It wasn't a personal attack, rehctub - I just think it's a bit rich for you to be wanting the government to subsidise your unskilled employees' wages.

Dear CJ
With the greatest of respect I think you 'Just Don't Get It'. It is not me who wants government’s help as I don't employ any of these low paid workers, I simply fear for their survival in the future as there are little incentives for employers (NOT ME) to employ them when they have to be paid a minimum wage without assistance.

You see once a minimum wage is set an employer (NOT ME) has little choice other than to keep sifting through the workers until they find one who is what they consider as 'value for money'. This is where unfair dismissal plays a part as it becomes difficult to pick and choose the employees without interference. After all, the employees can pick and choose their place of work, so why shouldn't the employer have the same rights as such when it comes to picking their staff?

Ever wondered why some people are classed as ‘long term unemployed’. It’s because often they are unemployable or rather, ‘not value for money’ employees when the employer has to pay a minimum wage.

You will no doubt agree with 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' and who wouldn't. Well how about a 'fair days work for that fair days pay', or doesn't this apply?

You see once you set a minimum wage you then have the situation whereby often workers get paid for the time it takes to do the job rather than for the job they do.

How often do you see someone go to work and finish yesterdays work before they start today’s. But hang-on, haven't they already been paid for yesterdays work. Or is this somehow different?

continued

Continued
On the other hand, If you are one who sees nothing wrong when there are three people supervising a 'hole dig' at a job site, all on good money and doing absolutely nothing, then we should agree to disagree and move on as we have nothing in common.

It is work practices like these that have helped fuel the ever increasing costs we bear during our every day lives as employment costs are simply added to the cost of the job when completed and passed on.

As long as there is a set minimum hourly wage, without regard to productivity then we will never have a fair system and, without government support, the low achieving workers, often through no fault of their own at times, will find themselves at the bottom of the scrap heap and I feel this is a crying shame because a little assistance from the governments could make all the difference to the situation and their self esteem.

"Now Ginx, you have ran free in every thread without censorship I ask for the same freedom in this our last conversation.
You have insulted some one in every thread I have ever found you in now it is my turn.
I have no mental health issues sometimes we must look to ourselves before we point at others, honestly wish you well in your battle but beg you to consider your constant uncontrolled anger, bad manners and need to insult good by from me Ginx."

Posted by Belly, Monday, 31 March 2008 6:39:02 AM
_____________________________

THAT is what I mean by petty!

If you keep sniping, and that IS your habit when you get offended;-I WILL respond.

Can I remind you that YOU chose to make a sniping remark when I wasn't even addressing you! You finally use the spineless tactic of pointing out my terrible sins on the forum!!

Of course, NO ONE on OLO has EVER insulted anyone else...have they?

(....it's OK. when it's the boy's club isn't it?)

You have passed considerable views on me. I called you petty. You are. But now I'll elaborate: you are one of those silly types who think you can insult with impunity if you couch your words in 'friendship' and 'honesty'. And then you get offended at the negative reaction!

Glod spare me the sugar-coated personality!

You will no doubt agree with 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' and who wouldn't. Well how about a 'fair days work for that fair days pay', or doesn't this apply?
Rehctub,
This is exactly my point. Reward for effort not reward for just being there. I have no objection to someone (I wish I could) getting good academic qualifications but, if this qualification is not in demand then what's the good of it ? It's like art. If your art is good then you make a living from it. Should be as simple as that. Right ? Wrong ! If you're not good enough to sell your stuff then you hit onto the government for a grant. I wonder if a "menial task" worker can hit onto the Government for a grant because he has no talent to use a shovel. There needs to be a balance in the pay rates according to usefulness & not uselessness. I mean on one hand a consultant can demand as much as he likes for a pointless idea whereas a labourer has to work phyisically hard for peanuts to make the consultant's pointless idea a workable outcome.

Long term unemployed may well be a different problem for a different thread rehctub.
Some will feel confronted by my view but many who are such do not want a job.
A very long time ago it was said the idea of minimum wages would bankrupt employers.
It was wrong then it is wrong now, we are not broken by fuel prices over twice what they had been ten years ago and wages increases will not get near that.
Let me assure you skills do have nothing to do with work out comes we would return more to the economy if we controlled CEO wages than the already poor.

Individual, your comment…
I wonder if a "menial task" worker can hit onto the Government for a grant because he has no talent to use a shovel.

Well yes, it’s called the dole!

Your next comment…
There needs to be a balance in the pay rates according to usefulness & not uselessness. I mean on one hand a consultant can demand as much as he likes for a pointless idea whereas a labourer has to work phyisically hard for peanuts to make the consultant's pointless idea a workable outcome.

A basic labourer today, many unskilled, earns $34.50 per hour working on the QLD gateway bridge upgrade. Do you call this ‘peanuts’?

Prior to the ‘construction boom’ many of them were out of work and those who did work probably earned around $15 per hour.

Double rates within 10 years

My view is that it is a simple case of ‘supply and demand’ within the construction industry.

If I am right, how can this be. Where is the balance in a pay rise in excess of 100% in less than 10 years simply due to a labour shortage.

Let’s face it, if one can demand ridiculous wage rates in ‘boom times’, then surely an employer has the right to negotiate low rates in ‘tough times’ without the fear of interference from ‘big brother’ hey?

You make reference to balance.

Please explain where the balance is when you have a ‘bottom rate’ (minimum wage) but no top rate?

I would also remind you that we all pay for this as the construction cost adds to the ‘toll fee’, or at the very least an extension of the toll fee period.

Belly
Long term unemployed may well be a different problem for a different thread rehctub.
Some will feel confronted by my view but many who are such do not want a job.

At the risk of re-igniting the ‘boys club opponent’ I couldn’t agree more!

Someone else can start this one.