Government policies need to facilitate the creation of employment and business opportunities for those seeking work or promotion and encourage companies to train those seeking work. Government also needs to encourage entrepreneurs to remain in Australia and those offshore to relocate here. The way to do that is to ensure that Australia is the most attractive location for them – from both a business and lifestyle perspective. As regards the employer-employee relationship, we need government to get out oof the way. Both are consenting adults quite capable of making decisions themselves.
Laws introduced to protect workers are well intentioned and appear, at face value, to be sound, but the reality is that they destroy jobs, increase unemployment, and reduce the prospects of many to have a job in the first place. Employment laws also inhibit business growth – as more business opportunities won’t be pursued because the benefits either won’t exceed the costs or not do so sufficiently to justify taking the risk. As a result of the higher un- and under-employment less money will circulate in the economy, so the economy will suffer. The foregone business opportunities will also adversely affect the economy – not only will the company miss the opportunity to increase profits to pay as dividends and spend in the economy or it will have less money to reinvest in the business to pursue more opportunities. Its suppliers will also miss the opportunity to sell more of their products, and its customers will forego the opportunity to buy at a lower price or buy better quality product.
Any employment laws that increase the cost or risk of employing a person or make it more difficult to fire a person for whatever reason or make it more difficult or expensive to run a workplace, will increase unemployment and underemployment and give rise to the consequences I’ve just mentioned. The same applies where business owner believes that a staff member or even a customer may tell a joke or say something that offends another staff member, causing the company to face a lawsuit or even just a significant loss in management’s productive time.
As a result of employment laws, many business owners would rather not employ Australians, preferring to either engage contractors, hire offshore contractors or not employ anyone.
This does not only affect existing businesses. Others will simply decide not to set up a business in the first place, or they do not to set it up in Australia. That can be an enormous opportunity cost for the nation.
Employment laws also increase the incentives for businesses to replace humans with humanoid and other robots. That is not in the distant future – humanoid robots are already being deployed in factories and even in homes.
Current employment laws also result in many employees being unnecessarily retrenched. Management from time to time undertake research to determine market-related salaries for job positions within their business. If they find that some positions are overpaying staff, they take steps to retrench staff and later hire employees on lower pay. They should be able to do without legislative impediment and be able to incumbent staff the positions at the lower pay levels, which they can accept or reject. Many of them would accept that lower pay, rather than face retrenchment.
Classic Liberals will repeal most employment laws – there will be no statutory entitlement to a minimum wage or long-service leave and no statutory unfair dismissal laws. Earned long-service entitlements to the date the legislation is repealed will remain, will be retained. Employers may offer their employees such benefits. That’s entirely up to them – up to the employer and employee to decide. These arrangements will be contractual, not legislated. Employment arrangements should be left entirely to the employer and employee to negotiate. Government should not interfere. The employees are after all adults capable of making decisions in their own interests.
Classic Liberals also rejects the concept of ‘same job, same pay’. It is destructive socialist ideology and lazy management. Since some people are more efficient than others and some produce a higher quality of work than others, they should be paid differently. Those contributing more should be paid more. Surely it is obvious that would be in the interests of all concerned.
Furthermore, employment arrangements should be fair – on both sides. For example, if an employee wants the right to leave on giving 4 weeks’ notice, the employer should have a similar right – to terminate the employee’s services on giving 4-weeks’ notice. Employment arrangements should be the preserve of the employer and employee, not government.
Some argue that in many cases the employer has spent considerable money and effort on training the employee, only to find that after doing so the employee leaves for a higher paying job. In that case, should the employer have a right to recover that cost? This should be up to the employer and employee to negotiate at the time.
While in fulltime employment the employer has effectively paid for the employee’s mortgage, food, vehicles, holidays, school fees, and so on. Nobody is forcing the employee to work for any employer. It is up to the individual to decide whether to work for that company on the employment contract offered.