If an employer wants to employ someone for more than 38 hrs per week, or on weekends for that matter and, the employee wants to work the extra hours and, is happy to be paid at 'normal rates', why then do third parties have to become involved, which, in many cases results in the hours going to someone else, or the business not trading those extra hours.

Let's face it, overtime attracts more tax, cost the employer more money and, at the end of the day adds to the cost of goods sold or services rendered.

Now I accept there must be 'basic hourly rates' but, why penilty rates, especially when both parties agree?

Gday rechtub, knew it was you as soon as it appeared in writing.
Why
Well it happens now but within boundary's.
Some , quite a lot,of bosses are fair and good blokes.
Those who work for them are happy and well paid.
EVERY boss in the world,no exceptions, says my door is always open.
They can come and talk over issues with me any time.
The most strident of these is often the most distrusted, even hated, by his/her workers.
Bosses have no problems with them selves being represented by cambers of commerce industry groups, politicians,a host of people.
But get concerned, even abusive, if workers feel better of with their interests in other hands.
Right now I deal with the other type of good bosses.
The very much opposite.
One cut all his workers to 4 days, no consultation no anything.
He increased out puts so they work hard to do five days work in 4.
He changed pay day, cut annual leave all against laws put in place to protect workers.
The other? you heard about him, he told his workers he had agreement to not pay shift allowances overtime, he stole hundreds of dollars a week of night shift workers.
He failed Howard's fairness test, and told a lie to his workers.
Then said take it or find another job.
Those country town workers in all probability are national party voters, have for the first time in their lives asked a union for help.
Just Aussies like me or you mate.

Because the labor government knows best what all the workers want.

It sounds good in theory rehctub, but it could be abused to the point where penalty rates will no longer apply at all if these negotiated arrangements become accepted as the norm.

It depends what you think about penalty rates? I believe penalty rates came in so employers would not build up expectations for employees to work weekends as well as the usual hours per week.

Penalty rates ensured if you had to delve into personal family time you were at least paid well for it, and to discourage employers from exploiting workers with little recompense.

Belly may know more about the historical aspect.

I knew of one catering venue that had trouble getting staff to work on Sundays when they got rid of penalty rates (gratis WC). Sometimes there is justice in the marketplace but more often than not, widespread abolition of penalty rates does not provide any competition between employers of choice for workers so in effect market forces don't usually benefit workers unless you are in a specialised field.

It sort of happens anyway as Belly said, even one government employer (twice) allowed me to have day or two off during the week and work a weekend day to make it up while still only marking a weekday on my time sheet (I was a casual). This was at my request and suited both parties at that time.

So it does happen when you are dealing with mature responsible individuals but alas not all employers or employees are always fair and responsible.

I guess the real question is: Is there a place for penalty rates? If not why not, and if yes why?

Dear rehctub,

I fully agree with Pelly.

It works with mature individuals negotiating
their working conditions and fair-minded employers.
But (and it's a big but) not every employer is
fair-minded. There are employers who will take
advantage of certain situations given half a chance.
We need certain protections in place for that reason.
It's taken us this long to gain our excellent
working conditions in this country - we're the envy
of the US and other countries. We don't want to lose
what we have.

I'll agree with you rehctub, but with a few of provisos.

The first one is a fall back position if negotiations fail. This I guess start out as the current award system. In other words, the law is if the agreement isn't signed by the legislated due date, the pays must immediately revert to this fall back position until something is signed.

The second one is that these things must be re-negotiated after short time span - a year or two at most. The reason is I assume new employees would be forced to accept the already negotiated contract, so they must get an opportunity to have their say in negotiations without too large a delay.

I would expect savvy employees to appoint a negotiator rather than do it themselves. This is because the bosses are usually better negotiators than the workers because negotiating is part of their day job. I imagine the unions will try to fulfil the role of worker representative, but it could be anybody - a lawyer perhaps.

The final one is an absolute requirement for unfair dismissal laws. The reason is all the above provisions are useless if the employer can fall back to "accept this or I will sack you" or "I refuse to negotiate with anybody but you" or some other such crap.

On the flip side, there would have to be something to discourage strike action. Maybe making going strike while the current agreement is being adhered to a sackable offence under the unfair dismissal laws?

So yeah, I agree with you rehctub. But I don't think it is just as simple as you are painting it. You can't just add work place agreements to the current mix. You need to put other things in place so it can't be exploited by either side.