employer. Employment agreements become more onerous. People who were only available to work outside of normal hours found it harder to get employment as there was no longer a provision for people who wanted work and were happy to work at normal rates. Overtime rates were enforced for these people. I had to reduce my hours to survive.

Workchoices would have been far more conducive to flexible hiring and firing practices and reducing various leave entitlements, thus making it less onerous to have employees. The biggest pain of running a small business is staff management.

 

[pinkboy]

But we could be so much more competitive, profitable and efficient if it weren't for current industrial laws. We need better ability to fire and hire, to determine wages and no provision of endless excessive leave entitlements.

As an employer, I agree with you to a certain extent china, but at what cost?

There will be less loyalty, lower general morale between workers, more competition between employees to 'survive' the axe, and worst of all, lower production...which can kill small business.

I do agree though, a more happy medium could be found, however I haven't thought about this until just now, so I may expand later.

pinkboy

 

[china]

This article truly explains why it is hard to be an employer in small business in this country.

The employees' rights are heavily skewed over the rights of the employer.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/youre-fired-20130704-2pco0.html

 

[geoffw]

This article truly explains why it is hard to be an employer in small business in this country.

The employees' rights are heavily skewed over the rights of the employer.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/youre-fired-20130704-2pco0.html

I don't see any of those provisions being onerous at all. An employer just needs to follow simple rules and be fair to employees. I don't see what's so hard about that.

If you think employees are merely your possessions then you might have trouble.

A lot of the provisions in the FWA are just a matter of treating others as you would expect to be treated. If you have trouble with an employee, sit down with them and tell them what is wrong. And give them a chance to do it right.

If they have been doing something very wrong you can still sack them.

An employer still has all the balance of power in the relationship.

I have had a lot if employees and I have had to sack them from time to time. Many have still been at an age where employment is still just a game. There's only two I've had to sack past the probationary period- it's generally easy to determine in the first 3 months whether they will be satisfactory employees. Even when I haven't had to I have given probationary employees a chance. When I have has to sack outside of the period it's been clear cut and procedures were followed. One was for stealing- there was video proof. I can legally sack immediately. This person's older brother later thanked me for the way I handled it- getting a family member in to explain and show evidence. The other person had three chances given- and later told me they understood.

I ran a business where staffing turnover is notoriously high. My average employment period, although not long, was twice the industry average.

I've never had a bookkeeper leave me in the lurch before end of financial year either.

 

[Deltaberry]

Laws are definitely too protectionist. The problem is when you leave legislating to people who have never worked in business in their lives.

 

[mflying]

nhg,

I am at shock reading this!

I know how it feels, i have been there @ GFC. took me a month to find a good job, been here since.

As others said, it may be a kick in gut, but i am sure whatever happens, happens for a reason.

Feel free to PM/call me, if you need any help!

 

[robbiejuve]

Unfair dismissal, take em to the cleaners.

 

[Ideo]

I don't see any of those provisions being onerous at all. An employer just needs to follow simple rules and be fair to employees. I don't see what's so hard about that.

If you think employees are merely your possessions then you might have trouble.

A lot of the provisions in the FWA are just a matter of treating others as you would expect to be treated. If you have trouble with an employee, sit down with them and tell them what is wrong. And give them a chance to do it right.

If they have been doing something very wrong you can still sack them.

An employer still has all the balance of power in the relationship.

I have had a lot if employees and I have had to sack them from time to time. Many have still been at an age where employment is still just a game. There's only two I've had to sack past the probationary period- it's generally easy to determine in the first 3 months whether they will be satisfactory employees. Even when I haven't had to I have given probationary employees a chance. When I have has to sack outside of the period it's been clear cut and procedures were followed. One was for stealing- there was video proof. I can legally sack immediately. This person's older brother later thanked me for the way I handled it- getting a family member in to explain and show evidence. The other person had three chances given- and later told me they understood.

I ran a business where staffing turnover is notoriously high. My average employment period, although not long, was twice the industry average.

I've never had a bookkeeper leave me in the lurch before end of financial year either.

I agree with all of that.

 

[nhg]

nhg,

I am at shock reading this!

I know how it feels, i have been there @ GFC. took me a month to find a good job, been here since.

As others said, it may be a kick in gut, but i am sure whatever happens, happens for a reason.

Feel free to PM/call me, if you need any help!

Hey, thanks for the support guys. Warming to know how thoughtful those on somersoft are.

 

[MIW]

The problem is when you leave legislating to people who have never worked in business in their lives.

Spot on!
Perhaps that's why most employees fail in running a business in the first year then in the next 5 years - the roles certainly change, whereas most think it's sufficient to be a best specialist or to offer the best product, without realising different skills are now required (managing people, cash-flow, tax/payroll, etc....).
Large corporations have many staff to assist that, but a starting small business owner has lots to learn, really realising that his/her role has changed, right? It took me few years to realize then why so many small businesses fail....or never transit to larger ones.

 

[china]

I don't see any of those provisions being onerous at all. An employer just needs to follow simple rules and be fair to employees. I don't see what's so hard about that.

If you think employees are merely your possessions then you might have trouble.

A lot of the provisions in the FWA are just a matter of treating others as you would expect to be treated. If you have trouble with an employee, sit down with them and tell them what is wrong. And give them a chance to do it right.

If they have been doing something very wrong you can still sack them.

An employer still has all the balance of power in the relationship.

I have had a lot if employees and I have had to sack them from time to time. Many have still been at an age where employment is still just a game. There's only two I've had to sack past the probationary period- it's generally easy to determine in the first 3 months whether they will be satisfactory employees. Even when I haven't had to I have given probationary employees a chance. When I have has to sack outside of the period it's been clear cut and procedures were followed. One was for stealing- there was video proof. I can legally sack immediately. This person's older brother later thanked me for the way I handled it- getting a family member in to explain and show evidence. The other person had three chances given- and later told me they understood.

.

The problem for employers is not so much the obvious thieving employee and assault captured on camera or in front of witnesses. These employees are easy to dismiss.

It is the situations, long after the first year of probation, wherein the employee keeps making errors involving cash, is slow in their work, is rude to customers, where it is difficult to summarily dismiss without going through the long process of warnings, letters, meetings and remediation that is demanded by the Fair Work Laws. These are the situations which are crippling small business.

I don't believe the small business owner with one or two employees enjoys the balance of power in such relationships being hamstrung by the industrial laws of this land.

 

[HiEquity]

The problem for employers is not so much the obvious thieving employee and assault captured on camera or in front of witnesses. These employees are easy to dismiss.

It is the situations, long after the first year of probation, wherein the employee keeps making errors involving cash, is slow in their work, is rude to customers, where it is difficult to summarily dismiss without going through the long process of warnings, letters, meetings and remediation that is demanded by the Fair Work Laws. These are the situations which are crippling small business.

I don't believe the small business owner with one or two employees enjoys the balance of power in such relationships being hamstrung by the industrial laws of this land.

While I have some degree of sympathy for this argument, I see many instances where employers don't give written warnings and then complain they can't sack someone. They only have themselves to blame.

If they follow the process properly they can easily sack anyone who deserves it. If they don't follow the process the fault is entirely their own and they should stop whinging about it, to be frank. The system definitely allows employees who perform poorly to be sacked, provided the employer follows the right process - it's not hard to write a couple of warning letters.

Redundancy costs to small business are a legitimate concern though as they hamper flexibility and consequently productivity. Very small businesses are exempt though (below 15 employees) so this provides some relief. For other awards, redundancy provisions are also traded off against lower wages. But there are a lot of employers above the threshold who have to think very carefully about employing someone because of this, I agree.

 

[geoffw]

The problem for employers is not so much the obvious thieving employee and assault captured on camera or in front of witnesses. These employees are easy to dismiss.

It is the situations, long after the first year of probation, wherein the employee keeps making errors involving cash, is slow in their work, is rude to customers, where it is difficult to summarily dismiss without going through the long process of warnings, letters, meetings and remediation that is demanded by the Fair Work Laws. These are the situations which are crippling small business.

I don't believe the small business owner with one or two employees enjoys the balance of power in such relationships being hamstrung by the industrial laws of this land.

I don't think the process has to be that long.

For a start, if they have passed the probationary period, they have either changed drastically in their attitude, or their deficiencies have not been picked up during probation. As a small employer, you have 12 months probation available. I had six.

And as a small employer, you only have to give them one warning, and a chance to improve. I had to give more warnings and more chances to improve. I didn't think that was especially onerous.

Something I am finding now- some of my former employees have gone into the world and are doing other things. When I sold one store, the person who was arranging the loan for the purchaser was a former employee. Because I had treated him well as an employee, he was extra vigilant in ensuring that the loan went through.

Employees are the face of your business. If you treat them well, they are more likely to present your business well. If you treat them as the enemy, they will respond in kind.

 

[natmarie73]

Another guy was shafted today too, his contracted was ending today though, he just bought a brand new pimped out car. Let's just say, he wasn't as cool about it as I was...

And therein lies a valuable lesson!

But seriously, depending on how much you can be bothered, even if you feel it is a blessing in disguise which it sounds like it is (PM sounds like an egotistical phsycopath), if you are owed any money from unfair dismissal it would be worth fighting for it.

I would hate to be the poor HR manager at that company dealing with the results every time the PM feels slighted by an employees honest feedback.

 

[redwing]

While I have some degree of sympathy for this argument, I see many instances where employers don't give written warnings and then complain they can't sack someone. They only have themselves to blame.

Have seen employers follow the rule book (verbal warnings reduced to writing on personnel file, written warnings etc) and still get whacked by FWC

If they follow the process properly they can easily sack anyone who deserves it. If they don't follow the process the fault is entirely their own and they should stop whinging about it, to be frank. The system definitely allows employees who perform poorly to be sacked, provided the employer follows the right process - it's not hard to write a couple of warning letters.

is this from the perspective of someone working for a large company with HR or access to legal practitioners?

From what I've seen once FWC are called in, they will fight over any point for a payout, including telling an employer they are a bad business person if they take it beyond mediation and to the courts, as if they lose no one will know, if they win they'll ensure everyone knows. Also it will cost you x per hour, why would you pursue this, your obviously not very good at business

Redundancy costs to small business are a legitimate concern though as they hamper flexibility and consequently productivity. Very small businesses are exempt though (below 15 employees) so this provides some relief. For other awards, redundancy provisions are also traded off against lower wages. But there are a lot of employers above the threshold who have to think very carefully about employing someone because of this, I agree

If paying above $100-110k or so are you above the dispute resolution process?.

I've spoken to a few employers who resign themselves to a FWC payout each time FWC are involved

 

[redwing]

I don't think the process has to be that long.

For a start, if they have passed the probationary period, they have either changed drastically in their attitude, or their deficiencies have not been picked up during probation. As a small employer, you have 12 months probation available. I had six.

And as a small employer, you only have to give them one warning, and a chance to improve. I had to give more warnings and more chances to improve. I didn't think that was especially onerous.

Something I am finding now- some of my former employees have gone into the world and are doing other things. When I sold one store, the person who was arranging the loan for the purchaser was a former employee. Because I had treated him well as an employee, he was extra vigilant in ensuring that the loan went through.

Employees are the face of your business. If you treat them well, they are more likely to present your business well. If you treat them as the enemy, they will respond in kind.

Is 6 months viable and at what number of employees or business size?

6 months would suit a contract I'm looking at which is 2 weeks on 2 weeks off, remote work