Productivity Commission should have gone further in attempt to reform unfair dismissal laws: business groups

Date
    December 22, 2015
    Canberra Times

Business groups say the Productivity Commission attempts to reform Australia's unfair dismissal system are not good enough, because the system has swung too far in favour of workers.

They say small businesses with fewer than 20 employees should not have to spend valuable time and money fighting unfair dismissal claims.   :-?

The long-awaited final report on Australia's workplace relations system was released on Monday, by the Productivity Commission.

It suggested reforms to the unfair dismissal system to prevent "spurious cases" from going to settlement.

The report referred a number of cases where employees had clearly underperformed or behaved inappropriately, but had still been awarded compensation.

In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services.

It said because existing arrangements in the unfair dismissal system mean an employee who should be dismissed may still receive compensation due to faults in the termination process, it "opens the door to possible hunting by dismissed employees (or their agents) for technical reasons for compensation, and may provide leverage for 'go away' money."

To discourage disingenuous claims, the Commission has recommended charging a non-refundable fee to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, and charging a second non-refundable fee for any case that makes it to arbitration.

It recommends making it impossible for procedural errors by an employer to result in reinstatement or compensation for a former employee.

It says the federal government should give the Fair Work Commission clearer powers to deal with unfair dismissal applications before conducting a conference or hearing, and that there ought to be a two-stage test introduced for considering whether a person has been unfairly dismissed.

Overall, the report found unfair dismissal laws are not playing a "major role" in hiring and firing decisions in Australia – so they are working reasonably well – but incremental changes should make the system better.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has welcomed some of the recommendations for putting an emphasis on "substance rather than process" in unfair dismissal claims.

It has also welcomed the return of "upfront assessments" of unfair dismissal claims which will limit the time and effort spent by employers in defending unmeritorious claims.

But it complains the Commission has missed an opportunity to restrict access further to unfair dismissal claims.

"Despite urging the PC to remove the burden of unfair dismissal for businesses with under 20 employees, this recommendation was not part of the final report, meaning small business will continue to spend time and money defending claims rather than running their businesses," Mark Stone, VCCI chief executive, said.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says it is disappointing small businesses will still have to contend with unfair dismissal laws.

But Ged Kearney, Australian Council of Trade Unions president, says the Commission's recommendations for reform are not based on "any real issue" with unfair dismissal laws.   

"By making it more expensive, and changing the procedural processes to make it more difficult, simply means that more people will be unfairly dismissed without any recourse," Ms Kearney told Fairfax Media.   :(

"We'll certainly be letting people know that this is the view of the Productivity Commission is, and we'd like to know what the government's position is."

Were you the one that said, you didnt want to work weekends without penalty rates ???.   :(

wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 10:38am:

In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services.

Good call.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 10:41am:

wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call.

How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause!

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause!

Yep got to agree.

The above is an example why the IPA & others actually are taken seriously.

Two employee's committed a crime(assault) whilst at work.

They were sacked & should have been

End of story.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause!

Yes, and that was a good call.

And, compensating them after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness was also a good call.

They deserved to be sacked, and management deserved to be penalised for not doing it properly.

A good call.

Without knowing the full story there was only one fact from the statements provided so far.  They did not follow proper procedures of sacking.

stunspore wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Without knowing the full story there was only one fact from the statements provided so far.  They did not follow proper procedures of sacking.

True but going on the above they deserved it.


greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:34pm:

and management deserved to be penalised for not doing it properly.

And what if the procedure required 3 warnings & 2 counselling sessions?
These guys used physical violence.

All for procedure when it's a personality clash, failure to meet expectations etc etc.

But when it's violence it should just be there's the door with no entitlements paid


mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:10pm:

– such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services.

What if it was the manager who saw it?
Why does he require witnesses?
A punch in head has no language & frankly if they don't know violence is not accepted in the workplace then it should be immgration not anyone else involved.
They are probably illegally working & more than likely being exploited.

Hang management for that.

I'd agree it's a good call. They weren't reinstated and the two weeks wages each of the men received is fair compensation for the time it would have taken to follow all correct procedure. 

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:54pm:

And what if the procedure required 3 warnings & 2 counselling sessions?

It wouldn't.

The 'three warnings' myth is just that -  a myth (there is absolutely no legal requirement for employers to give three warnings).

In this instance the employer failed to seek corroboration from witnesses and failed to offer translation services.

I'm not excusing the employees' behaviour in any way, however, proper procedures need to be adhered to when terminating employment (even if it's a summary dismissal).

The worst part about it was that it has been far worse in the past. In the Keating era, they would have been rehired and compensation paid plus 'training' for the HR manager. Previous dismissal laws made it extremely difficult to sack anyone at all, including if they had stolen from you or been abusive to other staff. In more than one case, it was only the alternative of police arrest and court appearance that made it possible for someone to leave 'voluntarily' - basically blackmail.

It is better now, but it is still draconian.

wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 10:38am:

Productivity Commission should have gone further in attempt to reform unfair dismissal laws: business groups Date     December 22, 2015     Canberra Times Business groups say the Productivity Commission attempts to reform Australia's unfair dismissal system are not good enough, because the system has swung too far in favour of workers.

These people are unbelievable - unfair dismissal laws could not possibly be more in favour of the employer.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:19pm:

The worst part about it was that it has been far worse in the past. In the Keating era, they would have been rehired and compensation paid plus 'training' for the HR manager. Previous dismissal laws made it extremely difficult to sack anyone at all, including if they had stolen from you or been abusive to other staff. In more than one case, it was only the alternative of police arrest and court appearance that made it possible for someone to leave 'voluntarily' - basically blackmail. It is better now, but it is still draconian.

Less than 1% of people are reinstated after they make a claim for unfair dismissal.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause!

How can you say there was cause when they forgot to prove that anything happened at all.

The company had 97 employees and the person responsible for sacking had no HR training or experience. One of the people involved claimed to have not contributed to the fight and asked for other witnesses to be spoken to.

Guess what the unfair result was for this unfair dismissal ?

The employees won the case and were granted a further 2 weeks pay.

This exposes the weakness in favour of the employer in unfair dismissal cases - it is worth while for employers to unfairly unreasonable or illegally dismiss employees because the tiny slap on the wrist they get is cheaper than following the process correctly.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:26pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:19pm: The worst part about it was that it has been far worse in the past. In the Keating era, they would have been rehired and compensation paid plus 'training' for the HR manager. Previous dismissal laws made it extremely difficult to sack anyone at all, including if they had stolen from you or been abusive to other staff. In more than one case, it was only the alternative of police arrest and court appearance that made it possible for someone to leave 'voluntarily' - basically blackmail. It is better now, but it is still draconian. Less than 1% of people are reinstated after they make a claim for unfair dismissal.

Source?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 3:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause! How can you say there was cause when they forgot to prove that anything happened at all. The company had 97 employees and the person responsible for sacking had no HR training or experience. One of the people involved claimed to have not contributed to the fight and asked for other witnesses to be spoken to. Guess what the unfair result was for this unfair dismissal ? The employees won the case and were granted a further 2 weeks pay. This exposes the weakness in favour of the employer in unfair dismissal cases - it is worth while for employers to unfairly unreasonable or illegally dismiss employees because the tiny slap on the wrist they get is cheaper than following the process correctly.

PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff. That superior attitude of yours will disappear really quickly when you have a lazy, rude and disruptive employee and you find you cannot sack him.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 3:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause! How can you say there was cause when they forgot to prove that anything happened at all. The company had 97 employees and the person responsible for sacking had no HR training or experience. One of the people involved claimed to have not contributed to the fight and asked for other witnesses to be spoken to. Guess what the unfair result was for this unfair dismissal ? The employees won the case and were granted a further 2 weeks pay. This exposes the weakness in favour of the employer in unfair dismissal cases - it is worth while for employers to unfairly unreasonable or illegally dismiss employees because the tiny slap on the wrist they get is cheaper than following the process correctly. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff. That superior attitude of yours will disappear really quickly when you have a lazy, rude and disruptive employee and you find you cannot sack him.

PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff

Been there done that - didn't like it much.

Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place.

In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:26pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:19pm: The worst part about it was that it has been far worse in the past. In the Keating era, they would have been rehired and compensation paid plus 'training' for the HR manager. Previous dismissal laws made it extremely difficult to sack anyone at all, including if they had stolen from you or been abusive to other staff. In more than one case, it was only the alternative of police arrest and court appearance that made it possible for someone to leave 'voluntarily' - basically blackmail. It is better now, but it is still draconian. Less than 1% of people are reinstated after they make a claim for unfair dismissal. Source?

Straight from the horses' mouths - me, and the FWC:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/resolving-issues-disputes-and-dismissals/dismissal-termination-redundancy/results-outcomes

After conciliation, less than 1%.

If an employee wins an unfair dismissal case they can typically expect compensation of between 6 to 8 weeks pay.

Nothing much is taken into consideration, it is almost cheaper for the employer to deliberately unfairly dismiss employees as it is probably cheaper than to do it properly. It isn't worth the employees time and effort to complain to fair work.

If you talk to a lawyer they will advise you that you will probably win but not cover the legal expenses. You have to take them on yourself.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

If an employee wins an unfair dismissal case they can typically expect compensation of between 6 to 8 weeks pay.

That's roughly correct.

The maximum compensation is 26 week's pay, however, it is very rare for that amount to be awarded (I've only seen it twice).

The usual outcome is somewhere between 2 and 8 week's pay, a statement of service, and records changed to show the dismissal as a resignation.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:56pm:

If an employee wins an unfair dismissal case they can typically expect compensation of between 6 to 8 weeks pay. Nothing much is taken into consideration, it is almost cheaper for the employer to deliberately unfairly dismiss employees as it is probably cheaper than to do it properly. It isn't worth the employees time and effort to complain to fair work. If you talk to a lawyer they will advise you that you will probably win but not cover the legal expenses. You have to take them on yourself.

I know all about it - Union delegate (unpaid) harassed and set upon by management -I was making $2000 a week through hard work, loyalty and integrity (read my books for the way other people did things), and went through trauma and 'requirement' from a private lawyer of thousands of dollars to launch a case... went with the Union, for whom I was an unpaid delegate... and got $7k - 3.5 week's work.

Not even enough to cover my credit card - my lady friend at the time saw me break down and cry....

Now .. ask me again why I am the enemy of all those who exploit and abuse?  I'll line them up on the wall for the firing squad...... if I don't get to them first....

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:18pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:29pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 3:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:41am: wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 10:38am: In one case, Sheng He v Peacock Brothers & Wilson Lac v Peacock Brothers [2013], two employees were dismissed after punching one another in the head in an argument, but they were paid compensation after management failed, when sacking them, to follow procedural fairness – such as seeking corroboration from witnesses and offering translation services. Good call. How is that a good call? They were dismissed with cause! How can you say there was cause when they forgot to prove that anything happened at all. The company had 97 employees and the person responsible for sacking had no HR training or experience. One of the people involved claimed to have not contributed to the fight and asked for other witnesses to be spoken to. Guess what the unfair result was for this unfair dismissal ? The employees won the case and were granted a further 2 weeks pay. This exposes the weakness in favour of the employer in unfair dismissal cases - it is worth while for employers to unfairly unreasonable or illegally dismiss employees because the tiny slap on the wrist they get is cheaper than following the process correctly. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff. That superior attitude of yours will disappear really quickly when you have a lazy, rude and disruptive employee and you find you cannot sack him. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff Been there done that - didn't like it much. Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place. In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me.

So in summary, you tried your own business, failed and went back to being an employee. Hardly support for any discussion on the difficulties of hiring staff.

I have been through this, any employer can get rid of any worker if they want to.

The ones that don't manage it properly get stung by FW.

Every business should have minuted meetings with signed attendance sheets.
Everybody knows what is expected and there is documented evidence.

Sometimes you actually avoid a lot of the problems as well.

Alinta wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:57pm:

I'd agree it's a good call. They weren't reinstated and the two weeks wages each of the men received is fair compensation for the time it would have taken to follow all correct procedure.

So you think they should be compensated for having done the wrong thing?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 6:03am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:19pm: Maria. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff Been there done that - didn't like it much. Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place. In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me. So in summary, you tried your own business, failed and went back to being an employee. Hardly support for any discussion on the difficulties of hiring staff.

Summary incorrect. As I said I didn't like it.

The business itself is still running I on sold it for a reasonable profit. I went back to a corporate mid management position at the time and went on from there. The business was lucky enough to always cover all wages and produce a net profit - it paid tax every year. I didn't like the stress the hours or the time forced to be spent away from the core work, I knew that I would make significantly more in the corporate world with less negatives.

I have been thinking of another go at small business this would be the third time for myself, once unplanned virtually by accident and also once managing a SB for someone else (hospitality industry) who needed time away.

an employee is something that a business uses its own money to buy, in the same way as you buy a product from a store.

if the product is faulty, you are entitled to take it back for a full refund.

if you purchase an employee and it is faulty, you should be able to take it back to the manufacturer for a full refund.

this seems fair.

What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :(

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :(

If you are a business and you are using your capital to purchase something (in this case labor) then it is really up to you if you wish to continue with the purchasing.

If a home owner pays for their lawn to be mowed , they are purchasing labor with their money.
if their new years resolution is to get fit and do the mowing and they cease this purchasing, have they "unfairly dismissed ' the lawn mower man.

i think they are fully entitled (in a market economy) to  use their money how they wish.

in the same way, if the lawnmower man is truly excellent, adds value by doing the hedges as well, he is fully entitled to invoice for more money and HE CAN DISMISS THEM as a client if he so wishes.

this is how "free" enterprise works

They wonder why people join unions.  Go figure.   :(

aquascoot wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:52am: What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :( If you are a business and you are using your capital to purchase something (in this case labor) then it is really up to you if you wish to continue with the purchasing. If a home owner pays for their lawn to be mowed , they are purchasing labor with their money. if their new years resolution is to get fit and do the mowing and they cease this purchasing, have they "unfairly dismissed ' the lawn mower man. i think they are fully entitled (in a market economy) to  use their money how they wish. in the same way, if the lawnmower man is truly excellent, adds value by doing the hedges as well, he is fully entitled to invoice for more money and HE CAN DISMISS THEM as a client if he so wishes. this is how "free" enterprise works

If you buy a truck for the business you don't expect loyalty, you don't expect it to work additional hour unfunded, you don't expect for it to go the extra yard.

Labour is not a resource just the same as the others, it comes with a different set of rules and this is no secret.

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

They wonder why people join unions.  Go figure.   :(

I can't work it out ?

They say that some people liked the dark ages.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

aquascoot wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:59am: wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:52am: What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :( If you are a business and you are using your capital to purchase something (in this case labor) then it is really up to you if you wish to continue with the purchasing. If a home owner pays for their lawn to be mowed , they are purchasing labor with their money. if their new years resolution is to get fit and do the mowing and they cease this purchasing, have they "unfairly dismissed ' the lawn mower man. i think they are fully entitled (in a market economy) to  use their money how they wish. in the same way, if the lawnmower man is truly excellent, adds value by doing the hedges as well, he is fully entitled to invoice for more money and HE CAN DISMISS THEM as a client if he so wishes. this is how "free" enterprise works If you buy a truck for the business you don't expect loyalty, you don't expect it to work additional hour unfunded, you don't expect for it to go the extra yard. Labour is not a resource just the same as the others, it comes with a different set of rules and this is no secret.

where does this idea of "unfair" come from.

a man or woman can go to the family court and get a divorce.
there is no question of whether one partner is being "unfairly dismissed'

it is just accepted that if 2 people do not get on in a relationship, they can legally part ways .

Yet an employer in a relationship , where far less emotional involvement occurs is held to some gold standard of being "forced" to "make the relationship work"

if an employer and an employee are not happy in there relationship, a divorce is in order.
and there should be no question as to whether one party feels slighted.
as the great leftard Gough said,  we need to make divorce as simple and easy as possible for the good of both parties

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:41am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 6:03am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:19pm: Maria. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff Been there done that - didn't like it much. Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place. In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me. So in summary, you tried your own business, failed and went back to being an employee. Hardly support for any discussion on the difficulties of hiring staff. Summary incorrect. As I said I didn't like it. The business itself is still running I on sold it for a reasonable profit. I went back to a corporate mid management position at the time and went on from there. The business was lucky enough to always cover all wages and produce a net profit - it paid tax every year. I didn't like the stress the hours or the time forced to be spent away from the core work, I knew that I would make significantly more in the corporate world with less negatives. I have been thinking of another go at small business this would be the third time for myself, once unplanned virtually by accident and also once managing a SB for someone else (hospitality industry) who needed time away.

You paid company tax?  Please say yes so I can call you a liar. If you were the business owner you would have taken 100% of the profits in salary or distributions or bought equipment. There is no chance you paid company tax.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:06am: They wonder why people join unions.  Go figure.   :( I can't work it out ? They say that some people liked the dark ages.

They wonder why some people wont work. I cant work it out. They say that some people like the dole.  Personally I have much higher ambitions.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:24am:

Alinta wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 3:57pm: I'd agree it's a good call. They weren't reinstated and the two weeks wages each of the men received is fair compensation for the time it would have taken to follow all correct procedure.  So you think they should be compensated for having done the wrong thing?

They weren't compensated for doing the wrong thing.

They were compensated because the employer did the wrong thing.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:41am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 6:03am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:19pm: Maria. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff Been there done that - didn't like it much. Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place. In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me. So in summary, you tried your own business, failed and went back to being an employee. Hardly support for any discussion on the difficulties of hiring staff. Summary incorrect. As I said I didn't like it. The business itself is still running I on sold it for a reasonable profit. I went back to a corporate mid management position at the time and went on from there. The business was lucky enough to always cover all wages and produce a net profit - it paid tax every year. I didn't like the stress the hours or the time forced to be spent away from the core work, I knew that I would make significantly more in the corporate world with less negatives. I have been thinking of another go at small business this would be the third time for myself, once unplanned virtually by accident and also once managing a SB for someone else (hospitality industry) who needed time away. You paid company tax?  Please say yes so I can call you a liar. If you were the business owner you would have taken 100% of the profits in salary or distributions or bought equipment. There is no chance you paid company tax.

You are putting your own claims into question - No I was never a sole trader.

As stated the business was registered (as a company) and yes it paid tax, a bloody lot of it.

You paid company tax? Technically I didn't - the company did.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:18pm:

PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff. That superior attitude of yours will disappear really quickly when you have a lazy, rude and disruptive employee and you find you cannot sack him.

Those are reasons to sack him. Just not on the spot.

Yeah I have no idea where this idea you can't sack staff comes from. When I was doing HR paper work I enjoyed skimming through files I had to sought of employees and employees got fired all the time for being lazy shitheads and its right there in the paper work, but there is a process you have to go through, warning, second warning, fire.

It's not hard.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:07am: aquascoot wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:59am: wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:52am: What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :( If you are a business and you are using your capital to purchase something (in this case labor) then it is really up to you if you wish to continue with the purchasing. If a home owner pays for their lawn to be mowed , they are purchasing labor with their money. if their new years resolution is to get fit and do the mowing and they cease this purchasing, have they "unfairly dismissed ' the lawn mower man. i think they are fully entitled (in a market economy) to  use their money how they wish. in the same way, if the lawnmower man is truly excellent, adds value by doing the hedges as well, he is fully entitled to invoice for more money and HE CAN DISMISS THEM as a client if he so wishes. this is how "free" enterprise works If you buy a truck for the business you don't expect loyalty, you don't expect it to work additional hour unfunded, you don't expect for it to go the extra yard. Labour is not a resource just the same as the others, it comes with a different set of rules and this is no secret. where does this idea of "unfair" come from. a man or woman can go to the family court and get a divorce. there is no question of whether one partner is being "unfairly dismissed' it is just accepted that if 2 people do not get on in a relationship, they can legally part ways . Yet an employer in a relationship , where far less emotional involvement occurs is held to some gold standard of being "forced" to "make the relationship work" if an employer and an employee are not happy in there relationship, a divorce is in order. and there should be no question as to whether one party feels slighted. as the great leftard Gough said,  we need to make divorce as simple and easy as possible for the good of both parties

WOW - hard to say anything to this ????

I would love my wife to take me for unfair dismissal instead of a divorce. 8 weeks pay would be a bargain.

Fact is I would only lose 2 houses a pile of cash and assets plus untold $'s in superannuation - if I were lucky.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

Yeah I have no idea where this idea you can't sack staff comes from.

It's a myth that's been around for a while.

Like you, I don't know where it comes from or why people continue to believe it.

If an employer has a "lazy, rude and disruptive employee", there is nothing preventing them from terminating their employment.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:52am:

aquascoot wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:32am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:07am: aquascoot wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:59am: wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:52am: What about if an employee is Unfairly let go?.   :( If you are a business and you are using your capital to purchase something (in this case labor) then it is really up to you if you wish to continue with the purchasing. If a home owner pays for their lawn to be mowed , they are purchasing labor with their money. if their new years resolution is to get fit and do the mowing and they cease this purchasing, have they "unfairly dismissed ' the lawn mower man. i think they are fully entitled (in a market economy) to  use their money how they wish. in the same way, if the lawnmower man is truly excellent, adds value by doing the hedges as well, he is fully entitled to invoice for more money and HE CAN DISMISS THEM as a client if he so wishes. this is how "free" enterprise works If you buy a truck for the business you don't expect loyalty, you don't expect it to work additional hour unfunded, you don't expect for it to go the extra yard. Labour is not a resource just the same as the others, it comes with a different set of rules and this is no secret. where does this idea of "unfair" come from. a man or woman can go to the family court and get a divorce. there is no question of whether one partner is being "unfairly dismissed' it is just accepted that if 2 people do not get on in a relationship, they can legally part ways . Yet an employer in a relationship , where far less emotional involvement occurs is held to some gold standard of being "forced" to "make the relationship work" if an employer and an employee are not happy in there relationship, a divorce is in order. and there should be no question as to whether one party feels slighted. as the great leftard Gough said,  we need to make divorce as simple and easy as possible for the good of both parties WOW - hard to say anything to this ???? I would love my wife to take me for unfair dismissal instead of a divorce. 8 weeks pay would be a bargain. Fact is I would only lose 2 houses a pile of cash and assets plus untold $'s in superannuation - if I were lucky.

Good point   :D :D

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:29am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:07am: wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:06am: They wonder why people join unions.  Go figure.   :( I can't work it out ? They say that some people liked the dark ages. They wonder why some people wont work. I cant work it out. They say that some people like the dole.  Personally I have much higher ambitions.

Solution: buy a large mirror and stand in front of it - study the result..

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 10:28am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:41am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 6:03am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:19pm: Maria. PLEASE PLEASE start your own business and hire staff Been there done that - didn't like it much. Today it is relatively easy to move on someone who does not work out but I have found that it is easier to make sure you are employing good people in the first place. In general I have had huge success with the people who worked for me. So in summary, you tried your own business, failed and went back to being an employee. Hardly support for any discussion on the difficulties of hiring staff. Summary incorrect. As I said I didn't like it. The business itself is still running I on sold it for a reasonable profit. I went back to a corporate mid management position at the time and went on from there. The business was lucky enough to always cover all wages and produce a net profit - it paid tax every year. I didn't like the stress the hours or the time forced to be spent away from the core work, I knew that I would make significantly more in the corporate world with less negatives. I have been thinking of another go at small business this would be the third time for myself, once unplanned virtually by accident and also once managing a SB for someone else (hospitality industry) who needed time away. You paid company tax?  Please say yes so I can call you a liar. If you were the business owner you would have taken 100% of the profits in salary or distributions or bought equipment. There is no chance you paid company tax. You are putting your own claims into question - No I was never a sole trader. As stated the business was registered (as a company) and yes it paid tax, a bloody lot of it. You paid company tax? Technically I didn't - the company did.

If the business is privately owned then the profits can all be distributed to the owners via salary or distribution thus avoiding company tax. If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 11:06am:

If the business is privately owned then the profits can all be distributed to the owners via salary or distribution thus avoiding company tax. If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all?

You think it is a good idea to pay 45c personal tax in preference to paying 30c company tax ?

There are millions of companies out there paying tax, we know many high profile companies structure to avoid paying any tax but not everyone is like that.


Quote:

If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all?

No it isn't exactly the same - the distribution as you say is franked because the company paid 30% tax on it.

You get the meaning of this - the company paid the tax on it - the company paid the tax on it ?????

You understand what the company paying the tax on it means. It means that the company paid tax ????

After the company paid tax on it and it is distributed you may still pay a bit more tax on it as it still forms part of your personal tax return and the franked amount is taxed (30%) if your income is taxed at an all over higher rate you then owe the taxman the difference. normally in my experience not a lot.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:06am: If the business is privately owned then the profits can all be distributed to the owners via salary or distribution thus avoiding company tax. If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all? You think it is a good idea to pay 45c personal tax in preference to paying 30c company tax ? There are millions of companies out there paying tax, we know many high profile companies structure to avoid paying any tax but not everyone is like that. Quote: If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all? No it isn't exactly the same - the distribution as you say is franked because the company paid 30% tax on it. You get the meaning of this - the company paid the tax on it - the company paid the tax on it ????? You understand what the company paying the tax on it means. It means that the company paid tax ???? After the company paid tax on it and it is distributed you may still pay a bit more tax on it as it still forms part of your personal tax return and the franked amount is taxed (30%) if your income is taxed at an all over higher rate you then owe the taxman the difference. normally in my experience not a lot.

Took me a while to catch up on this one. You are wrong of course. and i speak as a company owner. you can take profit as salary and pay 45c on it or the company can pay 30c on it and then you can pay another 15c on. the effect is the same which is why for many companies the company tax rate is immaterial

If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population.

As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.   
It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary.

I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out.

stunspore wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out.

its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out.

Glad long appears to understand this a bit.  Of course there are tax minimisation strategies, such as salary packaging and fringe benefits (though to a certain degree, FBT willl need to pay). 

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out.

Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:07am: stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out. Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents...

I'd ask for details but i dont think i could(or want to) unravel your convuluted answer

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:49pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:00am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:07am: stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out. Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents... I'd ask for details but i dont think i could(or want to) unravel your convuluted answer

Never fear - your education at my humble hands is ongoing and is a work in progress....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 12:49pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:00am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:07am: stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out. Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents... I'd ask for details but i dont think i could(or want to) unravel your convuluted answer Never fear - your education at my humble hands is ongoing and is a work in progress....

you couldnt teach anyone anything. for that you ahve to be able to communicate coherently. hint: google 'coherently'

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 1:07pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 12:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 12:49pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:00am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:07am: stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out. Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents... I'd ask for details but i dont think i could(or want to) unravel your convuluted answer Never fear - your education at my humble hands is ongoing and is a work in progress.... you couldnt teach anyone anything. for that you ahve to be able to communicate coherently. hint: google 'coherently'

Ah, Grasshopper - your narrow mindset baulks at the concept of viewing things in a holistic manner... keep trying .. it's like body building.... work those mental muscles and one you you will be the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the intellectual world....

No personal insults... does that mean I'll be right with an impersonal one?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 1:07pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 12:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 12:49pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:00am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:07am: stunspore wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 8:19pm: If you are able to earn to the 45c tier, you are doing well over 50% of the population. As for Maria, sadly wrong on tax facts.  Salary-based means less company tax but passed on as more personal income tax.  Preferred distributed (franked) means less salary hence more company tax, but less income tax paid (as franked amount forms part of the partially paid tax of total income).  I suspect that it becomes roughly the same after.  Usually it is better to pay salary more rather than distributed more.  This is because depending on how many investors there are and how profit is shared.    It actually shows weak business management/performance if profit is made at the expense of company owner salary. I'll let maria do some more homework on this...would hate to have bad information spewed out. its even more simple. all profits that arent retained by the company will be taxed at the recipients marginal tax rate one way or the other be it pure income tax or a combination of franked dividends and income tax. it is not as if the governments have failed to work this out. Yes - they don't miss much unless they want to, and therein lies the rub... we need to train them up on how to capture revenue where it actually sits...... not toss nets around all over the country hoping to catch a few cents... I'd ask for details but i dont think i could(or want to) unravel your convuluted answer Never fear - your education at my humble hands is ongoing and is a work in progress.... you couldnt teach anyone anything. for that you ahve to be able to communicate coherently. hint: google 'coherently' Ah, Grasshopper - your narrow mindset baulks at the concept of viewing things in a holistic manner... keep trying .. it's like body building.... work those mental muscles and one you you will be the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the intellectual world.... No personal insults... does that mean I'll be right with an impersonal one?

love it when you prove my point with your opaque posting style.

But Longy - that's why I'm a double professor emeritus and you are a simple Ph.D aspirant...

I prefer the term 'arcane' rather than opaque... there are at least four other users... other than your good self... who know exactly what I am saying... it's not hard...

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 7:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 1:12pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 11:06am: If the business is privately owned then the profits can all be distributed to the owners via salary or distribution thus avoiding company tax. If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all? You think it is a good idea to pay 45c personal tax in preference to paying 30c company tax ? There are millions of companies out there paying tax, we know many high profile companies structure to avoid paying any tax but not everyone is like that. Quote: If you decide to pay company tax and then take a distribution, the tax is franked and the end result is exactly the same.  So why would you pay company tax at all? No it isn't exactly the same - the distribution as you say is franked because the company paid 30% tax on it. You get the meaning of this - the company paid the tax on it - the company paid the tax on it ????? You understand what the company paying the tax on it means. It means that the company paid tax ???? After the company paid tax on it and it is distributed you may still pay a bit more tax on it as it still forms part of your personal tax return and the franked amount is taxed (30%) if your income is taxed at an all over higher rate you then owe the taxman the difference. normally in my experience not a lot. Took me a while to catch up on this one. You are wrong of course. and i speak as a company owner. you can take profit as salary and pay 45c on it or the company can pay 30c on it and then you can pay another 15c on. the effect is the same which is why for many companies the company tax rate is immaterial

Good to see that you agree with me that Maria was wrong.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

Good to see that you agree with me that Maria was wrong.

;D ;D ;D

I have to admit, I laughed when he said you were wrong and then proceeded to point out the fallacy in Maria's logic.  :D :D :D

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 5:52pm:

But Longy - that's why I'm a double professor emeritus and you are a simple Ph.D aspirant... I prefer the term 'arcane' rather than opaque... there are at least four other users... other than your good self... who know exactly what I am saying... it's not hard...

I thought you were an SA captain and an Asio spy and all the other stories you pull out your bum in every second thread. I am surprised you ahvent claimed to have been an astronaut.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 5:52pm: But Longy - that's why I'm a double professor emeritus and you are a simple Ph.D aspirant... I prefer the term 'arcane' rather than opaque... there are at least four other users... other than your good self... who know exactly what I am saying... it's not hard... I thought you were an SA captain and an Asio spy and all the other stories you pull out your bum in every second thread. I am surprised you ahvent claimed to have been an astronaut.

All of the above.... actually you are quite incorrect - I have not made those claims, but rather allow facts to speak for themselves..... a simple perusal of my passport records yields some interesting points.....

What is a South Australian Captain, BTW?  Cricket?  South African Rugby perhaps?

I was interested in being an astronaut as much as anyone else.. my hearing and middle ear issues meant I could not have a chance anyway, and they also mean I can't dive deep in water.  My chances of being a great surgeon were doomed by terminal nasal drip and allergy.... can't have a leaking nose in a mask and sneezes while cutting out someone's heart and lungs, can you?

Besides - I do a better job of cutting out your heart and lungs with words..... along with those of my other detractors.....  :o