Belly
Would you if your income was take home under $500 a week pay near one weeks pay a year to be in a union? could you? My answer No!

Interesting point out of this is that it was the Howard government, the one that most seem to have hated, that gave these low income earners 'A CHOICE'. Joint the union, or DON'T.

Prior to this it was compusory in many work places I thought. Right or wrong?

I was a Howard supporter who felt he should have retired well before the election. In fact, my local member, who had done a wonderfull job was a victim of 'the protest vote' and that's a shame.

As for kids being paid to have kids. What a joke. This is one of Howard's gremlins that should have been berried along with work choices. But hey, at least now while they laze about at home they have a decent couch to lie on while watching their 'plasma TV'.

You and I rehctub could probably have a beer or coffee without hurting either of us but you need some updating mate.
It has not been you must be in the union or else for 20 years.
OH yes some try it on, some unions some mugs but it is against the law.
Take it from me unions while an inclusive word hides real differences one to another.
I too think Howard waited too long to go, he should have done so just after his win in 2004.
Till then even I found his reading of voters thoughts good, he is not going to be forgiven by history or his party trust me he is not.
In industrial relations it is easy to claim wage restraint will help defeat inflation.
A worker sells his/her effort and time, if we asked you to limit your price increases would you think it was fair?
say transport price rises drove your profits down and you could not fix it?
wages are as fairly earned as profit.

If this board were talking about the situation at Japanese companies where the CEO recieves a wage that is a low multiple of the wages on the factory floor then I would be more sympathetic to the argument.

However business, especially in Anglo Saxon nations, is more easily characterised by men sailing in luxury yachts while his employees get minimum wage.

If you're the owner of a small business then I feel your pain. Not enough is done to assist small and medium sized enterprises (SME) in Australia. This is par for the course unfortunately.

Firing employees, or not taking on new employees to meet increased demand should be your last option. Most CEOs say they're running a tight ship but when the CSIRO initiatives on energy saving and resource efficiency are undertaken in most companies the results are big savings.

Therefore my opinion on this matter is that you should do your job. Provide leadership and vision else what are you getting paid for?

The thread however is not about leaders.
It is about the current debate in Australia on how much we raise wages for those on minimum wages, or if we do raise that at all.
Far from leaders these folk are often in jobs that require them to leave their brains in the bucket by the door.
The thought that low income earners should shoulder the pain for others spending, to reduce inflation is both wrong and would not work in any case.
Falling house prices , share prices and credit availability will bring inflation under control and some to their knees all to soon.

Belly
Interesting to note that Easter Saturday has been deemed a 'public holiday'. Why ? No idea!

Just a few headaches caused by this ruling;
1. What was normally a day where one was paid at 1.25 time the normal rate now turns into 7.6 hrs for pub hol, then on top of this time and a half for the first 2 hours then double time there after.

So all in all almost triple time for this days trading.

2. Because shopping centers charge for extended hours trade, including pub hols we will most likely get a bill for what would normally be included within our weekly rent.

So you sit there as an employer and wonder if it is worth while opening given the fact that your staff will be the only ones getting paid.

I am not opposed to public holidays but where is the trade off.

As a unionist I would like your view on this.

Cheers

I'm for raising the minimum wage. I'm fed up to the back teeth with employees having management's sword of Chinese Damocles hanging over their head. It is so often a case of do as I say not as I do.

When I read a boss hinting at the dire consequences should the government have the temerity to raise the minimum wage I can only conclude that this is a boss who sees employees as the first cost reduction possibilities available.

I do not agree that my previous response was not relevant to the thread. The thread title itself is clearly an overt management threat, and what else is management but leadership? My point is that if, as the thread title suggests, managers/business owners see downsizing as a knee jerk reaction to rising labor costs then that is a leadership issue; indeed a leadership deficit.