Forgive me if I don't have understanding, but an employee is paid every week or month for his/her service. He is not entitled to any more except where organizations offer additional benefits. National Insurance is one of those benefits shared by employer and government so it is acceptable. It is the employee's choice if he wishes to offer his service to any company. He can leave when he likes. There is no free lunch, people! We have to learn to plan our future and save for what we think we deserve. There are ways to get there but we are responsible, not government. I, for one, am becoming concerned about government interfering with our personal business. Not their job. Let them ensure our overall safety, environment, laws etc are in place and enforced. We are a democracy not a socialist country.

This is simply nothing more than the government pandering to the union votes. The cost will be counted in the growing length of the unemployment line and the list of failed businesses.
Christie and Co have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that even the few business minded among them will go along with this stupidity as long as they can keep their snouts in the trough.

" Have you seen the little piggy's (Bahamians) crawling in the dirt? And for all the little piggy's life is getting worse, always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggy's (politicians) in their starched white shirts? You will find the bigger piggy's stirring up the dirt, always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their lives there's something lacking, what they needs' a damned good whacking.
Everywhere there's lots of piggy's (politicians) living piggy lives, you can see them out for dinner with their piggy wives, clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon."

The wise words of G. Harrison are as valid today as they were nearly 50 years ago

Mr D’Aguilar's comment makes no sense at all: “What does that say about our ease of business? You need to be able to change your employees, inject new life into your business. It need not be an overwhelming cost.”

So if he wants to change any employee, who lets say has worked 5 years, for a new employee and then change again, it would seem he would always be paying towards severance for the employees of the revolving door system he describes.

Anyway you slice it, it would seem that all businesses will be playing by the same rules, and this will just be passed on via increased prices and nobody will gain a competitive advantage.

Perhaps as prices increase as a result, some sales volumes will drop, so be it.

So ultimately the only objection any business might have is that a little bigger slice of the pie is now going to go to the employees, something that all capitalists hate.

Businesses here, most of them at least, always aim to starve their employees.

It would be totally different if the people making these stupid rules had to live by them. Unfortunately they don't. Every one of the people I have ever met that got let go by a company owned by the political elite in this country will tell you they didn't get a red penny in redundancy and the labor board was nowhere to be seen

Agreed. This will either force companies to shut down (like City Market) or keep bad employees who they cannot afford to fire now. Maybe a better idea is to offer a 20-30% percentage redundancy payment for employees who have served beyond the base 12 years ........... but to give full redundancy payout for every year worked is outrageous .......... my God the government only offers civil servants 4% gratuity payout for al their years worked!!!!!!!!

Sheeprunner, the 4% the government gives out to it's employees is exactly what this potential legislation brings to all employees.

If everyone has to pay the same redundancy pay, this won't hurt business in the sense that it's a level playing field for all.

The only complaint a "business owner" can have is that this is another slice out of the economy , that is going somewhere other than his pocket.

Of course Obie Ferguson and the unions find the current laws "totally inequitable" they don't pay employees they collect from them. Has Mr. Ferguson taken time to reflect on why many businesses have already failed? I'm sure it had nothing to do with non productive staff or union interference. Likewise I'm sure it had nothing to do with cronies plundering pension funds or governments playing games with duties on eggs and chicken or the fact that our government has systematically destroyed what little of our economy survived the recent recession.

It is strange how people who employ few, if any, presume to dictate to private business who they should employ and how they should spend their money. Please remember Mr. Ferguson that this will not just effect the hotel properties but will impact every Bahamian business owner who employs other Bahamians from petty shop operator to The Nassau Shop and Kellys Home Centre.

Its all very well for Ferguson to say why don't they create a redundancy fund for a rainy day when the business community already has a myriad of taxes being rained on them in the form of property taxes, business license, VAT, BEC fuel surcharge etc.

Many businesses are having difficulty even meeting payroll every week given our stagnant economy and greedy unions, their grasping advocates and sheep like followers must understand that sooner than later they'll run out of other peoples money to spend. If government caves in to this ridiculous proposition there will be more than a few additional businesses going belly up so they better be prepared to cast their social services net very wide.

where you coming from "the messenger"? What did you mean by "It is strange how people who employ few, if any, presume to dictate to private business who they should employ and how they should spend their money."

You make it sound as though business owners take their own money and just hire and pay employees. Businesses don't create jobs, at best they see an opportunity to capitalize on a need or want of consumers, then they bring the need to market, jobs created and maintained as a result of consumer demand. All cost for the endeavour covered in the price of the good or service sold. When a new cost is added the price goes up, just simple logic. If it's an across the board, and therefor fair cost, it doesn't hurt a businesses ability to compete, so whats the problem?
For once someone is doing something for the employee (the little guy). Sure every time you take a slice out of the economy, it reduces the size of the pie that businesses compete for, but in this case it's going to those who can use it.

Hate to point it out Chucky, but the situation is a lot more complex than your explanation or presumed understanding. This is Economics 101.

Businesses do create jobs. Jobs are necessary to provide the infrastructure to make, sell and deliver goods and services. Some businesses use cheap human capital components (create jobs) instead of using technology to reduce the amount of people it needs. Do you ever notice how many employees a Bahamian gas station has compared to a Florida gas station? Bahamians use cheap human labour as anti-theft protection. When I travel to the bank's head office abroad, on the way from the airport late at night, I patronize a gas station without any humans at all. You insert a debit or credit card into the gas pump, and you can even buy a carwash (the receipt has a scannable chit). So the labour costs are not even across businesses, and those businesses that can do with less jobs are more profitable. And those businesses that have cheaper labour costs are more profitable even at lower prices. Why do you think that supermarkets in the US now have self-serve checkout?

Lower prices increase consumer demand and higher prices inhibit it. It is not a constant like your premise. The consumer need and demand is elastic based on price sensitivity and supply and demand. The human capital input to a product or service is also elastic. I can compete if I have less or cheaper human beings contributing to the cost.

So this idea of not having a cap on redundancy penalizes the companies that do create jobs, and rewards those who create less jobs. And the whole idea of business, is to make a profit -- not create jobs for people. If the profit isn't there, the business isn't there and there are no jobs.

@Chucky, which union did you say you were member of???