Have We Made It Too Hard To Fire Someone?

Firing An Employee - The Conversation Nobody Wants To Have

There are some topics that immediately divide a room. Politics is one. Religion is another. And somewhere near the top of that list sits an uncomfortable workplace question that few people want to discuss publicly:

Have we made it too hard to fire someone?

Before the pitchforks come out, let's be clear. This isn't an argument for returning to the days when employers could dismiss people on a whim. Most Australians would agree that workers deserve protection from discrimination, unfair treatment and arbitrary decisions.

The question is whether, in trying to create a fairer workplace, we've unintentionally created a system where addressing poor performance has become so difficult that many employers simply stop trying.

Because if that has happened, the consequences don't just affect business owners. They affect entire workplaces.

Why Employment Protections Matter

It's worth remembering why employment protections exist in the first place. Historically, the balance of power in employment relationships heavily favoured employers. Workers could be dismissed with little notice, little explanation and often little recourse.

The introduction of workplace protections wasn't some random bureaucratic exercise. It was a response to genuine problems. Most of us would agree that people shouldn't lose their livelihood because of discrimination, personal bias, retaliation or a manager having a bad day.

The principle is sound.

If someone is doing their job well, treating people appropriately and meeting reasonable expectations, they deserve security and fairness. Few people would argue otherwise. The challenge begins when performance becomes part of the conversation.

The View From The Other Side Of The Desk

Talk to enough small business owners and you'll start hearing a different perspective.

• Many don't complain about hardworking employees.
• They don't complain about paying fair wages.
• They don't even complain about workplace rights.

What they complain about is feeling trapped.

• Trapped in lengthy processes.
• Trapped in paperwork.
• Trapped in a situation where everyone knows an employee isn't performing, but addressing it feels more complicated than simply tolerating it.

Unlike large corporations, most small businesses don't have HR departments. They don't have employment lawyers on standby. They don't have dedicated managers whose sole role is handling staff issues.

The person managing performance problems is often the same person trying to serve customers, pay suppliers, chase invoices and keep the business alive. For a business with five employees, one underperforming team member can have a far greater impact than they would in an organisation with five hundred. And that's where frustration begins.

The Cost Of Keeping The Wrong Person

One of the strange things about workplace discussions is that we often frame them as a conflict between employer and employee. But there is usually a third group involved. The rest of the team.

When poor performance is consistently tolerated, somebody else picks up the slack. The reliable employee stays back. The motivated employee takes on extra responsibility. The person who genuinely cares about doing a good job ends up carrying more weight.

Eventually they notice something. The expectations aren't actually equal. One person is working hard while another appears to face few consequences.

Over time that creates resentment. Ironically, the employee most likely to leave isn't always the weakest performer. Sometimes it's the strongest.

When Process Becomes The Job

Most workplaces today have systems designed to ensure fairness.

• Warnings.
• Performance reviews.
• Improvement plans.
• Formal meetings.
• Documentation.
• Follow-up meetings.
• Additional documentation.

None of these things are inherently bad. In fact, they often provide important protection for both parties. But there is a question worth asking.

At what point does the process become more important than the outcome?

Many managers would privately admit that addressing a performance issue can take months. Not because they are trying to help the employee improve, but because they are trying to ensure every procedural box is ticked.

The conversation shifts away from solving the problem and towards managing risk. And when that happens, something important gets lost. Common sense.

The Employee Perspective Matters Too

Of course, there is another side to this story. Imagine being the employee. You have a mortgage or ren, Children, Bills & other Financial commitments.

You show up to work one morning and discover your manager simply doesn't like you. Or perhaps the business is struggling and wants to reduce costs. Or perhaps you raised a legitimate concern that someone would rather not hear.

In those situations, employment protections suddenly feel very important.

Most people who advocate for easier dismissal procedures are imagining themselves as the employer.

Most people who defend stronger protections are imagining themselves as the employee. Both perspectives are understandable. Both are valid. And both reveal why this issue is so difficult to solve.

Are We Protecting Workers Or Protecting Poor Performance?

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable. Because protecting workers and protecting poor performance are not necessarily the same thing.

The employee who is genuinely trying, learning and contributing deserves support.

The employee facing personal challenges deserves compassion.

The employee being treated unfairly deserves protection.

But what about the employee who consistently underperforms despite feedback, support and opportunities to improve?

Should there eventually be consequences? Most people would say yes. Yet many workplaces seem increasingly reluctant to answer that question directly.

Accountability has become a difficult word. We are often far more comfortable discussing rights than responsibilities. But healthy workplaces require both.

The Rise Of Avoidance Culture

Perhaps the bigger question is whether the problem is actually the law. Maybe the real issue is that we've become uncomfortable with difficult conversations. Many managers aren't trained leaders. They've been promoted because they were good at their jobs, not because they were skilled at managing people.

Confrontation feels awkward. Giving feedback feels stressful. Addressing poor performance feels personal. So the conversation gets delayed.

Then delayed again. And again. Months pass. The issue grows.

Eventually a situation that could have been resolved with one honest conversation becomes a major workplace problem. Sometimes it isn't the system that failed. Sometimes it's leadership.

The Hidden Cost To Businesses

When business owners feel unable to manage performance effectively, their behavior changes. Some stop hiring. Some reduce permanent positions. Some rely more heavily on contractors.

Some simply decide the risk isn't worth it.

That creates its own unintended consequences. Because every additional layer of complexity attached to employing someone affects hiring decisions. Business owners rarely talk about this publicly. Many fear being labelled anti-worker.

But privately, it's a discussion that happens regularly. If employing people becomes increasingly difficult, some businesses will simply employ fewer of them.

Is There A Better Balance?

The answer probably isn't fewer protections. Most Australians wouldn't support that. Nor should they. But perhaps there is room to ask whether fairness has become overly dependent on process. Perhaps fairness should be measured less by the number of forms completed and more by whether people are genuinely treated reasonably.

• Perhaps managers need better training.
• Perhaps small businesses need simpler pathways.
• Perhaps accountability deserves a place in workplace discussions alongside wellbeing and support.

Because fairness isn't something owed exclusively to one side of the employment relationship.

It's something owed to everyone involved.

Final Thoughts

The question isn't whether employees should be protected from unfair dismissal. They should. The question is whether we've created a system that sometimes makes fair dismissal feel almost impossible.

If we have, the consequences reach far beyond the business owner. They affect co-workers carrying extra workloads. They affect customers receiving poorer service. They affect businesses trying to grow.

And ultimately, they affect the very workers the system was designed to protect.



As with most difficult issues, the answer probably isn't found at either extreme. But if we can't even ask the question, we'll never find the balance.

So what do you think?

Have we made it too hard to fire someone?

Or have we simply become less willing to have difficult conversations?