>>I want Australian jobs, full time not casual.
I want IR to be about fairness and equity

You will never see a return to full time work again, like we had, as long as we have the trading hours that are currently in place.

Retail: Shoppers have from 8am till 9pm to shop. Then there is sundays. How can you plan a roster to suit that?

A big fotty match often means fewer customers.

An event like 911, means many are glued to their tv's as they know they can shop most nights. How can one plan for that?

Hospitallity: Many restaurants have 'elfresco dinning areas' and, when it rains people simply don't dine out as much. How can you plan for that? How can you pay 'full time staff' with little or no income?

As long as we want the shops open these hours and the restaurants there at our 'beck and call', casualisation of the workers will be here to stay.

The retail industry was very predictable and most had full time jobs.

Two thing effected this more than anything else, extended trading hours and unfair dismisal laws.

If you don't believe me, go back and find out when the full time jobs started to turn casual. You will find there is a link between these two major changes and the casualisation of the workplaces.

The building industry also went casual, only in the form of 'contractors'.

How can a builder pay full time workers to stand around on a rainy day, then, when the sun comes out they are on RDO's?

I say again, people should be paid for what they do, not for how long it takes to do it and, until this is achieved, you best get used to casual labour as in the present conditions it is here to stay.

Market forces and forced rules have brought about casual employment. You (the unions and the general public) all pushed for it but you don't like the outcome, but it is all to late.

*I have mates with butcher shops who make many times that of the PM with limmited educational backgrounds.*

Given that the PM makes around 250K and your mates make several
times that from operating a butcher shop, what kind of return is
that on capital invested? IMHO thats a ripp off and I'll stick
to buying meat at the supermarket, where their profit runs at
3% of turnover.

The majority of cattle being exported live, come from up North,
where there are no meatworks. The majority of sheep come from WA,
where we don't have your unemployment problems. In fact for years,
meatworks could simply not find the staff to operate and still today
rely on imported 457 workers.

But the real hypocracy here Rectub, is that you want to flatten
farmers by banning live exports, based on the excuse of creating
jobs. Yet 80% of cars in Australia are foreign made. So why
not ban foreign made cars, for car factories are after all where
the unemployed are. I seem to recall that you too drive an imported
car.

If you want to stop live exports, so buy the livestock in
the saleyards and slaughter them here. But of course butchers would
prefer a ban on live exports. That would dramatically drop the
price of livestock to farmers and butcher's already seemingly huge
profits, would increase even more. Greedy pigs.

Given that the PM makes around 250K and your mates make several
times that from operating a butcher shop, what kind of return is
that on capital invested? IMHO thats a ripp off and I'll stick
to buying meat at the supermarket, where their profit runs at
3% of turnover.

Acctually, one that comes to mind owns three shops, with a combined turnover of about $26 million per year and nets about 3% of that. So that blows your 'greedy butcher theory' out the door.

Furthermore, he has invested in excess of $5 million, has his balls on the line every day and, unlike the PM who has invested 'ZERO', he is finnancially and civilly liable for his actions should they result in either the failure of his policies(business) and or an injury to one of his employees if negligent.

It's a pitty our PM and his fow were not liable for their 'stuff ups' hey!

They simply come in to power, waste billions, oversee several failed projects, perhaps get voted out of office (here's hoping) and walk away with a 'life time pension' and their entire wealth intact.

Yet you take the 'tall poppy' attitude with us butchers.

Hey Banjo are you still around?
Come on back I need you!
You compared me to rechtub, do you understand just how far apart I and he are?
And have you looked at his views with the same slant as you look at mine as a trade unionist and ALP member/
No offense mate but you live in the past.
My youth was full of what turned out to be bad unionism fighting equally bad bosses.
Remember Hawk and Kieting and their actions to take power from unions?
See the near death of some unions that rely on forcing workers to join?
Compulsory unionism nearly killed unions, people thought for workers, not with them.
Radical and extreme unionism will shrink much more, unions that impose views not part of working life may well die.
But while self interest rules us all unionists in Australia and ALP members, do not think much different than you.
rechtub however , well bloke it is clear you do not see just how out of touch you are.

I put my case that saying a reform of some welfare, [see rechtub had invalids at work up the thread]is not radical.
I pay my full taxes rechtubs mate probably does not, he has enough income to pay some one to avoid it.
I am all for a fair go, some unemployed are so destroyed by it that they no longer believe in them selves, true.
Searching for work in country towns with no hope ever they will get one.
Some use welfare income to exist on never ever intending to work, hence 5% being called full employment?
My scheme ,in some cases would save money, yes income for some is more on welfare than work.
It[the idea] for some would be a stepping stone to a better job, others just as council and others in the mid 60,s would find a job they never could have forever.
Why should except failure in work outcome from such jobs?
Or failure in welfare as it is.
It was from the heart of LABOR that welfare came into existence and surely we can change it must change it.
Madness right now is we pay baby bonuses at one end then parents in numbers that will frighten you, dump the kids on grand parents or DOCs ,some quite unfit to do so run baby farms getting as much as 800 a week for one hard to handel kid?
We must never stop growing and changing for the better.

Dear Belly,
Lets talk about the common wealth of Australia and how we are going to divie it up. In the year 2008 the combined wealth produced in spending dollars was $34064.75 per person, for every man, woman and child. If we divie it up your way which is mans way apart from Gods word, you have to take into account envy, murders, drunkenness, drugs, ill health, adultery, jealousies, selfishness and no self control or self disipline, many which are against the Law and are subject to the Law. Where as if you do the divie up Gods way of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control which are not subject to any law.
As you can see if it is divided up mans way the wealth is destroyed and we are in a worse state than we started.
Now lets suppose you smoke and you burn $50 per week which is $2000+ a year + ill health in the future ( your choice ). And you read about Jesus and decide to follow his way. You give up smoking and start saving at the end of the first year you have $2200 + with interest. Then you hear Gods word on multiplication (sewing and reaping) and you take the money and rent a field and buy seed and fert and sow the seed and you trust God for the increase. you would find that for every seed you sowed you get 30, .60, or 100 fold increase.
The kingdom of god is not about eating, drinking, traditions of man or other religious thinking but an abundant life for Jesus said the truth you know will set you free. You have to "Know" the truth. Not just a passing aquaintance. We go to church as our duty and think that makes us free. Not so. Think on these words Belly.