This restores the situation to the pre-1997 situation and is another move that has seen the period vary between six months and two years. The argument is about getting the balance right between protecting workers from being used by employers and then discarded, and encouraging employers to take on new staff.
If employers feel that there is a financial risk in taking on staff they may not do so. If they can terminate employment without cost then they might take the risk. Under the current situation the point might be welcomed by prospective employees, but many feel it just transfers uncertainty from employer to employee and is unfair.
The aim of UK policy is a flexible labour market. Making the UK capable of responding quickly to world events and keeping the economy competitive. Contrast this with the Australian view, where even moderate reforms are seen as unacceptable, and the legislation is loaded massively in favour of employees.
This makes the Australian economy quite staggeringly uncompetitive. There are high wages for shifts, young people can't work short shifts preventing them competing in the labour market and add on costs for staff are very high. The article from The Age is a typical response to any attempt to bring supply side reform to Australia, but for us its main use is to contrast the UK and a 1970's style labour market.
You may conclude Australia is doomed once the mineral prices fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment