This argument works on the principle that an unsuitable employee is difficult to terminate due to prohibitive unfair dismissal laws thereby, securing their services at the expense of a more productive employee, impacting on the efficiency and competitiveness of the business. This position is exacerbated further by the SB owner being reluctant to employ due to the difficulty of dismissing and so, giving some employers the sense they have little control over their workforce or the business (Harding, 2005). Interference in authority to manage employees due to legislative barriers to hiring and firing protecting job security, thwarts managerial prerogative to organise their business as they see fit due to an engendered obligation under unfair dismissal laws, leading to higher costs. Higher costs come in two formats: cost of carrying an unproductive worker in terms of lost business opportunities in addition to the time and effort required to manage their poor performance; plus the difficult to quantify cost of increased casualisation of the workforce, in effort to avoid unfair dismissal laws (Freyens & Oslington, 2005). This notwithstanding, to solely attach economic value to a person’s labour, ignores the very human dimension that working entails for many people by turning labour exchange into a commodity. Disregarding the many reasons people work, beyond money, such as self-esteem, identity, independence, community standing also disregards the basic needs ratified by International Labour Organisation Constitution for dignity and respect (Howe, 2013; ILO, 1944). Recognition of these reasons for working, identifies the employee’s significant contribution to the employment relationship where removal of protective unfair dismissal laws, would reduce workers to a definitive ancillary status, in a
This argument works on the principle that an unsuitable employee is difficult to terminate due to prohibitive unfair dismissal laws thereby, securing their services at the expense of a more productive employee, impacting on the efficiency and competitiveness of the business. This position is exacerbated further by the SB owner being reluctant to employ due to the difficulty of dismissing and so, giving some employers the sense they have little control over their workforce or the business (Harding, 2005). Interference in authority to manage employees due to legislative barriers to hiring and firing protecting job security, thwarts managerial prerogative to organise their business as they see fit due to an engendered obligation under unfair dismissal laws, leading to higher costs. Higher costs come in two formats: cost of carrying an unproductive worker in terms of lost business opportunities in addition to the time and effort required to manage their poor performance; plus the difficult to quantify cost of increased casualisation of the workforce, in effort to avoid unfair dismissal laws (Freyens & Oslington, 2005). This notwithstanding, to solely attach economic value to a person’s labour, ignores the very human dimension that working entails for many people by turning labour exchange into a commodity. Disregarding the many reasons people work, beyond money, such as self-esteem, identity, independence, community standing also disregards the basic needs ratified by International Labour Organisation Constitution for dignity and respect (Howe, 2013; ILO, 1944). Recognition of these reasons for working, identifies the employee’s significant contribution to the employment relationship where removal of protective unfair dismissal laws, would reduce workers to a definitive ancillary status, in a