These changes are out of the HR NIcholls Society book of human resource management - penalty rates and most loadings a really put in place to inflate the basic wage of the low paid - because the basic wage is not, as one poster glibly adds, enough to live on.

And yes it is true the relevance of weekend work and public holidays has diminished but not nearly as much as some might think; We remain a weekend-centric society still.

I am still waiting for the proof to support the assertions Howard and Andrews are sprouting.Better boys and girls than me have refuted with some authority what they speak is littel more than propaganda - but hey why worry about the facts when you can shift power to your mates?

How many family men will cash out annual leave without consulting their family? And for how long will be sunning ourselves in a "sellers market" with workers apparently having the whip hand - the take it or leave it option is just around the corner when it comes to employment and rates of pay.

And please spare me the crap about how hard Managers and CEOs work; epidemiological studies tell the higher up the food chain you are the healthier you are - the rewards are enormous, financially physically and mentally; part of the reason is you have choice, you can engage in discretionary activites whether it entail hard work or not, you work with minimal supervision - it aint as hard as most people think; certainly no harder than some one working on the shop floor with limited control over when they start work, how fast they have to work or having to put up with some dog monitoring your every move - Ive been a senior manager and ceo over a decade - so dont piss down my back and tell me its raining.

These changes are aimed at profit taking - since old Barnaby Joyce has shown some nuits over the recent Senate Bill on competition I might write him a letter -

Part Two:
And I do realise that’s what the unfair dismissal thing concerns – small businesses – but as Mahatmaduck mentions (either in this thread or the neighbouring one on the same topic) what’s to stop large companies from dividing into several subsidiaries, only employing less than a hundred employees each? Nothing – and seeing as some companies already do this for other reasons (tax etc) I can’t see why they wouldn’t ‘protect’ themselves from having to be fair about dismissal.

Besides anything – you are basing the ‘hard work = success’ idea on a level playing field which you know it is not (not just formal education either – it makes a huge difference to your management of money how your parents dealt with the same…) and also the presumption that we could function as a society without SOMEONE to do that hard, dirty, lowly paid work (and be grateful for it! Why do you need decent conditions?! Work harder!!).
There will always be a need for people at the bottom far more than people at the top – no matter HOW hard you work, or for how long.

Honestly – I can’t see the ones at the top sending their kids to start on $5.15 an hour because that’s what people with no skills should be happy with.
That’s only for POOR people with no skills….ahhhh…..now we’re on the same page.
I can see some creative replacement going on at Daddy’s work when Jnr finishes school…..then the person Jnr replaced can go work for $5.15 an hour, regardless of skill level – for without any ‘connections’ that will be the lot of the average worker.
Merit is really not rewarded as frequently as you seem to think. And blood is WAY thicker than Workers….pardon the pun.

So in all - what you’re saying is that we shouldn’t strive for a better standard of living for all – just a better standard of living for the rich.
Or in other words “Let them eat cake!”….

No Newsroo, what you are saying is that just because some people are poor, no-one can strive to be rich.

And just because some people who work hard don't become successful doesn't mean no-one should be successful. Hard work doesn't always equal success but success is hard to come by without hard work.

Of course there is no such thing as a level playing field, but you don't begrudge people who make the most of what they have got. The best businesses can do is provide jobs for people so they can provide for their family.

Who cares if a father gives his son a job - you would do it for your family wouldn't you. In fact your sole job as parent is to make sure your kids get the best possible start to life.

Golf and luncheon types are common heh. not among the small business people I know, they barely get time to watch the golf or eat a sanga on the run.

And even if they did have the time - they would need to have very good trustworthy staff to look after the business while they were out. Wouldn't want to sack those people on a whim would you.

And don't talk to me about dirty, low paid jobs. I used to get up at 3.30 in the morning to go clean supermarkets for less than 10 bucks an hour. It was better than no job though and I'm glad that the somebody who did it was me. (I even bought some uni textbooks with my wage because that evil Government wouldn't give me everything on a platter and the student union had stolen $400 from me.)

PS: Don't drop chewing gum on a supermarket floor - it is a pain in the arse to scrape off

t.u.s.

Plerdsus, where did you learn your downward envy? Is it not equally possible for employers to reduce profits and employ more? Do you think it may be possible for a Federal Govt. sitting on a $13Billion surplus to boost pensions? This notion that the working poor are keeping the unemployed out of work by recieving subsistence level minimum wages is drivel.This whole IR strategy is about boosting profit at the expense of the great unwashed. If you support that strategy i support your right to say so. Please be honest about it and dont pretend its for the benefit of societys unfortunates.

Surveys of both employers and employees have consistently shown that money was not their primary motivation. Each "side" consistently assumes that the other is primarily motivated by greed but neither proves to be the case. Over more than 15 years of recruiting and headhunting at all levels from GM to gofer, the key motivations have rarely been money. Yet, during that time I never placed a single person on an award wage. Every one of them was paid more than the award.

Most employers will start out in the hope that they can recruit an over qualified person who will work for peanuts but the closer they get to making a decision, the closer they get to reconciling their needs with the needs and aspirations of the candidates. And when faced with the choice between a brilliant performer with eyes on the prize, and a solid contributor who will still be there in three years time, they will usually opt for the safe and sure. They also soon learn the folley of trying to get silk purses out of sows ears.

Business is all about risk and return. Excessive greed attracts excessive risk and both employers and employees really seek value for money. These people who seek to understand this reform by placing it in an overarching context of rampant greed are merely broadcasting the extent of their lack of engagement with the real world. Get a job.

Perseus--Recruiting eh! The vital middle man. I suggest you get a job. Preferably in a hot Foundry at 10 bucks an hour.