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.