After two conversations with a lawyer and some advice from my brother in law, three meetings, some steely bargaining (on my part) and a little compromise, I have a solution. For now. It's a big relief.

[pen] Glad to hear it.

Here (AU), since last year, businesses with fewer than 100 employees (99% of public sector firms) are exempt from unfair dismissal laws, and those with over 100 employees are able to dismiss anyone any time if they claim that part of the reason for the dismissal was for the "operational requirements" of the business. Being sacked on the basis of race, sex, age, pregnancy or family responsibility is still technically illegal, but pretty easy to get around.

(actually, the "operational requirementes/reasons" clause is available for all sizes of employer)

[flerdle] Well thank goodness I live in a country where working for a small firm isn't a discrimination in itself.

[pen] Indeed.

[flerdle] Isn't it the same in some parts of the US? There was an early "King of the Hill" episode where Hank's company had trouble firing an employee for drug use because of a similar law. In the end, Hank resigned and then they were able to fire the addict because they had few enough employees to be exempt from the law.

I have no idea what the USA does, but our PM is the ... nevermind.

Another trick is to make all your employees "contractors", or keep them as a succession of short-term casuals. Then they don't count towards your total, and they aren't covered by the unfair dismissal laws anyway.