Education & Work Weekend penalty rates

Do you think jobs just come into being magically? Where do you think they come from? The ''boss'' you deride was a person who put their own money on the line by taking the risk to start a business and give you a job. You take the risk, you get the reward if it works. Most of the time it doesn't work. In fact some figures, after 3 years, half have closed:


Of the 294,210 new business entries during the 2010-11 financial year:

• 76 per cent were still operating in June 2012
• 59 per cent were still operating in June 2013
• 50 per cent were still operating in June 2014.
  http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]?OpenDocument

 

That isn't the case, and it's unfortunate that it is a mindset so prevalent in Aus society....

The general misconception is that the Bosses are all rich, swanning around in an ocean of dough etc.

My view is; Good luck to them! I get annoyed when I hear the average person begrudging folks getting ahead and the perception is that it is at the expense of the Employee.

The bosses are taking on all the risk, all the responsibility, the headaches, the problems...and therefore the profit and return should be commensurate with all that...but often it is not.

We as a Nation need to change our thinking and get rid of the tall poppy, Boss V Employee mindset. I believe it is very destructive to economic growth and productivity in this Country.

There are too many folks who think about what they can get out of the Company, rather than what they can do for the Company.

Most Bosses like to make lots of money, and there's no crime in that - but when they look at the likely return versus the likely cost - for being open on a weekend (especially Sunday if it requires double time and half), plus possibly having to be on site and lose a weekend day off - it will in many cases result in the decision to either close, or run with less staff.

That's my view on things as having been an employee and employer. As an employee; my mind has always been about how I can make more money for the Company - for my Boss - and it results in reaping what you sow (from my experience).

But I agree; we should keep the penalty rates and let the bosses decide if they open or close, or run less staff etc....the Gubb should stay out of this one, I reckon.

 

I can't talk about takeaway hospitality but restaurants, pub benchmarks etc

To make ends meet in Hospitality labour costs shouldn't exceed 33%, although this is a struggle for most businesses. ( When food costs can hit 35% there is not a lot left to cover other costs)

So talking about penalty costs being a cost of business. If you are on 1 1/2 then your labour costs are 40-50% (salaried management in bigger places can keep it so it is not an exact multiple), go to 2 1/2 and you are at 60 -70%. at 40-50% there is no profit at all. At double time and a half you are going backwards.

 

Yeah your right, theres so many pros and cons for each side of the debate.

 

Tall poppy syndrome is holding the country back! As a country we are no where near as intelligent as we think we are

 

I've lost my mind. Lower capacity to pay means either tenants are forced out further or won't be able to pay rent increases or purchase PPOR (at inflated/spiraling prices).

The next round of price increases in houses will be triggered by the realisation that there are more than two incomes in a household as households become multi-generational dwellings. The income from older generation's pensions, parents (owners), adult children will all be taken into account forcing prices up much the same way as the realisation that banks would use two incomes from a household back in the 1980's.

 

If someone has a bad business model or is not competitive, we shouldn't feel any pity for their chosen business if it fails.
In the US they complain about paying the state minimum. And some try to bring up Australia's minimum wage, and try to pick a hole in our model where after 16 years of age you're not hired at somewhere like McDonalds. I see plenty of 16+ people working in general service or retail jobs. If a business can't be profitable on weekends without paying people what they deserve, then **** them really, I have no pity for them. Expect someone to work on a Sunday for weekday rates? Good luck finding someone.

 

Where did I say one should feel sympathy for them if their business fails for reasons such as those? However if their business fails from excessive taxation, red tape or wages not consistent with market reality...what then?

What they deserve? Quite an entitled attitude you have there, that's the problem with thinking you or the government should decide what someone deserves instead of the free market. It distorts things and frankly the words deserve or fair have no place in any discussion whatsoever. They are meaningless emotionally driven words that mean different things to different people.

Well if they can't find someone to work, that is the market working as intended.

 

By that reasoning, every business would be burdened by the same excessive taxation, red tape or wages not consistent with market reality... how does anyone stay in business?

 

huh?

 

Some real common sense, here. The market is ruthless. If businesses fail, then the market has spoken.

Businesses fail because most people just want things to coast along, nice and easy. They either don't try to or aren't prepared to move and adapt with the market and get left behind. The business down the road that is thriving pays the same wages as everyone else - they aren't doing anything special (other than providing a high standard of service and most likely not participating in a race to the bottom to be the cheapest option out there).

 

Hi THX, the free market does determine which businesses succeed or fail. All the employers pay the same wages. Some succeed, some fail. Governments set wages to ensure that people have at the very least, a sustainable living wage.

In the U.S. where the minimum wage is horrifically pathetic, many people work two or more jobs, just to stay afloat. Is that the kind of society you want here?

 

This ^ is a complete contradiction to this:

If you think government set wages is an example of the free market, you truly have no idea what free market means.

 

Dude, you may want to re-read what was posted.

 

You won't have a choice if everyone loses the loading....

Having said that...I think some sort of loading would be good just not 100%....30% sounds reasonable....

 

http://cheezburger.com/6472422656

 

We are heading down that path as more and more skilled and higher learning requirement jobs disappear for various reasons - many are moved O/S, or the industry is in decline and contracting.

We are left with a lot of jobs in various services, hospitality etc which don't require higher learning or skilled training, and are thus lower paid.

Fortunately (or unfortunately?) in Aus we have stronger Union representation, but I often wonder if we have shot ourselves in the foot in that regard; Unions fight for higher wages and better conditions, and eventually price the Labour force out of the world market?

 

It's absolutely the case. You think if current Sunday pay rates halved then the owner wouldn't be better off?

 

I keep telling people this, using it as a reason as to why going to Uni is a waste of one's time and money, that people should encourage their children to start and build businesses instead and the overwhelming majority of people scoff at me.

Strawman. As you would be aware Marc, having lived in Seppoland, corporations send the work wherever it is cheapest, regardless of the current wage. Manufacturing is almost non-existant in the West nowadays and white collar jobs are heading o/s at a rapid pace.

Even with the low minimum wage in the U.S. most of those blue collar jobs were sent overseas. You know what's going to happen at some point? Those jobs are going to leave China and go elsewhere when corporations are able to find somewhere they can pay even lower wages.

 

Jobs disappear if quality/output:cost ratio is not attractive compared to elsewhere. To change that either improve quality/output, reduce costs or both or innovate and create something new.
Unions have been ineffective in most areas.