Why be an employer ?

[moyjos]

Correct.

It's not so much the cost (but it is a factor) - it's more the lack of being able to get rid of dud staff quickly and without sending you broke. It is no longer a level playing field...

True, In a previous life of retail, I bought a shop and "inherited" staff BAD move. One particular lady just decided she did not like me and would just not do anything she was asked. As I was trying to change some systems that were not profitable, all I got was , "well it has worked ok this way for years" Well no actually it hasn't worked...that's why your last boss just about went broke and I bought this shop at a good discount....Do it my way..

No...took me 6 months to get rid of her...reckon it cost me a good $30k in lost sales/productivity.

 

[Macca]

One thing that unions and governments don't "get" is that the vast majority of employers need good staff. In any position that requires a bit of product knowledge or experience the last thing an employer wants to do is to have to train new staff all the time.

Employers want to keep the staff they have but they do need to be productive, a bad egg will soon put everyone's jobs at risk. They certainly create problems for the other staff by being incompetent or misleading and the other staff have to bear the wrath of the customer then fix the problem created by the bad staff member.

I had one business where the unofficial staff spokesman came to me and said "for Chr**t sake, sack that B*****d before I shoot him with the nail gun." There are so many potential safety risks in many workplaces that someone goofing off is putting everyone at risk, the other staff know it and yet we can't sack the bad ones.

The bad ones know the rules and deliberately make life difficult at times. If they were able to be sacked then they would behave themselves better and everyone, their coworkers, the boss and the former bad egg would all be much happier IMO

 

[moyjos]

I went to a management seminar once where we're taught that staff will work at the level of the worst staff member (lowest level that you as a boss will tolerate), so it is important to have "non-negotiable standards"

 

[Rolf Latham]

The irony is that the vast majority of employers like to acquire good staff and keep them, so there really isn't an issue of job security if you are honest and diligent and an asset to the business.

yes, but.............

dont let common sense get in the way of various levels of government where we look to remove creativity, accountability and responseability of the individual.


ta
rolf

 

[AlmostBob]

I worked as a casual 60+[sup]note1[/sup] hours a week (36xtime+4xtime&half+20x2time) for an outsource labour company, contracted to an outsource warehousing company
drop my department(plant & equip. maintenance) costs by $50K/month, got a pay rise (significant)
Other blokes started putting in ideas in the ideas box.
16 got hired as permanent, 22 got pay rises
loss & damage rates dropped below .001% contract rate was .04%
warehouse company got bigger contract from supermarket, got second supermarket chain as well
more casuals got hired, 340 more, were all asked if we had mates to recommend.
mates got good jobs if they did the job
win+win=win

union from supermarket's warehouse arrived to unionize the place, promised wages and conditions the same as the supermarket staff got, called strikes that nobody went to.

supermarket warehouse got small% higher basic pay, outsource got performance bonus,
they went slow more money to do nothing
outsource went fast, tried for 0 errors, get 100%basic pay in performance pay.

supermarket warehouse is closed, site bought by outsource company, more casuals, former warehouse staff not required.

note1: outsource warehousing company went out of their way to treat them well, subsidised canteen(very), free cold drinks for hot days, managers who had been stock pickers, knew what help was needed & when, and who did roll up their sleeves and pitch in, barbecues, just general thanks when things went well, and lets all fix it when something happened
a good atmosphere to work in.
people would start work a 3am, work till 3 pm, handover to the next shift operator, and then come back the next day at 3am, hotsheeting, and not feel there was anything to complain about

 

[pennyk]

maybe cause of the industry I'm in, I've seen very little misbehaviour by staff. Generally speaking, it has been in the non-professonal jobs and is clear during the 3 month probation period. But I find it really frustrating that the manager of these support staff doesnt act quickly enough when he could get rid of them fairly simply and then gets into the situation of having to "restructure" to get rid of them, or else long and complicated termination process.
I think the main thing for employers is that they need to be clear every step of the way. Have job descriptions, codes of conduct, performance reviews etc, that can be referred back to, and lead the workplace in good behaviour. The situation Bayview mentioned about the reinstatement of the worker who said F U to his boss was lost because there was a culture of swearing at the workplace. Its extra work, for sure, but it helps to clarify both the role and the expectations and makes it easier to sack people if required... and its good for managers and business owners to put all of this in writing.

I have retrenched lots of people, but 2 years ago, I had to go through the process of sacking one of my team, and it was difficult, cause he was a pleasant person, with good skills in some areas. He just wasnt able to sell anything! the challenge was to break down the behaviours he was lacking that meant that he was unsuccessful in the job and how to give him clear tasks and timelines to show that he was able to overcome that. It certainly took time and effort, but it helped me to really think through the requirements for success in the job, so we could employ more effective people in the future... Fortunately I didnt have a big team! and he chose to resign after the 2nd written warning.
and I had the situation which I mentioned on a separate thread (and then deleted the thread), where i had a team member overseas (not a direct report) defrauding the company and some of our customers. That was really hard to manage - emotionally as well as practically. Initially he planned to take it to court, but when faced with the evidence backpedalled fairly quickly and quietly walked away without a cent. I think it is definitely easier to dismiss workers for misbehavious in Australia than in other countries.

Still, despite the challenges, the question is "why would you be an employer"? Well, overall I really enjoy being an employer (it was my favourite part of owning a business for the period I did, and remains my favourite part now). I like to employ people, where I feel a little threatened, because they are more clever and skilled than I am. I expect employees to multiply, not just add, to my business. I like to manage and motivate people. I like to be able to develop their strengths and help them understand and make up for their weaknesses. I like seeing them mature in skills and personality. I like to develop people so that I can delegate to them and not have to work so hard myself. I like to help them to work together, even when they dont undestand each other I think my best skill is team development, and i will do that in whichever context I'm working in.

I think if you are paranoid about unfair dismissal, then you are probably better off not being responsible for employing people... hire someone to take a HR role if you run your own business. or just work on your own. Its easy to get tied up in knots over something that will rarely happen, and if its an area you feel angry about, you probably will come across as being unfair to your employees.

 

[BayView]

Good post, Penny!

The situation Bayview mentioned about the reinstatement of the worker who said F U to his boss was lost because there was a culture of swearing at the workplace.

That isn't known in this event - wasn't mentioned. Most likely it was the tone and intent behind the statement more than the statement itself I'd say...

I like to employ people, where I feel a little threatened, because they are more clever and skilled than I am.

Rob Kiyosaki said "If you're the smartest person in your team, your team is in trouble". I don't feel threatened by staff more clever - I fell more at ease; more expertise floating around the place.

I think if you are paranoid about unfair dismissal, then you are probably better off not being responsible for employing people...

I think where this comes in is from employers who have been burned, and/or know someone who has been burned. But it's not the main motivator for employing less. It's certainly one of them.

hire someone to take a HR role if you run your own business.

Many businesses cannot spare the cash to do that.

or just work on your own.

I know loads of builders and tradies who do exactly this; got fed up with staff headaches and found they were not making a lot more money out of it for whatever reasons, trimmed it down to them and the missus doing the books, again.

Its easy to get tied up in knots over something that will rarely happen, and if its an area you feel angry about, you probably will come across as being unfair to your employees.

Those sorts of employers don't keep staff anyway...high turnover of staff is a normal sign.

 

[pennyk]

Good post, Penny!

That isn't known in this event - wasn't mentioned. Most likely it was the tone and intent behind the statement more than the statement itself I'd say...

.

I'm not sure where I heard/read the news report, but that was the reason they quoted the judges gave for their decision.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Robert Kyosaki (?) sprouts all the be positive stuff but he is in the US. A planet away from AUST in employee rules.

We have 4 permanent staff and presently stable but has sacked a couple, have counselled a few, etc...so much work.

Agree with all of the above.

Peter

 

[Pa1nter]

One of the major things that is going to change the way we hire people is the "Employee or a Contractor" problem ,that will arise at the end of the year when we have to report all payments we make to subcontractors.

This will give the ATO and work-cover a position to bring business as we know it to its knees.

This was put in place so a "determination" can and will be done on whether they are Employees or a Contractors (Possibly before you can claim those payments on tax).

If you hire and pay subcontractors there is a 90% chance that they will be deemed employees and you will be the liable to pay Super and work-cover going back as far as 7 years.(Imagine what that will do for most businesses)

Imagine the subcontractor you hired who has been claiming expenses for the last five years and suddenly he has to pay back all the money to ATO because he is actually an employee and didn't know it.

This will put a lot of sole traders out of business and also companies employing subcontractors are on the hit list.

If you think this is rubbish just watch the little video on the work-cover site,even if the subcontractors provide all their materials,they can still be deemed employees if they do regular work for you.

The only way to know for sure is to do a determination with work-cover themselves,not the one on their web site as it is misleading and can bring you unstuck.

 

[moyjos]

One of the major things that is going to change the way we hire people is the "Employee or a Contractor" problem ,that will arise at the end of the year when we have to report all payments we make to subcontractors.

This will give the ATO and work-cover a position to bring business as we know it to its knees.

This was put in place so a "determination" can and will be done on whether they are Employees or a Contractors (Possibly before you can claim those payments on tax).

If you hire and pay subcontractors there is a 90% chance that they will be deemed employees and you will be the liable to pay Super and work-cover going back as far as 7 years.(Imagine what that will do for most businesses)

Imagine the subcontractor you hired who has been claiming expenses for the last five years and suddenly he has to pay back all the money to ATO because he is actually an employee and didn't know it.

This will put a lot of sole traders out of business and also companies employing subcontractors are on the hit list.

If you think this is rubbish just watch the little video on the work-cover site,even if the subcontractors provide all their materials,they can still be deemed employees if they do regular work for you.

The only way to know for sure is to do a determination with work-cover themselves,not the one on their web site as it is misleading and can bring you unstuck.

Yes this new legislation is going to cause us a few hassles. I have already warned hubby that we cannot give work to " Brian" anymore . Why? Because "Brian" is a retired chippy who still has his Bsa and license but just does piddly little jobs that no one else wants to do. We know he does the odd job here and there for builders but more than 75% of his turnover comes from us. under the new legislation he would be classed as an employee. Sorry. NO. Job lost

We have a pool of sub's we can draw from so unfortunately it just won't include him anymore

Sigh.... It appears all of our subbies should be employees if I want them to wear one of our uniform shirts while doing a job. Need another chat to the accountant. http://www.ato.gov.au/content/4540.htm. Last time I did this test we came out ok as subbies. Too bloody hard

 

[Macca]

Hi Painter,
That sounds particularly nasty doesn't it, I would think that some major project builders are going to be put out of business with this latest "bright idea"

Most subbies simply move from site to site but stay with the same builder which means that technically they are actually employees according to the new rules.

If it ain't broke why fix it ? People have been subbying for decades and to try and bring in such a huge change suggests to me that no one has thought this through to its logical conclusion.

Employment will go on but imagine the costs that will be incurred sorting it all out. I think we will be seeing a few phoenix builders before long

"Beware the law of unintended consequences" seems appropriate with this new legislation

 

[willair]

One of the major things that is going to change the way we hire people is the "Employee or a Contractor" problem ,that will arise at the end of the year when we have to report all payments we make to subcontractors.

This will give the ATO and work-cover a position to bring business as we know it to its knees.

This was put in place so a "determination" can and will be done on whether they are Employees or a Contractors (Possibly before you can claim those payments on tax).

If you hire and pay subcontractors there is a 90% chance that they will be deemed employees and you will be the liable to pay Super and work-cover going back as far as 7 years.(Imagine what that will do for most businesses)

Imagine the subcontractor you hired who has been claiming expenses for the last five years and suddenly he has to pay back all the money to ATO because he is actually an employee and didn't know it.

This will put a lot of sole traders out of business and also companies employing subcontractors are on the hit list.

If you think this is rubbish just watch the little video on the work-cover site,even if the subcontractors provide all their materials,they can still be deemed employees if they do regular work for you.

The only way to know for sure is to do a determination with work-cover themselves,not the one on their web site as it is misleading and can bring you unstuck.

That still won't cut out the no paperwork cash jobs under 5k,we both know what goes in the building game,or the balance goes the other way employ more public servants to fix while the workers at the coal face give up and just go for sitdown money,i'm told from various trades that i know in Brisbane,that some Carpenters are only getting 25$ per hour,and work under the abn system supply own tools ect,..

 

[Pa1nter]

That still won't cut out the no paperwork cash jobs under 5k,we both know what goes in the building game,or the balance goes the other way employ more public servants to fix while the workers at the coal face give up and just go for sitdown money,i'm told from various trades that i know in Brisbane,that some Carpenters are only getting 25$ per hour,and work under the abn system supply own tools ect,..

These people that you speak of are actually only employees

They will lose their job at the end of this year unless they form a company or trust.As for paying cash in the building game,it doesn't exist with new homes,just renovations and private jobs.I cant remember when I was offered cash? Many years ago now.

I was talking to a delivery guy who has been working for the same company as as self employed driver for just over three years,just makes $25 hr and that is providing his own vehicle,fuel,insurances etc.

If you can imagine the implications when we need delivery's,either it will be to expensive or just not possible as these people wont have the job available to them now.

This also apply s to all categories,anybody under a contract,example photographers,landscapers,mechanics,the list is endless.

The government have found a way to get your money and bring down the country just like in America in 2006.

 

[Perp]

Having a look at that decision tool, it doesn't look quite as bad as I thought it might, actually. (Though I agree that our whole taxation and legislative system is orders of magnitude too complex and bureaucratic.)

I put in what I'd consider a reasonable set of circumstances and it said that the person was considered a contractor.

Is there a particular aspect of the tool that means that some of you are finding it hard to have your subbies defined as contractors? Is it that you want to pay them by the hour? If so, then I'm afraid I'd agree with the government that they're employees. o ducking for cover) Why not get them to quote on the basis of the job (eg per delivery, or per installation) rather than per hour?

(This is a genuine question; if there are good reasons why that's not feasible, I'm sincerely interested to hear what they are. )

 

[Pa1nter]

Having a look at that decision tool, it doesn't look quite as bad as I thought it might, actually. (Though I agree that our whole taxation and legislative system is orders of magnitude too complex and bureaucratic.)

I put in what I'd consider a reasonable set of circumstances and it said that the person was considered a contractor.

Is there a particular aspect of the tool that means that some of you are finding it hard to have your subbies defined as contractors? Is it that you want to pay them by the hour? If so, then I'm afraid I'd agree with the government that they're employees. o ducking for cover) Why not get them to quote on the basis of the job (eg per delivery, or per installation) rather than per hour?

(This is a genuine question; if there are good reasons why that's not feasible, I'm sincerely interested to hear what they are. )

This tool is ********,I used to use this tool as well but when I did a direct determination with work-cover,everyone came back as employees.
You need to watch the video on their site to understand fully on what I am saying.

 

[Perp]

I used to use this tool as well but when I did a direct determination with work-cover,everyone came back as employees.

Are you saying that Workcover and ATO have different criteria, ie that you can be a contractor according to the ATO and an employee according to Workcover?

 

[Crabnet]

This tool is ********,I used to use this tool as well but when I did a direct determination with work-cover,everyone came back as employees.
You need to watch the video on their site to understand fully on what I am saying.

I remember someone told me a significant difference between employee and contractor was that the contractor was liable to remedy defective work at their own expense.

 

[willair]

These people that you speak of are actually only employees

They will lose their job at the end of this year unless they form a company or trust.As for paying cash in the building game,it doesn't exist with new homes,just renovations and private jobs.I cant remember when I was offered cash? Many years ago now.

I was talking to a delivery guy who has been working for the same company as as self employed driver for just over three years,just makes $25 hr and that is providing his own vehicle,fuel,insurances etc.

If you can imagine the implications when we need delivery's,either it will be to expensive or just not possible as these people wont have the job available to them now.

This also apply s to all categories,anybody under a contract,example photographers,landscapers,mechanics,the list is endless.

The government have found a way to get your money and bring down the country just like in America in 2006.

Painter, the Carpenters i'm talking about had a legal set-up company just if you have to put food on the table and pay all your bills and stay in Brisbane,or go out too Roma and hold a stop-go sign in the winter Sun for a high end Gas Miner,, you take what you can the point i'm trying to make is the workload compared too 2-3 years ago is just not out there in Brisbane,same with the Elec's i use they are only working 3 days a week,
Most Plumbers are the same,lower hour rates,and btw i have one renter
with 2 Painters in,they have heaps of work,resetting painting over 25 Petrol Stations for one Indian Gentlemen,seven days a week,and one Asian Sunnybank Builder,and all they can get is $38.00 per hour,once you take all the insurance,travel costs,and the nightmare of Workplace Safety and fill in all the forms on safety prior too open the paint tin and firing up the airless
why bother..

 

[Peter 14.7]

y'know, i once had a dicsussion with someone about how profit shares worked - they were a civil servant. they had ZERO idea how to break it down until i started talking in "Level 1, Level 2" salary ideas - then they got it.

Having worked in and as a Public Servant in a Billable Service (that we billed our time to other gov Agencies) this is very common. The idea of profit it]s like nuclear science to most. I am not kidding. They aim to break even. Never do break even and then cost more to do the job and the tax payers get the tab.

Classic real example: I tendered for legal services for the sale of number of properties. The internal legal service wanted to price it. I was told by (wiser) boss, don't let them. I said we are told to let them compete with the private sector, what harm?

So they did and won. Then when they did the job, staff were elsewhere, seconded, dog ate my homework....thus unable to do. So they subcontracted, open ended to the private sector. A $6k tender to us cost them $18k and then they tried to bill my internal gov clients as, hey that is life

I said no way. You wear it. Thats life! Many Managers argued but I won but in the end we all lost because the original lowest outside tender was $8k fixed.

Regards Peter 14.7