Yuyutsu, you seem to oppose the social cohesion that binds us together, believing we should all act independently for our own good.
What you say is anarchism, which I do not agree with, but see as a legitimate ism all the same.
People like Butch, simply want to avoid their part of social responsibility as there is a cost to them involved, they are not anarchists, just selfish members of society. Butch chooses to take part in society as an employer and therefore must accept those thing we as a society impose on employers.
Interesting that you mention "money", which is nothing more than a tool, a means of exchange, to quantify the cost of interaction between members of society, employees perform certain tasks for the benefit of the employer, and in turn the employer rewards them with money, which in turn can be used to benefit the employee through his interaction with other members of society. If there is no social interaction then there is no need for money, and if there is total interaction like pure communism there is also no need for money.

Dear Paul,

Am I an anarchist? I am undecided.

Etymologically the Greek "Anarkhya" means "without chief, leader or ruler". While I hold the reservation that any person or group-of-people ought to never impose their will over others without their consent, I do not oppose, and at times even support, such leadership that is willingly accepted by all involved.

Merriam Webster defines "anarchist" as:

1. A person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power.

2. A person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order.

The word "any" in definition (1) excludes me, so is the word "violent" in definition (2).

I do not oppose social cohesion as such - only when that seeming cohesion is achieved by violent means. I view it positively when people freely elect to join a given society - and once they do, they must share the corresponding duties, not just the privileges.

Regarding money, I believe that an ideal society should have none (but wouldn't be communist either), yet this is not achievable in the foreseeable future, mainly due to the overwhelmingly huge number of humans on this planet, thus for now we have to live with it.

When money is created by a legitimate society that does no impose itself on anyone, that society has every right to impose its terms-and-conditions over the use of its money, which might include taxes, penalty-rates and what-not. Those who do not wish to belong to that society should then simply refrain from using its money. The problem in Australia is, that certain laws prevent for all practical purposes the use of other currencies. The state would still, for example, expect its tax in Australian dollars even when none of the parties to an exchange ever had them.

Aidan, it is well known within the circles that many small businesses pay some hours on the books, and some cash and in the likes of hospitality, this is the only way many small businesses survive. Lets face it, if the business fails due to costs, then the staff loose their jobs as well.

Paul, the worst effected sectors are the likes of hospitality.

In her wisdom, Julia Gillard decided to make Sunday rates for retail time and a half, yet for hosp, double time. Why?

Hospitality is the worst effected because they buy goods, transform them into saleable products and in doing so incur high wages as a percentage of sales. Generally around 35% compared to 15-20% for say butchers.

For the employer to make the same money on a Sunday, they would need to impose around a 25% surcharge, which the consumer simply wont pay, so the alternative is they pay the staff regular hourly rates in cash.

Time and a half they can wear with a 10-15% SC which most consumers will pay, but not 25%.

The simple fact is that business people do what they have to do to survive and if governments change wages in an unreasonable and unjustifiable way, which is what JG did, and future governments refuse to remove the imposts, they take matters into their own hands, but at least the workers still have jobs, for now at least.

Butch, we have discussed this small business topic, Sunday trading and penalty rates numerous times before. You pretend that the only determining factor as regards to "cost of production " is the cost of wages and how it impacts on trading on Sundays. Why do businesses large and small vigorously trade on Sundays, after all it was them who agitated to get Sunday trading in the first place.
The reality is there is certain advantages to be had by trading 7 days a week, as opposed to 5 or 6. If you have done your sums, and your expectation that there will be an increase in sales by trading on a Sunday is met, then profits with actually increase. Some costs like rent, and other fixed costs, do not increase regardless of opening hours. You can amortize those costs over more "cups of coffee" (increased sales). In the case of hospitality Sunday is generally one of the better trading days, as opposed to Monday and Tuesday. The major reason for cash payment by small business is not that they can not afford to pay, but rather it is an opportunity for a cash grab at the expense of their employees. often part time, non unionized children and young adults. Taking one look at the '7/Eleven' and 'Bakers Delight' cases, and you will realize that!

Can you explain why so many small hospitality businesses operate 'Cash Only'? Could it have anything to do with tax avoidance, like pocketing the GST etc, which is estimated to run to $7 billion a year in Australia. Small Business does rather well in Oz, with an average income of $68,000 p/a, and you said yourself you would not get out of bed for that kind of dosh.
BTW the principles behind both '7/Eleven' and 'Bakers Delight' are multi-millionaires, not exactly on the bread line are they, or are they in your opinion.

Paul, Sunday trading (QLD at least) was lobbied for by the big supermarkets, not small businesses and prior to Sunday trading, small businesses, especially hospitality paid time and a half on Sundays.

Julia Gillard, when employment minister, or IR min, decided to take hundreds of awards and roll them into a few. The result being that hosp was hit with double time on Sundays and, given the labour component is high in the sector, that was a double whammy. Time and a half was workable, but double time is a killer
The other change is in the Sunday staff, as there has been a huge increase in junior staff, which are often less experienced, which is why its a lottery at time when ordering a coffee.

Do the math Paul, the labour content of a $100 sale at the supermarket is around $10.5 on a Sunday, 7% at time and a half, in hospitality that is more like $70, 35% at double time. If they offer full table service its even higher These are facts.

As for cash only businesses, sadly most are foreign owners and there is no guessing why they do this. I like to go in, order my stuff, then walk out because they have no eftpos. They also represent a rather small minority simply because they are missing out on too much business.

As for 7/11, this is a scam run by scammers and the majority of owners were foreigners hiring foreigners as well. I have never supported this and you know it. Although I do believe the bakers delight case was more of a wrong award case rather than outright cheating. But I could be wrong

Butch, I actually believe you are an honest businessman and do the right thing. I also suspect in hospitality, Sunday, despite double time payments, is one of the most profitable days of the week. On the coffee front here in my locality we have a proliferation of such establishments, many are chain type operations 'Coffee Club', 'Gloria Jeans', is the market saturated with sellers at $3,50-$4 a cup, I would think so. Maybe coffee shops are like video stores before them, too many jumping into too good a thing. Interesting that the coffee shop nearest me is run by a young bloke, being about 25 and a young girl about 16, they seem to be there 7 days a week. I thought he was the 'owner' seems someone else is the owner and only drops by to collect the takings. Judging by the number of empty 2l milk bottles stored in crates in the back lane, they sell some coffee a day.
The top paying job in a coffee shop is the Barista (the coffee maker) the rate at 'Gloria Jeans' ranges from $9.94 to $20.41 an hour, I suspect they don't employ a lot at $21.41,
According to the web site 'Cafe Coach' the break down for a $3.50 cup of coffee is; coffee, milk, cup = 60 cents, labour = 20 cents, giving a margin of $2,70 to pay the fixed costs including rent, equipment, shop fixtures and fitting etc, and make a profit.

The cash only operators, are doing so to exploit the system, finding it more profitable to fly under the radar, no tax, underpayments to their staff, cash payments to suppliers. good if you can get away with it, and most do.

One of the big issues for workers who take cash payment for work performed, is they are not covered by workers compensation should they be injured on the job. Also, the employers often benefit by having their wages bill heavily subsidized by the taxpayer through social security payments, the 'Car Wash' I have mentioned before is a good example