Why does Pru beat about the bush. Howard asked the employers what they wanted, asked them what legal decisions they didnt like and gave it to them. Just in case anything was missed or mistakes were made, the door is left open to quickly fix it by regulation or Ministerial intervention. The punters will suffer very badly, and Pru, your mate Howard couldnt give a toss.

Hedgehog,

Of Course Ms Goward hedged around the actual issue, she is in fact employed by the Federal Government, which has now taken a leaf out of the Qld Nationals book, threatening its employees' with disciplinary action if they take part in strikes or protests vis a vis the 'Work Choices' package. This being the case, even executive level public servants must be concerned for their future employment prospects if they are too strident in their denunciation of the package.

What is most disturbing is that Ms Gowards department is one of the only checks and balances upon the new system, and her essay demonstrates that it IS effectively cowed. The other major check upon this system is the office of the employment advocate, which it turns out, does not even check agreements to determine whether they meet the vaunted statutory minima, and moreover does not have standing to intervene in such a situation. Such standing is restricted to those 'parties to the agreement', meaning that an employee may not even seek legal advice prior to accepting the AWA (NB Unions and other odies may also not intervene due to lack of standing).

This being the case, how exactly may an employee seek to impugn an AWA on the basis that it undercuts the statutory minima? Short answer, they cannot, unless they can afford to take the issue to a Federal Court, in which instance it would cost a LOT more than the $4,000 currently allocated to employees to fight unfair dismissal.

THIS IS VERY WRONG

Support Business' that supports employees and their families [see my blog]

Pru, you drop yourself down a well in your first sentence:
"I represent the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)."
That is an arrogance. You are spokesperson because the rest of the members represent the Human Rights and Equal Oportunity Commission. Otherwise there are no Equal Opportunity.
You next sentence has the word "our". If you represent the HREOC then you must use "the word "I". You speak for them, all those people who don't have equal opportunity and you are their representative.
For equal opportunity the opening sentence;
"I am the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's representative in putting forward their case for human rights." In thsi world, there are no human rights Pru. Why? Because people won't listen to arrogant statements that show there are no human rights for others than the leader.

Well, I think Ms Goward is a handsome woman who wrote a solid piece: she simply outlined what most serious analysts of the IR changes have been saying for a long time.

Attacking the woman or the body she works for is a bit of a waste of time: what she has said is fair comment and she paints a reasonable picture of the fate awaiting many employees.

I am not interested ,in the howard government and its IR legislation,all workers know,they are not idiots,that this is a John Howard con job,and his pipe dreams,but we all know that his mates in THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,is the master mind behind this workplace reforms,they demanded of him to put into practise,what he always wanted to do,and that was to destroy the unions,and then to return australian workers back to the days,of master and servant working conditions,he now has done that by directly,taking away their hard fought for working conditions,hoping that by doing it this way,unions will just fade away,but John Howard and the BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,who are still running their CRAP TV adverts in line with the John Howard version of why we need reform in the workplace,will be able to sit back on their fat behinds,just doing nothing,but thinking of more profit,for them and their shareholders,the rich 5% parasites,and can now be assured of more profit,at the expense of the workers,it will not last,time and will is on the side of the unions,and that is not far away,John Howard will soon be history,the signs are there,that this coalition government,has had its use by date.

Sneaky,

'HREOC does not wish to disagree with the factual outcomes regarding existing Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) released by the government...'

This tends to suggest that Ms Goward accepts as proven fact the Government's version of the outcomes of AWA's. This means that she 'refutes' (Yes, I know I did use it AGAIN) out of hand the claims, and the evidence supporting them, presented to the Senate inquiry by the unions, the ACTU and various individuals, which demonstrate the issues I outlined above. We are also expected to accept the Government's position that Mr Howards record on this subject is untainted, yet real wages and outcomes for Victorian Workers did in fact decline, despite Mr Howard promising that Victorian Workers would not be worse off.

Ms Gowards suggestions therefore, and her failure to examine the evidence regarding the unfairness and discriminatory effect of AWA's in the past, are flawed. AWA's will not be any more discriminatory, or cause greater infringement of employees rights in the future than they have in the past.

PS Sneaky as an aside, I reserve the right to bamboozle those attempting to hijack a serious argument, when they have nothing more to offer than a demonstration of their verbal/literal/typological incontinence and their concomittant logical/rational incompetence.

PPS Do you really think that 'preclude' is worse than 'contumelious'? ;-D

Sneekypete, Pru might in your eyes be "a handsome woman" beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The article still beats about the bush and plays at the edges. The laws are just plain bad and one sided. Stop this crap about some workers having new oppurtunities. The old laws never stopped employers giving pay rises, these laws are there to reduce wages and conditions,plain and simple.

AARON <<This being the case, how exactly may an employee seek to impugn an AWA on the basis that it undercuts the statutory minima?>>

If possible, could you tie this down to chapter and verse in the legislation ? As far as I can see, it is still being debated and is in a state of flux.

I responded to your blog, I guess u have seen it now.

Rather than defend or oppose the policies of the current government, which by the way is not my 'preferred' model by any means, I would like to point out a few things which I think would be worth persuing simply as issues of justice, rather than any 'workers' this or that.

1/ A PEOPLES BANK (like the Bank Bumiputera in Malaysia) which does not spend its days thieving from a captive and defenceless customer base and adding fees and charges as they feel.

2/ O'SEAS EXPORTING OF JOBS
Restrictions on the number and nature of overseas outsourced jobs.
If clerical/back office and IT as well as manufacturing (and its associated feeders of engineering and components etc) are going, what is left ?

3/ SELECTIVE PROTECTION of manufacturing on the basis of 'just wage parity' from China especially. There is absolutely no merit in the argument that 'inefficient australian businesses cannot expect protection' because even the EFFICIENT and highly automated ones are threatened. They have to pay the capital expense of machinery, but the Chinese just add a hundred low paid slaves to perform the same thing but with less consistency and poorer quality.

I applaud your 'family friendly' initiative and think you might find significant support from Steve Fielding, but only if it is genuinely 'family' based and not 'union' based.

A PROPHETIC WORD FROM THE BIBLE.
Isaiah the prophet, rebuked King Hezekiah who foolishly showed the Babylonians the treasures of Israel, Isaiah told him they will come and take the lot, but not in his lifetime. He felt pretty 'ok' with that. I think we have many politicians (left and right) who think like Hezekiah .... about our economic future.

Pru, personally I would like to hear more about the "winners" under the new ir laws, I can find plenty of losers. As David Boaz points out the export of jobs is a loss for Australia, coupled with the expected lowering of Australian workers income. I enjoy my family time, we have a small close knit family, I expect a lot of Christians are dreading the day they are asked to work on Sunday for 12 hour shifts, and many other workers with special interests and/or a passion for family time will similarly be affected. As sex driscrimination commissioner, it worries me that women will be more affected than men, as men have a continuity of work, can also specialise in the trades without having time off to have babies. I really do despair for low paid unskilled workers, especially those in rural and regional areas, where perhaps only 1 or 2 major employers exist e.g. the recent closure of rural call centres by Telstra, where will these people find alternative employment, and at what rate of pay, and with what conditions? I have a passion for the welfare of my fellow Australians, whether they are able to work or not. A great many of whom are unable to negotiate a contract with an employer on their own, and with the virtual outlawing of the workers associations, the unions, all does not look rosy. Before I am howled down, may I say that Unions are like police, one or two reckless individuals create a lot of suspicion for the whole organisation, to demonstrate this, could someone advise me when the ASU {MY FORMER UNION} last called a wildcat strike, as I cannot remember one. They are merely organisations, much like THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA, WHO SEEK TO REPRESENT THEIR MEMBERS BEST INTERESTS.I had a lot of support from my union when times were difficult for me, they had my best interests at heart, and I will always appreciate their kindness.

When real wages drop the economy will be in a freefall. It is simple maths, as there is less money in the system and less time to spend the economy must slow.
Another thought for those in the big end of town is with the IR changed to the federal power base, what will happen if a strong left govt gains power

Aka,

Are you anticipating a contraction of M0. Otherwise what do you mean by less money in the system. And what does that have to do with anything anyhow.

I suspect that you are making up your economics as you go along.

Regards,
Terje.

I am not sure why paid maternity leave is regarded by some as some type of sacred human right. If you can't afford to have kids then don't. If you are well paid then save for that year off. Actually save for a few years off because raising kids is time consuming and demanding

Who are the winners and losers?
Pru Goward's long monologue could have been editored down to two of her sentences:
"Allowing employers to make employment conditional on an employee taking up an AWA, for example, means that the choice of employment arrangements, especially for those on minimum wages, is extremely limited. The consequences are felt not only by workers but by their children and families."
That above is exactly what the Federal Labor government and the ACTU are saying.
Who are the winners and losers?
The winners are the employers. The losers are families.
If anyone else can interpret Pru's sentences any other way please write in on just how you interpret the heavy sentence on families. Isn't the last catchcry; "Put Family First". The families did and gave the Howard government toatl power of the Senate.
Pru's last line is:
"A society is only as stable and strong as its most fragile."
Does Pru really, and truly believe that sentence as Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
Therefore this nation Australia is no stronger than an Aboriginal baby of one minute old at birth.
When Pru Goward believes that Australia's human rights are so weak and no stronger as a Third World Country we need a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and a new Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Australia was a lot stronger under a Federal Labor government with a strong and virile ACTU.

I reckon there's a really easy solution to all the political argy bargy. Let's call it the End of WorkChoices Plan (or the Peter Reith Was a Wuss Plan).

Basically it is the end-game for the plan proposed by John Howard and all his ilk on the right-wing end of politics. I reckon we should skip all the bull, because this is what John Howard REALLY WANTS (the REAL agenda) is;

1. Abolish all benefits to all workers immediately. (John Howard is working on this one as I write).
2. Those who object to this, should be sacked immediately. They can try to find the money to fight a court case for "unlawful dismissal".
3. Immediately coerce (did I say that!) remaining employees into signing Australian Workplace Agreements that are internationally competitive; where pay rates will be matched with, and pegged to, those equivalent workers in India (and paid in Rupees) or China (and paid in Yuan).
4. Anyone who doesn't sign an AWA will be sacked, and referred to point 2 above.
5. Offer jobs to any/all of the following:
(a) sacked workers who have since applied to Centrelink (who will be refused unemployment benefits unless they take the job at the internationally competitive pay rates on offer);
(b) migrants who aren't used to prior working conditions
(c) Single parents or disabled people who can't afford not to accept work, since they will have to work for a pittance or get nothing.
(d) any other worker in the world who will work for the internationally competitive pay rates on offer.
6. Use the highest and lowest wages differential of the Americas (i.e. between large corporate CEO salary and Guatamalan peasant) as a benchmark. Aim to quadruple the spread by 2008.
7. Anyone who complains about the government will be imprisoned for sedition or as a suspected terrorist.

As a result of the above HOWARD Plan, those who are left will:

1. Be referred to Centrelink who will refer them to 5(a) above.
2. If unsuccessful, apply to nearest Charity (Smith Family/ St Vincent de Paul/ Salvation Army) who will be overwhelmed and under funded.
3. Sell children to business owner who wants to provide employment for "youth unemployed" or Work for Lower than the Dole Scheme. Promised to provide food (bread and water) & board (straw mattress in the Toilet block)in exchange for 7 days work a week.
4. Take up residence in nearest cardboard box (Kings Cross is full now).
5. Wonder whether it is worth continuing to live.

Exclusions to this plan are:

1. Sick, injured, infirm, old or mentally ill. They are not economically viable "production units" (see Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged; speech by John Galt) and should be eliminated immediately. Suggest they be "released into the community" and/or incarcerated in a prison. Another possible alternative is the Auschwitz solution (Arbeit Macht Frei rule) for all.
2. Executives. They supply the capital and need to concentrate is at much as possible in the hands of the fewest. Hence the need to lower wages and conditions.
3. Politicians. These guys help re-engineer the society which will keep all the production units in full production.

Cheers,
Have a Merry Christmas

BOAZ_David,

I have written the proposal for the approval of the ACTU, and as such I have had to identify the aims of, and issues affecting that council, and have directed the ‘draft’ proposal toward these. The reason for failing to include non-union employees’ (and employer’s thereof), is that thanks to the latest round of amendment the ACTU and constituent unions, no longer have any standing to represent their interests. This has resulted in a somewhat divisive response, however this is inevitable when faced with a divisive policy. I would welcome suggestions on how to avoid this divide, however significant legislative provisions hamper this (nb divide & conquer).

I am interested however in gaining further information as to what would be required in order to gain support from Mr Fielding, as this approach would harness a considerable market force, with the capacity to influence policy irrespective of the colour of the Government of the day.

PS Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Act 2005, s.170MM
This section precludes those who are not party to a protected action taking part in a protected action (and precludes any action by those not actually party to the AWA [including unions] being involved at all, prior to its being signed).

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/08090502.pdf

{This looks almost above board, however according to the Senate Committee into AWA’s was provided with evidence of the effect of similar provisions in the Victorian and WA versions}

Also see submissions to the Senate investigation into AWA’s;

(LHMU Submission)
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub020.pdf

CFMEU Submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub016.pdf

Professor Andrew Stewarts Submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/indust_agreements/submissions/sub012.pdf

PPS I also invite you to read, mainly for the religious and academic viewpoints (which for once almost concur);

Anglican Diocese of Sydney;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub202.pdf

Uniting Church, NSW Synod;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub130.pdf

Joint Submission from 151 Legal Academics;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub175.pdf

Catholic Church;

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub110.pdf
&
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub110a.pdf

I know it is a lot of reading, however it does illustrate my point.

Terje,
The remark about less money in the system I presume means if you lower people's wages, or frighten them into thinking their wages may be lowered, or their jobs less secure, they will cut their spending. If they cut their spending that will have an impact on the economy, on the very businesses who are negotiating lower wages or less job security, causing them to put more downward pressure on employees wages and conditions - becoming a self fulfilling downward cycle.
As for the throw away about if you can't afford kids don't have them; an economy without future purchasers, or with a shrinking number of future buyers is not going to be a healthy one. It is in all our interests -including businesses - that women continue to have children. If we make it too hard for them to do so, they will either stop altogether or limit the size of their families. We live in a whole society and everything we do in it impacts on everything else. Confident customers with money they are happy to spend is the first pre-requisite for any healthy economy, without that, we have nothing.

Terje,

”I am not sure why paid maternity leave is regarded by some as some type of sacred human right. If you can't afford to have kids then don't.”

If this was 1975 and not 2005 then I would have agreed with you - but it's not. There’s this theory that our population is aging – you may have heard of it.

If child bearing is reserved for only those who can afford to live off one wage then our society and economy would crumble. I don’t think that small businesses should have to grant payed maternity leave, but as for the larger businesses who can afford it - think of payed maternity leave as an investment in the future.

Besides, I don’t see why the rich should be the only ones with the right to bear children. They already have everything that money can buy. Sometimes family is the only thing the less-fortunate-in-life have in this world. Take that away and what have they got?

...Nothing.

Enaj,

So if you cut taxes then people will spend more and the economy will be better off.

Your analysis is superficial. If wages really did fall then either shareholders would get richer (and spend more) or the price of goods would get cheaper.

No doubt there will be winners and losers. I suspect that the winners will be employees who work smart and have a good attitude. I suspect the losers will be employees who slack off and have a bad attitude.

However I don't think the reforms represent a zero sum game. I think there will be far more winners than losers.

Regards,
Terje

Terje'
I am with you. Increase taxes and people will be better off. Let's not be superficial.
Any system that has built into it that there should be losers is a terrible system.
Losers in a system increase costs in the economy. They lose their job, go and get drunk, bash the wife and get high blood pressure and have heart attacks and die.
And all that increases cost on the economy and the Health system that has just been saved by firing the poor bloke. The IR system must have been invented by a politician who can't think beyond his desk.
With this IR system we are going like "The Apprentice" TV series.
'You're Fired' The winner gets a million dollars and the loser gets nothing. So he jumps off a cliff. Who cares? Not the politicians.

Terje,
With GlenWriter, I reckon any system that accepts losers with a callous I'm alright Jack, shrug of the shoulders is pretty superficial. We are all winners and losers, none of us are exclusively one or the other and we forget this at our peril.
Decreasing taxes is fine, spreading fear amongst consumers about the security of their (or their kids) jobs is not and will effect the economy. Its called "consumer confidence" and I believe even the hardest nosed economic rationalists take it into account.
Politicians often seem to forget that the economy is not made up of employees, employers, consumers, parents and voters, nicely and neatly seperated from one another. They are all the same people, affect one part of their life and you affect them all.

Terje

Your analysis fails to take into account input costs other than wages. Let's postulate this case: wages fall, fuel rises dramatically. The additional cost of transport, power and a host of other input costs directly or indirectly influenced by the fuel price means
(1) the price of goods stays the same, or rises;

(2) shareholders feel no benefit from the fall in wage inputs, and don't spend more;

(3) workers have no chance of becoming shareholders, as their income has decreased and their expenditure remained constant, or, given the additional cost in travelling to work, actually risen, thus precluding discretionary purchases like equities.

No amount of "working smart" will make any difference to that, will it? And what does "working smart" actually mean, by the way?

Please good people don't try to tell Terje anything, he is the possessor of all knowledge, or thinks he is. Also by his reference above to "bad attitude" he actually means a worker with the audacity to speak up for him/her self. Terje, is a control freak, hell bent on keeping the "little man" down, re other posts in other places. These arogant human beings don't tend to recognise that the rest of us know at least as much as he thinks he knows, if not more, they are a dangerous breed that believe that "they are the pinnicle" and we merely the floor sweepers. Everyone has the right to have children, children are our future, our society must make sure we can afford to reproduce, Terje apparently believes we can import alliens to buy the wares of small business, as only the well healed should be able to reproduce, is it me is there a striking similarity to this attitude, and that of our old mate, Adolf Hitler.....

Shonga,

Do you know about "Godwin's Law". Let me provide a reference:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

For the record I have no inclination towards genocide or racial bigotry. It was before my time, however both my parents lived in countries that were invaded and occupied by the Nazis. Some of my relatives died in concentration camps because they joined the resistance movement.

When I read your characterisation of me as being like Hitler I felt inclined towards saying "go to hell". However on reflection I think I will just forgive you and move on. Your personal attack is obviously just part of a dysfunctional habit. You may not be aware that attacking people on a personal level is a pretty ineffective way to engage either their mind or their heart. I won't demand an apology however I would like one.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671723650/qid=1134123779/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2409905-3238551?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Enaj,

It seems to me that the main people spreading fear with regards to IR reform are in the union movement. I agree that this is unfortunate, however we live in a democracy and over the long haul "free speech" is far more important than "consumer confidence".

Dire predictions of economic recession as a result of the current IR legislation is pure hyperbole.

Regards,
Terje.

I would like to add a few points from my perspective. I have chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (incurable terminal cancer) and due to the wisdom of centrelink I am deemed to be able to work 15 hrs per week. Thus I am on a Newstart Allowance. If a job network service finds me a job I have to take it no matter what the pay and conditions are. It is also deemed reasonable that I should drive 90km to Brisbane to perform this work.

Lowering taxes does not lower the amount of tax the Govt. collects in fact the Govt. collects approx the same no matter how it lowers taxes.

The existing IR laws are flauted by employers and the news ones tip the scales to their advantage.

Unions are 1 among many organisations that opposed these laws not he main one, what about the Qld State National Party's opposition.

I worked smart all my life only to be stricken by chronic illness at 51, now I have become a dole bludger!! in the eyes of some.

Terje, You and I don't see eye to eye on many things, however I promise you an apology, when you catergoricly state that all of mankind has the right to reproduce, and reverse your earlier post that said if they can't afford children, don't have them. That is the same general policy Hiltler had, concerning the Jews, he didn't want them to reproduce, you just choose a different catergory of people, the low paid Australian worker. The theme is the same, unlike some others in this place who I agrue with, I believe you to be a reasonablt intellegent person, and sometimes find difficulty understanding how or why you arrive at the views you do. Maybe it could be that I am in touch with my femine side and love life, women, have compassion for my fellow man, believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and above all I believe in the old Australian way "everyone should have a fair go" sadly as stated on other themes, I get a bit carried away, when confronted with ideas I find repugnant, and I do mapologise for that much.

QUOTE: ... all of mankind has the right to reproduce, and reverse your earlier post that said if they can't afford children, don't have them.

RESPONSE: Shonga you have made a leap of logic in infering that I am denying people their rights.

I never suggested that we sterilise people or that we criminalise reproduction without a licence. I am not advocating a law, I am merely advocating a decision that I think people should choose for themselves. I think it is a compassionate position to take. If you can't afford to have kids, but you do anyway, then both you and the kids will suffer. Hence to avoid suffering on both counts it is wise to not have kids if you can't afford them.

In my view children are not an entitlement to be argued over. They are individuals humans who deserve to be treated with respect and nurtured.

I agree that it is everybodies right to produce babies that they have no capacity to nuture. However doing so seems really callous to me.

QUOTE: That is the same general policy Hiltler had, concerning the Jews, he didn't want them to reproduce, you just choose a different catergory of people, the low paid Australian worker.

RESPONSE: Hitler kill Jews in massive numbers. He forced them (at gun point) into concentration camps and then gassed them to death.

Hitler spoke German, so maybe we can characterise all Germans as being like Hitler. Hitler was against pollution, so maybe we can characterise all environmentalists as being like Hitler. Hitler was in favour of wage regulation so maybe we can characterise Kim Beazley as being like Hitler.

My point is that by comparing me to Hitler you are being ridiculuos. I have never advocated the gassing of anybody or the extermination of any group of people.

QUOTE: ... unlike some others in this place who I agrue with, I believe you to be a reasonablt intellegent person, and sometimes find difficulty understanding how or why you arrive at the views you do.

RESPONSE: A lesson on empathy then. You will have trouble understanding other people if you rush to characterise them as being like Hitler.

QUOTE: ... and love life, women, have compassion for my fellow man, believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and above all I believe in the old Australian way "everyone should have a fair go"

RESPONSE: Things I agree entirely with.

I don't know but perhaps you see compassion as meaing going soft on people and giving them lots of things for free. Personally, because I respect people, I am more inclined to see things like a sporting coach might. Which is that when you are tough on people and help them achieve their best you actually give them more dignity than they would have if you simply left them on the sideline.

To me extolling the idea that people who can not afford to raise kids should go ahead and have them anyway is like extolling the virtues of driving on the road with your eyes shut. Either way people are going to get hurt and washing your hands and say "I was just defending peoples rights" is a bit shallow.

I defend peoples right to do all manner of stupid things (taking illicit drugs, committing suicide, driving without a seat belt, having unprotected sex with a prostitute etc). However I don't extoll the virtues of doing so.

Freedom is a great thing, but to be truely free you must own the consequences as well as the choices. To own the latter without the former is not freedom at all.

And if people do make stupid choices in life I don't think that everybody else should be automatically obligated to bail them out.

If this means you think I am without compassion then you have a view of things that is very different to me.

The lady speaks from a public service mentality, where over staffing by a factor of 5 is normal. She comes from an atmosphere where responce times are measured in months.
I would like to see her in a small business, where, not only responce, but action is often required in minutes. In this atmosphere, most of the staff have specialised knowledge, or duties, indispensable to the hourly running of the business. The staff thrive on knowing they are important, & valued. Part time staff is just not a viable option where customer service is a must.
It is pity that so many influential positions are filled by people with this mind set.