This sounds sensible to me. Whether the current parliament will support the Bill is anybody's guess. As the Senator says, there has been a lot of talk about jobs - there hasn't been much of any action. If they reckon they have created over 330,000, they really should be explaining why unemployment is still so high: is it because of their stubborn refusal to restrict immigration, perhaps? Is it because they don't have the guts to force bludgers to work by withholding the dole? Is it because they keep importing "refugees", with no work ethic, no English - 95% of them are still on the dole and family benefits after 5 years: it is not too much of a jump to think that they will be in the same position for the rest of their lives; that's why they came here, for the welfare benefits. There is much more to our high unemployment rate than how much people who are willing and wanting to work are paid.

ttbn, i hear where you & the article are coming from but disposable income for luxuries like eating out will continue shrinking as the cost of living continues to rise along with unemployment. Our entire economy is economically unsustainable & you are right migration & dole bludgers is the biggest problem. as well as having only 3 productive industries.

hey why don't we push the basic wage down to $5.00 a hour that will create employment?
That fact is this is nothing more then a money grab by employers. weekend penalty rates have been in place for many years.While our industries that are facing external competition for lower wage areas may have some grounds to argue the industry your talking about doesn't.
While it might be trendie to think we all live in a 24/7 lifestyle these days that fact is we do not. Most of us still work during the week and have weekends off.
What I would like to understand is if coffee shops and restaurants have been able to cope with penalty rates in the past what has changed to make is difficult now.
I suspect that it's all to do with certain fast food chains now producing a decent cup and maybe the rise of home coffee machines.

So nothing really has change just another example of greed.

This is the first time a rational approach has been made as regards to workers and wages. We do not need the likes of Howard or Abbott to force change. We need proper and amiable discussion.

The life and times of working hours have changed, and there is room for discussion, without recommendations or bullyboy tactics of saying this is the only way. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

Different working times need to be confronted at a time. 24/7 Shift workers, weekend workers,

Young people are common weekend workers. A person is supposed to be able to earn a living with 38 hours work / week at their appropriate wage scale for age.

That being the case there is a case for weekends being paid at those same rates as long as that person has the opportunity to complete 38 hours / wk. Instead of Monday to Friday @ 38 hrs. You have Wednesday to Sunday @ 38 hrs.

With out the weekend penalty rates, there must be room for higher wages for the 38 hour / wk workers.

Different persons would like to work at different times, Saturday or Sunday is for sport or family. And others would prefer to have weekday free time. It can be a matter of choice for workers. So long as the workers were the predominant feature in discussions, and not the wants of employers.

Any changes must be all about the workers.

A problem can be an over supply of venues that service weekend patrons, at the expense of workers.

David has an approach that may become meaningful discussion.
Our PM is coming up with a plan also.

The proposed changes are far too minor and still in principle embrace the concept as if it is legitimate for a third party to dictate to two other people regarding the private deals they make between them.

That "times have changed" is a lame excuse: it is a universal, moral and eternal principle that forcing oneself on others is wrong.

Even the excuse that "it would help the economy" has been criticised here, sighting that a healthy economy cannot be based on cafes and restaurants - what a pity it was even raised! Suppose just for a moment that having a minimal wage and penalty rates were good for the economy - could that presumed benefit to the economy ever justify the prosecution by the state against two persons who freely agree between them that one would provide the other with work while the other will provide the first with money, but less money then designated by government?

Who the hell are they to interfere in other peoples' lives?

Yuyutsu the problem also comes down to what does freely actually mean.

I've worked in wages positions doing shift work and in office positions were two people doing the same work can be paid very different amounts based on the economic cycle they were hired in and their ability to negotiate.

We know that when it comes to these negotiated positions that women over overwhelmingly fail worst then men. However when there is a award in place women and men get the same, is that fair?

I know in many work places it's actually a rule not to discuss your salary package as it can cause mayhem.

imacentristmoderate,

I don't know what generation you are, but I remember the days with a mortgage and a single income, when women stayed home until the kids went to school (no organised child care). There were very few luxuries, and life was pretty ordinary, but that's what our parents did, and we didn't expect much else.

I don't really know how hard it is today, with two incomes and child care to pay for. But, I think expectations are higher these days. Things that my generation and before saved up for are now wanted immediately, and are obtained with credit, another huge expense. I don't particularly blame young people for that because they have been encouraged into by the 'system', big business and politicians. It all worked for a while, but not any more. We have been duped into thinking that we can live on debt. All we can do now is be like Mr. Micawber and, if we earn 20 shillings, spend only 19/6, until we get society and the economy re-balanced; and that is going to take much better politicians than we have now.

Dear Cobber,

Obviously I would never support non-free arrangements. Period.

If there is any coercion to take up jobs in Australia, then it comes from Centerlink, threatening to cut people off benefits if they fail to take up a particular job which they don't like, doesn't pay well enough or is unethical. While it is definitely wrong and I do believe that welfare should be unconditional, I am not aware of any coercion whatsoever on the side of employers, nor is it their business to provide social-security.

As for fairness, on a single-life basis, not only are we under no obligation to provide fairness - but it is simply impossible, hard as we may neurotically try: The world we live in is inherently unfair: one is born short the other tall, one intelligent, the other stupid, one prone to obesity and diabetes, the other naturally fit despite eating junk, one needs just one bowl of food a day to fill their stomach, the other needs ten such bowls or much more expensive food due to dietary limitations. One lives in peace while the other is chased out of their home by the Assad regime or the Islamic-State, one has plenty of food, the other starves in Africa, etc. etc. etc. I do believe that fairness is eventually achieved in the very longer term, but that's altogether a different matter.

If a potential employee wants to know what others are getting, then they can demand it as a condition for their services (and leave if their demand is not met), but I personally don't consider this a good idea: one should ask themselves whether the deal they are about to enter is worthwhile for them or not and decide solely on the merits (or demerits) of the offer they get - otherwise this can lead to gossip, jealousy and frustration.

Who is this industry competing with that they need to cut the wages of workers? Well, the fact is they compete with each other, so reducing wages won't change the competitive market for labour. It just moves income from workers to the pockets of employers.

Will it create more demand? Maybe and maybe not, but it will certainly reduce aggregate demand because less income in the pockets of workers reduced consumption in the economy.

Dropping penalty rates won't make us more competitive with overseas markets, except on the spread sheets of pointy heads. In reality I don't visit Indonesia to consume a cup of coffee, I head down to my local barista.

So it's a 24/7 workplace today is it? Who said that? It isn't as families have to have some time off to attend to family matters, but I guess that's only important if you are a nine to fiver or a member of parliament.

When members of parliament take a cut in pay and work 24/7 then I might take the suggestion seriously. What's next I wonder - overtime and shift work rates?

ttbn, growth in employment has attracted people back into the jobs market, hence the growth in employment with an unchanged unemployment rate – this is not uncommon in an upturn.

I think that in a modern market economy with high mobility, government should have no part in wage-setting - that should be between the employer and the employed. The first requirement for the employer is that the employer should add to the value of the business at least the cost of their employment. Employees will have their own priorities as to wages, hours, days of the week, location and various other trade-offs, it can best be sorted out without government. Competition between employers will raise wages to reflect the value of more sought-after employees and skills. There will be better signalling to employees as to what skills are valued, and where the opportunities are, than with mandated rates and conditions.

This means no minimum wage. Many unemployed people, particularly if they have been out of work for some time, will not immediately make good employees, and their wage should reflect the value the employer expects them to add. Once someone is in the workforce, and has a proven ability to do the basics, such as turning up, working as instructed, not slacking off, then they become much more employable, their options open up.

doog, not everyone wants to work 38 hours – cf students, mums at home wanting a change of scene and a bit more income rather than an income to support the whole family, etc. And changes can not be “all about the workers” – jobs exist because people take the risk in investing in business opportunities, and the job market must make it possible for employers to have reasonable prospects of making a profit. If not, why would they bother? Most start-ups fail within a year, few make five years, discourage job creation by a bias towards workers and the jobs won’t materialise.

As for what constitutes a “healthy economy,” that will be determined by the interaction between customers and suppliers, whose choices in a market economy will direct resources and spending to their most-valued uses.

yuyutsu, welfare should be unconditional? Nonsense, no one has the right to demand that others support them willy-nilly. Of course if the community (you me and other taxpayers) provides support to those in need, it should expect recipients to make what efforts they can to become self-reliant. It is also far better for the individual that they engage and contribute rather than bludge. And no, I’m not saying that everyone on welfare is a bludger.

mael, see my previous posts.

I worked many tears as a supervisor in continuous production heavy industry, parts of which could not be showed down for short periods due the possibility of consequential damage.

Even with shift work allowances, and weekend penalty rates, people would regularly call in sick on penalty rate shifts because such shifts were during time with plentiful other attractions. Often it was difficult to fill places on shift with people capable of doing the work.

Many retail businesses willing took on opening more hours even though the owners knew that shift penalties would apply.

Hospital staff, paramedics, continuous process shift work employees and their like should not be derived of shift penalty rates to please retailers and those who cater to the patrons of pubs and restaurants.

ttbn, i remember those days & we were better off. i agree with everything you said, we need to slow down the pace of life. the 2 income family creates the zero income family.

I agree partially with Yuyutsu. There does need to be much more flexibility in the workplace.

I don't support removing, a basic wage rate, but when people refer to cuts in wages, in relation to workplace flexibility, they don't realise by having no flexibility they are allowing some people to be "frozen out" of the workforce.

For example, so called "more intelligent" people are often given precedence - seeing a lot of discrimination as a result. Some people for example may have completed training, but are in older years (lets say 30-50 years) and need more work experience, or there can be other situations like:

1. Recently a job application for a paid volunteer coordinator for a blind welfare organisation, with one of its job specifications, was to have a drivers license. No one visually impaired could apply. How could (a driver) understand what it is like to be visually impaired?

2. In another case, a visually impaired woman (who had excellent university qualifications) applied for a job in a government department office. She was denied the job, and went to the Equal Opportunity Commission for a ruling.

With students, any employment, needs to be linked to their study, as a form of paid work experience. So if studying in hospitality (jobs in that area are needed for that person - and flexibility required for an employer to take them on for example), potentially leading to a better job later on.

I don't support people working in areas like medical or emergency service fields facing pay cuts at all. These are taxpayer funded essential services - and after all I don't need a restaurant to survive.

Faustino I am sure I said the opportunity to work 38 hours. If the weekend rate is the same as week day rate, it must be offered as a 38 hr wk.

You can not bludge on workers that can only work weekends at a weekly pay rate. “ no deal “

I did not mention casual or part time, That is another story.
Part time workers Guaranteed, 16 hours work opportunity for weekends.

Casual workers employed at any time for unavailable 38 hr / wk workers or absent Part time workers.

Minimum wage / hr can not be between employer and employee, it does not work, and never will.

Pay rates for part time workers Guaranteed 20 hrs work time / wk same $ / hr as week day work.

Pay rates for casual workers Guaranteed 4 hrs work / call in. Paid each 4 hrs same $ as week day work.

In this country we try not to have people living under bridges while working 38 hrs / wk.

I am a chef: I know the hospitality industry very well, and I don't see how cutting penalty rates is going to reduce unemployment. The number of staff a restaurant employs is proportional to the number of customers they serve, not their aggregate labour cost. No restaurant manager in his right mind is going use the money saved on labour costs to employ more staff if they aren't required.

Also, the notion that restaurants close on weekends to avoid paying penalty rates is a furphy. I've worked in a lot of restaurants: a lot of them have a 7 day rosters and the ones that closed only closed for one day a week - Monday, when there are no penalty rates. Most restaurants are busiest on weekends, so they make the most profit on Saturdays and Sundays even with the higher labour costs.

Public holidays are a different case; the penalty rate is enormous and public holidays often seem to see a bit of a decline in trade. It varies, of course: I worked in a restaurant that was always ridiculously busy over Easter because of a local boat show and would stay open the entire long weekend: good money for me, but I slogged my arse off to earn it.

I can't see how the proposed changes to penalty rates are going to increase employment in the hospitality industry. All I can see it doing is taking money out of the pockets of those doing the work and putting into the pockets of those who own the business: a textbook example of trickle-up economics.

I'll still have a roof over my head and be able to pay the bills, but I'll have less disposable income to spend at other small businesses. The nice bookshop down the road won't sell as many books and rechtub's butcher shop will see a decrease in turnover as I opt for cheaper cuts of meat. At some point, the race to the bottom becomes counter-productive.

Dear Faustino,

Regarding unconditional welfare, may I refer you to my post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273170

and its follow-ups:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273208
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273240
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273277
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273344
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273357
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273494
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15791#273520

I am a tax-payer and I rather see my tax go to more people on the dole than to provide fat salaries to public-"servants" and contractors. Not only them: too many jobs today are wasteful and unnecessary - and some even harmful. Allowing those who are currently forced to do such jobs to be on the dole instead, would only make the world better! It would also provide more opportunities and bargaining power for those who do actually want to work in productive and positive pursuits.

---

Everyone else:

Just to be clear, I do not oppose penalty rates - only the forceful imposition of them by government over people who prefer to make their own private deals. Nothing stops employers and industries from continuing to pay those rates if they wish, nor does anything stops those workers who want to get them from organising themselves through unions and the like in order to receive them.

Wow David, what a breath of fresh air for once. BTW,nothing effects tourism more than the Ozzie dollar, when it's low, like today, it booms, when it's high 96c+, it suffers.

Cobber, what has changed is the rates employers are forced to pay now. Whereas Sunday rates were in the order of 1.5, I believe they are now as high as 2.5.

The simple math.A meal at a pub, say $30.
$10 is cost, $10.50 wages, $3 GST, leaves $6.50 gross profit.

Sunday, Cost still $10, wages now $26.25, GST $3, gross profit ($9.25 LOSS)

So you add a 15% surcharge, common on Sundays now, the loss is less but still $4.75.

Thus is why that pub meal now costs $40 because the only saving that can be made is in the cost.

I had a steak at the Goldie last night, cost me $45 fir a 350 gr. rump. The cost of that is around $6.30 at wholesale prices.

Thus is why restaurants and the likes close on Sundays and P/hols which is why unemployment is so high.

So so long as people like yourself think the way you do, and refuse to move with the changes, people will remain out of work.

The ball is in your court my friend, but you're not the only one in the game you control.

Don't get over excited Butch It is not compulsory spending. It is a very contentious line, to lower wages for a specific service. which i say is over serviced and may need regulating. That is the other option on the table.

Do we go with the employers or do we go with the workers. Employers are not in the job of providing extra employment when they have sufficient staff as is.

With eliminating over servicing will protect workers. Employers are not the most trusted people on this planet.

No one should expect to start up in business and expect a living is assured. Because employers can adjust the pay scale at will.

That is not the way to go. Workers need to have a livable wage for age with a 38 hr / wk.

Faustino,

I think your no-minumum-wage is harsh. It is the lower educated, unskilled workers who are most likely to be exploited by unscrupulous employers, and I believe that they are entitled to dignity and respect, even if they are unable to rise higher.

I must also say that I have not noticed any "upturn" in the economy.

I do agree with you on the matter of payment for value and wealth added to the business, though.

Imacentristmoderate,

You might be interested in one of the books I have on the go currently: 'Return To Order' by John Horvath". I think it has a lot to offer as a way out of our current mess. I was hooked merely by the foreward and introduction. God and faith are mentioned a couple of times, but you can overlook that (if you wish) and still learn a lot. I downloaded it from Amazon onto my ereader. I don't know if it's available in hard copy.

ttbn, thank you for that, will check it out. my 2 favourites are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100247847/how-we-invented-freedom-and-why-it-matters/

Well it's slightly off-topic, but Doog stated:

"Employers are not the most trusted people on this planet."

So whom do you all think ARE the most trusted people on this planet?

Toni, you're missing the point. The article specifically points out that many businesses now close on these days due to costs, if they reopen that's where the extra jobs will come from.

The other victim of penalty rate hikes are mums, as many no longer have those WE shifts to rely on because the rates have made them unaffordable.

Of cause as usual our lawmakers will no doubt stuff it up, onevsuch example being that they should also make sure places don't all of a sudden open on Sundays then close on a week day. I bet they wouldn't consider that.

Open on a Sunday and close on a weekday is a cop out, that is the sort of thing that makes employers not the most trusted persons.

You are not supposed to take advantage of younger persons or any body else. To much of that getting around discussion will be dropped.

The employer is not to be advantaged at the expense of workers

doog,

Many big name petrol stations are now opening 24/7, and people are working in these stations, in what I would call ridiculous environments and hours, in terms of workplace exploitation.

These stations are not small businesses - so generalising should be avoided, in that context.

As one person put it to me, these stations open 24/7 and have people working there simply (and are being used) as cheap security, so people don't steal expensive items (like cigarettes) for example.

Most people (I would argue) don't want to work from say (midnight to say 8am in the morning) at a petrol station.

Many of these petrol stations are empty late at night and early into the morning. So flexibility is needed, to allow people, who may want to work in these very exhaustive, and I would argue very strange working hours and conditions, some ability to demand better pay rates and employment rights.

//Toni, you're missing the point. The article specifically points out that many businesses now close on these days due to costs//

Show me one. I might even go work for them and have a weekend off for a change, catch up with some of my Monday-Friday working mates. Like I said, I've worked in a lot of restaurants: none of them closed on weekends because it doesn't make good business sense for most restaurants. Some of them closed on Mondays, because Monday is the chef's weekend. A wise man knows to order steak rather than seafood on a Tuesday.

If more restaurants opened on Mondays it would mean more employment, but have no bearing on penalty rates (excluding public holidays). Restaurants garner their most profits on weekends, and make less on weekdays due to decreased trade. When they close it's usually more to do with a deficiency of trade rather than a surfeit of labour costs: even on flat rates, weekdays are often so quiet in trade that restaurants can't turn a profit. They balance the ledger with the hefty profits they make on weekends. Cutting penalty rates won't change that: it doesn't make sense to open on days that you're not profitable, and they won't. They'll just make profit on some of the days that they are. But they won't employ more people unless they need more people.

The author of the article is a Senator. With his impressive salary I'm sure he gets to eat at a lot of fancy restaurants, but it is clear to me that he doesn't have the faintest clue about the actual nature of the business. A lot of people don't. I'd be at a loss to run a successful butchery, even worse as a mechanic, but probably a better Senator than some of the halfwits we have at the moment.

At an extended family gathering on a Friday recently many were commenting on how much they had enjoyed the Grand Final public holiday in Victoria. It came at the end of school holidays and the roads were packed with families heading away for the three day break. It was a virtually unanimous opinion amongst those who had gathered early that the day was a winner.

It was then that one of the other family member arrived. He and his wife own and operate over a dozen stores nation wide. They where quite irate about the extra wages they were having to fork out for the day. They toned it down a little after hearing the views of the rest of us and it was noted that they were at a family gathering while their workers were not afforded that opportunity.

However they did make a good point, even if they had wanted to close these lease arrangements in many of the big shopping complexes expressly forbids them shutting their businesses for the day.

While I am sympathetic to their predicament we are being seduced into thinking that business should be dictating our reward rates (they shouldn't be called penalty since they reward those who agree to work unsociable and non-family friendly hours).

What we seem to be intent on creating is a climate where 95% of people are adversely impacted to put more money in the pockets of the 5%.

Toni, your a chef so you will follow this.

Food cost ten plus years ago were around a third, today they are closer to 20%, there is no more room to move as eggs have hit the $8 mark.

Food costs don't change on a public hol or Sumday, unless in the case of an emergency order.

When wage costs increase by up to 200% how on earth can the business make a profit.

You also said many loose money through the week. Correct, but they also use these days for prep. So they have paid for the wages out of their own pockets, yet, when they do hit the high profit days they are forced to pay 2-3 times the wage rates.

Of cause the busier they are the more efficient they run but not that much.

Walk ins are also a huge part of the modern day restaurant, brought about by a huge increase in dining options. You would know that while you may have 60 bookings, some nights you can have more in walk ins. Considering many staff are now casual, and the law states you must advise their finishing time at the start of their shift, how can you manage that, essoecially if say a huge storm breaks.

But, support penalty rates at your peril, because unless they are changed Jonson will go because there is no room left to slash food costs.

As for closures, nit sure where you are butbthere are a few great restaurants at Southbank, they close on Sundays and PH's and that's sad.

Businesses come and businesses go. Since when has there ever been any difference. Costs of commodity rise, so you must charge more.

We can not penalize a worker to subdue cost rises. That does not make sense. Costs will continue to rise, what do you do then.

If a business can not break even over the course of a week it is only right to discontinue that business.

That has always been the case, some will survive no matter what and some demise. Contributing factors are varied and many.

To cut a persons wages, to suite costs is delaying the inevitable.

Sorry Doog, but you're wrong.

Pre Julia Gillards 'one size fits all' revamp of the awards, the awards took into account the individual needs of most industries, it's when Julia had the bright idea to bring hundreds of awards into way way less, that the problems arose. That, combined with a boom in the cafe society is what has effected hospitally and placed it into a sector that is struggling to stay afloat.

Take retail. In this sector Saturday rates are 1.25 and Sundays 1.5, which is not too bad, but with the huge shift towards Sunday shopping, these rates are also taking their toll.

Hospitality is different because their penalty rates are much higher and with eggs now at $8 each, there's not much scope for movement there.

Why on earth anyone (Julia) would bring in such changes to an industry in a huge growth spurt, amd ignore the outcome is beyond me.

Now you and anyone else can complain as much as you like and push fir no changes to penily rates, but it will be at the cost of a lot of jobs whether you like it or not.