Remove this Banner Ad

Unfair Dismissal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Fire

Fire

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Posts
12,028
Reaction score
7,381
Location
New York
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I heard on the radio today that the government was pushing for exemptions from unfair dismissal laws to buisinesses which employ fewer than 20 people.

Now, I have to admit that this is all I know about this topic. Is there something more to it? I mean, surely the government wouldnt introduce legislation to allow an employer to fire someone who might be approaching thier long service leave? Could you imagine the ammont of employers holding their employees to ransom because they had no rights?
Instead of adding a paid maternity leave are we going to allow employers to fire pregnant workers?

Does anyone know anything more about this?
 
I have no doubt that when these changes go through there will be many, many unscrupulous employers who abuse them. However, I have no doubt that the majority of employers will not abuse their employees trust.

Unfortunately it seems these laws will mean there are no barriers to stop the arse hole employer abusing their staff through threats. To be fair though, the detail of the laws still needs to be seen before accurate comment can be made.
 
One would hope this change would be to to encourage more employers to hire people - obviously many hesitate to hire people because of the fear that it's too hard to sack them in the event of a decline in business.

That said, IMO there should still be protection mechanism to stop people getting sacked in the situations you mention (eg long service, maternity leave).

Is it a complete exemption or just exemption under certain circumstances?
 
At the moment it is hard for an employer to fire someone for incompetence or dishonesty. The balance at the moment is too far in favour of the employee. The problem is finding the right balance because no matter what laws are put down there will always be loopholes and inequities.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bunsen burner said:
At the moment it is hard for an employer to fire someone for incompetence or dishonesty. The balance at the moment is too far in favour of the employee. The problem is finding the right balance because no matter what laws are put down there will always be loopholes and inequities.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap. Where is your evidence for arguing it is too hard to sack an incompetent employee? I believe that you will find it nigh impossible to prove that claim. How many employees win unfair dismissal cases in court? How many unfair dismissal cases are heard before the Federal Court. Very few. It is just a beat up. The IR system in Australia is one of the fairest in the world. Liberal Party ideologists have been pushing this barrow for years without a scrap of evidence - indeed the evidence is clearly that employers have the scale weighted in their favour.

The line that businesses want flexibility to sack employees in business downturn smacks to me of businesses who are unprofitable or poorly managed.
 
bunsen burner said:
At the moment it is hard for an employer to fire someone for incompetence or dishonesty. The balance at the moment is too far in favour of the employee. The problem is finding the right balance because no matter what laws are put down there will always be loopholes and inequities.
Click to expand...

Try sacking an incompetent Aboriginal. We have one who regularly is on his ''3rd warning'' Bosses are scared shyteless to do anything.He always says ''I will ring Aboriginal Legal Services''
 
crocodileman said:
What a load of crap. Where is your evidence for arguing it is too hard to sack an incompetent employee? I believe that you will find it nigh impossible to prove that claim. How many employees win unfair dismissal cases in court? How many unfair dismissal cases are heard before the Federal Court. Very few. It is just a beat up. The IR system in Australia is one of the fairest in the world. Liberal Party ideologists have been pushing this barrow for years without a scrap of evidence - indeed the evidence is clearly that employers have the scale weighted in their favour.

The line that businesses want flexibility to sack employees in business downturn smacks to me of businesses who are unprofitable or poorly managed.
Click to expand...

Another clueless remark from yourself. I had an employee that stole from me. Not only couldnt I get the cash back but I was threatened with wrongful dismissal. Employers now how to give written warnings, an opportunity for the employee to address the situation etc etc. It can take ages and often STILL leads to unfair dismissal. The favourite trick of lawyers now is to throw in a sexual harassment claim for good measure. If you think this is ridiculous you have obviously never heard of Slater and Gordon.
 
crocodileman said:
What a load of crap. Where is your evidence for arguing it is too hard to sack an incompetent employee?
Click to expand...
I've run a small business of about 10 employees before and my girlfriend has been a retail manager for the last 10+ years. To put it in the nicest possible way, GGF.
 
medusala said:
...The favourite trick of lawyers now is to throw in a sexual harassment claim for good measure.....
Click to expand...

Q: What's the difference between a LAMPRAY and a LAWYER?

A: One's a bottom dwelling blood sucker; the other one's a fish.
 
My Question being why should an employer have to pay for an employee to get pregnant


the only thing they should have to do it 1. Not fire them 2. Give the m unpaid leave for 12 months 3. Allow them to start back on their job after 1 yr

the only exception should be small business where they cant just hold a position open for twelve months
 
crocodileman said:
What a load of crap. Where is your evidence for arguing it is too hard to sack an incompetent employee? I believe that you will find it nigh impossible to prove that claim. How many employees win unfair dismissal cases in court? How many unfair dismissal cases are heard before the Federal Court. Very few. It is just a beat up. The IR system in Australia is one of the fairest in the world. Liberal Party ideologists have been pushing this barrow for years without a scrap of evidence - indeed the evidence is clearly that employers have the scale weighted in their favour.

The line that businesses want flexibility to sack employees in business downturn smacks to me of businesses who are unprofitable or poorly managed.
Click to expand...

ah the sweet joys of ignorance

go and start your own business and try to get rid of an staff member who is poorly performing/Stealing time/money etc etc - damn near impossible

once they get wind of it off to work cover/unions etc etc a lot of Employees want al their rights (and I am currently an employee of a firm) but no responisbility to do the right thing
 
Capitalist said:
My Question being why should an employer have to pay for an employee to get pregnant


the only thing they should have to do it 1. Not fire them 2. Give the m unpaid leave for 12 months 3. Allow them to start back on their job after 1 yr

the only exception should be small business where they cant just hold a position open for twelve months
Click to expand...


She could always get an abortion, Right ?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Over the past few years I have had to let go a couple of employees. All I have had to do is follow the quidelines as laid down in the act. In both cases the employee concerned saw the writing on the wall and resigned before the final dismissal letter was issued. I should note I inherited both employees from previous managers.
 
MightyFighting said:
It'd just cause them to not hire women.
Medicare pays for that, genius.
Click to expand...

actually i think you find its a part medicare part user pays

and my point was you tosser that people expect employers to pay for everything these days
 
Hospitals often put nurses on one year contracts to avoid maternity leave liability. They know that if they employ (say) 100 20-something girls (a sizable % of nurses are in this bracket), many of them are going to soon be having kids. Which is also one reason why there is a shortage of nurses.

Point is make a rule and anyone (even government employers) will find a way around it if they can.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Leper said:
Hospitals often put nurses on one year contracts to avoid maternity leave liability. They know that if they employ (say) 100 20-something girls (a sizable % of nurses are in this bracket), many of them are going to soon be having kids. Which is also one reason why there is a shortage of nurses.
Click to expand...
Another reason is because many cant deal with the long hours and stress that goes with being a nurse.
 
Bombers 2003 said:
Another reason is because many cant deal with the long hours and stress that goes with being a nurse.
Click to expand...

True. You get lazy ass admin bumble heads doing the rosters who put them on an evening until 11pm and then expect them to start at 7am the next day. Not because they don't have enough staff but because they are too lazy / stupid to make the effort to come up with a "user friendly" roster.

Whilst I am very much against the abuse of power by unions (I work in the construction game), the nursing unions must be complete soft ***** by allowing this to happen.

ps - was only joking about the 10 month waiting list for abortion thing, but wouldn't be surprised if it was true!!!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jascave
    • Sad
    • Like
The Dismissal-November 11, 1975. 50 years on.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
RedOrWhite
RedOrWhite

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom