Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

He is talking about that slow moron at every workplace who everybody has to work harder to cover for. They just dont fit in some people and it can dramatically effect morale and hurt profits. Technically they havent done anything wrong, even though common sense would tell you it would be better for everybody if they sought employment somewhere else.

Options:

1) If possible move them into a different role where their slowness doesn't impact turnover so greatly.

2) Give the poor bugger a fair go if they're genuinely trying, isn't that what we're all about?

3) If the person is rotten and everyone agrees manage them out by giving them really crap work or a legal demotion (many companies do it citing "restructuring") and hope they leave.

I realise that sometimes the above options will not be relevant, but do we really need to put the many million other workers employed by small business at risk by removing unfair dismissal due to these dodgy workers?

Quoted from x452

Options:

1) If possible move them into a different role where their slowness doesn't impact turnover so greatly.

In small business there aren't other roles. You need to be multi skilled

Quoted from x452

2) Give the poor bugger a fair go if they're genuinely trying, isn't that what we're all about?

What if they arent?  Hey if somebody is having a fair crack at it then no probs.

Quoted from x452

3) If the person is rotten and everyone agrees manage them out by giving them really crap work or a legal demotion (many companies do it citing "restructuring") and hope they leave.

I dont think that is fair on them or the people they have to work with. Who are we kidding, part ways and get on with life.

Quoted from x452

I realise that sometimes the above options will not be relevant, but do we really need to put the many million other workers employed by small business at risk by removing unfair dismissal due to these dodgy workers?

To put it simply, it just isn't fair for the people who are good workers. Maybe some workers have set their sights to high and alternate employment that is more "them" would be suitable. I guarantee you that if you are a good worker you will never lose your job. In fact the opposite will apply and they will pay you more to stick around

Quoted from Paula

as opposed to a Nazi in the closet?

Oh you mean Bill Shorten and Greg Combet.     

I'm a moderate to central left winger.  If there's one thing that irritates the bejeezus out of me, it's fanatics.    

Oh and another is a fanatic who criticises other fanatics.

Quoted from Paula

I'm a moderate to central left winger.  If there's one thing that irritates the bejeezus out of me, it's fanatics.    

Oh and another is a fanatic who criticises other fanatics.

Yes, I am getting sick of x452's posts as well .











Just kidding X.

Now that johnny rotten is gone you might find me drifting closer to the centre - I was forced to go lefter than usual to counter-balance the Howard Government's extremisms.

So the new top dog is Brendan Nelson and he refuses to turn on WorkChoices, he still doesn't get it does he?

It is good to see him acknowledge same-sex relationships. But what irks me is why does it take having a gay brother for him to understand the importance of same-sex couples having equal rights? As a politician who's responsible for the welfare and equal treatment of others, you really need to be a little further advanced on the "mature thinking" path than the common man.

Nelson has said he will support same-sex unions, but not gay marriage. I guess the reason he doesn't support gay marriage is it may give same-sex couples the right to adopt (amongst other rights). Why not give them the right to be married and adopt? International adoption is governed mainly by foreign countries and as far as I know no foreign country who has an adoption agreement with Australia allows same-sex couples to adopt, most stipulate there must be a mother and a father. But surely a child who is in and out of foster homes is better off having stability with a same-sex couple as long as they pass the requirements? As for same-sex relationships not being the "ideal" family environment, how is it any worse than a male-female couple who argue/fight all the time, who drink and gamble excessively, and who have a 50% (probably higher now) chance of divorcing?  

Quoted from x452

Now that johnny rotten is gone you might find me drifting closer to the centre - I was forced to go lefter than usual to counter-balance the Howard Government's extremisms.

So the new top dog is Brendan Nelson and he refuses to turn on WorkChoices, he still doesn't get it does he?

It is good to see him acknowledge same-sex relationships. But what irks me is why does it take having a gay brother for him to understand the importance of same-sex couples having equal rights? As a politician who's responsible for the welfare and equal treatment of others, you really need to be a little further advanced on the "mature thinking" path than the common man.

Nelson has said he will support same-sex unions, but not gay marriage. I guess the reason he doesn't support gay marriage is it may give same-sex couples the right to adopt (amongst other rights). Why not give them the right to be married and adopt? International adoption is governed mainly by foreign countries and as far as I know no foreign country who has an adoption agreement with Australia allows same-sex couples to adopt, most stipulate there must be a mother and a father. But surely a child who is in and out of foster homes is better off having stability with a same-sex couple as long as they pass the requirements? As for same-sex relationships not being the "ideal" family environment, how is it any worse than a male-female couple who argue/fight all the time, who drink and gamble excessively, and who have a 50% (probably higher now) chance of divorcing?  

Give Brendon a chance. His first job will be to stabilise the liberal party. I think you will find you will warm to him more that you may have with Howard.

At least he is trying when it comes to gay rights. I for one think they should be allowed to get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us  

All I can say is I would prefer Howard to Nelson any day......and that says something. I think the Liberals made a massive mistake in voting him to leadership over Malcolm Turnbull, who from what I could see was a breath of fresh air similar to Rudd for The Labor Party. When it comes time to vote again and Brendan Nelson is still leader I will once again vote Labor. Liberals, enjoy your many years in opposition cause with leadership like that you will be there a while.

Quoted from Lowie_1010

All I can say is I would prefer Howard to Nelson any day......and that says something. I think the Liberals made a massive mistake in voting him to leadership over Malcolm Turnbull, who from what I could see was a breath of fresh air similar to Rudd for The Labor Party. When it comes time to vote again and Brendan Nelson is still leader I will once again vote Labor. Liberals, enjoy your many years in opposition cause with leadership like that you will be there a while.

Wait and see. Labor might drop the ball between now and then.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Wait and see. Labor might drop the ball between now and then.

Change the "might" to "will" to make the above statement correct........

Quoted from Lawnbowler

Change the "might" to "will" to make the above statement correct........

Mere mortal men can only see 30 kms on a clear day. How can they help us all the way we need??

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

I for one think they should be allowed to get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us  

I totally agree

Thats assuming that gay couples want to "marry" I think you will find the average gay person doesnt want marriage as such, but do want the legal rights afforded heterosexual couples whether they are married or not. A heterosexual couple can live defacto for 6 months and have more legal rights than a gay couple who have lived together for 20 years. And that is not fair.

Quoted from Bluezphere

Thats assuming that gay couples want to "marry" I think you will find the average gay person doesnt want marriage as such, but do want the legal rights afforded heterosexual couples whether they are married or not. A heterosexual couple can live defacto for 6 months and have more legal rights than a gay couple who have lived together for 20 years. And that is not fair.

Spot on, it isnt fair. They are entitled to the same rights as everybody.
I thought this law would have changed long ago.

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Spot on, it isnt fair. They are entitled to the same rights as everybody.
I thought this law would have changed long ago.

Some states have changed some of their laws to end discrimination against same sex couples, for instance in Queensland, Beattie changed the defacto spousal definitions to include same sex partner. However there are 58 specific laws that discriminate against same sex couples, from property rights to health issues that need to be addressed on a Federal level. Howard wouldnt do it and I doubt that Rudd will either.