« Qantas makes softer call on mobile phones | Main | The blog heirarchy »
May 31, 2005
Second class employers?
Tim Colebatch opines that the Howard Government's "historic work-place reforms" will create a two-class system of Australian workers, in which those working for big business will be entitled to redundancy payments and protection against unfair dismissal, and those working for small business will have no rights in either area, and could be fired at any time without a cent.
He describes the situation as "absurd and unsustainable", and suggests it creates a powerful disincentive to small firms to grow big, "which ought to be their goal". Here in the Land of Idle Speculation, however, Bleeding Edge has been exploring the potential for the law of unintended consequences to stuff up the theorists yet again.
Small companies may be thinking that they're going to be saving a lot of money by being able to negotiate wages and conditions down. While they will, of course, be able to screw some of their workers, we can't help but wonder whether they're also going to be faced with a rapid erosion of talent - you know, the human capital that the latest management speak suggests is a company's most valuable asset.
It seems likely to us that the most-valued employees will be striking smaller companies off their list of prospects. Even if you can negotiate a contract for better pay and conditions, why would you want to work in a company where many of your colleagues are going to be dissatisfied, and worse, regard you with suspicion, and resent you for being in a more favoured position?
Surely one of the first questions the smart job candidate will ask in future interviews is "How many employees do you have?" And those currently employed in the sub-100 category will very quickly be looking to move to bigger firms.
Posted by cw at May 31, 2005 01:06 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/693
Comments
Unfortunately, companies don't reeeeeally believe employees are their best asset. That concept is just something to help pad out the company mission statement. The big banks and Telstra would certainly pay lip service to that concept but they never hestiated for a second in shedding thousands of employees.
It will be interesting (not) to see whether Australia goes down the USA path and develops a huge underclass of people working on minimum wage without any rights or work benefits.
There must be a better way.
Posted by: Blackwatch at May 31, 2005 06:40 PM
Agree with Blackwatch, the Big corporations all only see employees as a big expense on their balance sheet, and unlike other property or hardwware, the bloody asset can fight and argue back a bit when you try and dispose of it.
What I've never understood is how the polititions rationalise away the idea that just because a worker is working for a smaller company they should be less entitled to fair treatment than another worker who this week happens to be working for a larger employer ? Why does that make a worker less worthy. Next they will be arguing that one worker is less entitled to a safe workplace if they have less that 100 employees. It just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: pacman at June 1, 2005 06:57 PM