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.

the Labour party knows that one of its main financiers and recruiting grounds (unions) would be out of business very quickly if commonsense prevailed. As simple as that.

SM
Premature Easter gardening I see....spreading old BS.

Runner
So that people didn't work on god's day? You are right runner there is nothing simpler that slavery.
All
If Companies move to poor countries where they can dictate appalling rates, conditions, and corporations buy from these exploited workers. You can believe that given the opotunity to cut rate here they would.

However, the problem with unions is the same once their intitial reason to exist is fulfilled they need to keep pushing the boundaries to exist.

Rstuart is right it is a far more complex than SM& runner would have it. Maxim, If it looks simple when people are involved, then 1 of 2 scenarios apply.
1- you're asking the wrong question.
2- You're kidding yourself.

I am not suggesting anyone should be forced to work without penilty rates. All I am saying is, if an employee wants to work extra hours and, the employer is willing to give those hours, at normal rates, then why can't this happen. After all, the hours go to someone, why not the loyal employee who works there full time every week.

After all, anyone in the hospitality or retail sector struggles to make ends meet on the regular 9-5, 38 hours per week.

Of cause we all know it already happens in many cases, it's just that it is 'uner the table' stuff. Cash money, which, when you think about it, is depriving the every day tax payer. The less one pays in taxes, the more others have to.

Now by all means, let the unions go in to bat for those who are being forced into a corner, but why can't they just leave those alone who are happy with their arrangements.

*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.*

Ah Foxy, but you have a little problem there. For every
job that is created, somebody has to invest to create it.
Things are so good for employees in Australia, that the
place is destined to be little then a mine and a farm.
Entrepreneurs in most other industries, will look at
those great working conditions and go somewhere else.

Australia rode on the sheep's back for years, eventually
the old sheep collapsed. Now its on the back of iron ore
and coal. That is fine whilst China booms, but if China
sneezes, things might well change quite quickly.

So thank your lucky stars that your great lifestyle is
bankrolled by globally efficient industries. For most
of Australia, exists by sucking on their teats. If they
land up in trouble, what will you fall back on?

Yabby, not quite true old mate.
AWAs under Howard often by over sea,s firms had no union involvement.
And little workers, often nil,
Yet wages in mining set by bosses are very good.
People employ people to make money, not for social benefit.
And we must stop confusing our fears about unions/wages/workers/ employers are driven by self interest.
So very often ,many , understand that is best served by looking after an asset workers .
Even today, construction contractors, international giant firms, want only Greenfield's agreements.
I dislike them.
But have no choice.
Firms invite unions to sit down, before workers are employed for a project, with no worker input, and do an agreement for that project.
The very best firm, owned over seas but having a great Australian name, has without in put from unions, offered 5% a year increase each of 3 years.
So we do have different things happening, but lets not forget workers are hired to make profit for employers not gifted with jobs.

Belly, Yabby os right on the money, yet, the likes of you simply can't, or won't accept it.

You say>> but lets not forget workers are hired to make profit for employers not gifted with jobs.

What a load!

Many workers today only have a job because of the mining boom, as many 'top notch' workers have been lured to these lucritive mining jobs, meaning the vacancies left have to be filled, often by underachievers or low grade/skilled workers.

Without such a boom, many of these so called 'employees' would be jobless as a vast majority of them are either 'useless' or are simply turning up knowing they are needed because many employers have little option other than to hire them. Often it becomes a 'best of the worst' senario.

Cast your mind back to the late 90's. Many tradesmen couldn't get work, mainly becasue they were USELESS! Since the mining boom began, many of them have plenty of work, drive nice trucks and have a life.

Why, the mining boom!

Proof of this is evident in the amount of training organisations that have popped up so that workers can be constantly trained in trivial matters.

Even the trainers themselves are often useless, but those organisations are faced with the same problems, best of the worst.

Foxy, I am not talking about erroding pay rates, or saving something we have faught so hard to achieve, rather, I am talking about when a worker wants to work more hours and an employer wants that staff member to work those hours, outside intervention gets in the way so both parties loose.

The end result, these paid hours often go underground.

There are people quite happy to work 9-5 38 hrs per week and good on them, I have no beef with that, but there are also people wanting to work more hours, in the same job and they can't, because the likes of you lot have to become involved to determine their fait.

Why can't you lot just protect the ones who want protecting and leave the others alone.

WHY?

rechtub it is you who are wrong often in fact.
is it that you do not read and understand? or do not want to?
Let us run this test.
A butcher comes to town, he has never thought much of you, has a bit more cash too.
Builds a swank shop just over the road.
Has a plan, he will take your trade and buy out your empty shell cheap.
Pays a few dollars more changers far less.
He takes you staff first then your customer's, still want open slather in wages and conditions?
Queensland may have poor tradesmen, I doubt it, but you plucked that mining boom bought training thing out of fantasy land.
Surely my red necked mate you know why we imported so many skilled workers during the boom?
However you hearten ME, every post, I truly, honestly, think you defeat your self every time.
Have a great Easter, promise we are eating red meat, in fact Australia's best food bar b B Q sausages twice a day onions melted butter what better food exists?

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

Just as the Liberal government knew best what the employers wanted.

And your point was?

Let's not stop at sticking to those penalty rates.

Why not include paid Public Holidays, Sick leave, Annual Leave and all those other ENTITLEMENTS that were AGREED over the years.

All of these are already factored into the cost of every good and service we pay for and represent a non-wage component of existing employment conditions.

If workers hand back these conditions, will employers pass the savings onto consumers?

Not likely - straight into the back pocket is my guess.

Would they use it to employ more workers?

Even less likely, considering they just got the existing ones to do the same amount of work (or more) for less.

Employment is a factor of market demand - not expense.

The problem with one-off individual agreements is that they are usually confidential and possibly exploitative in some way.

Make the individual agreements public and there should be no problem.

@rehctub: Why can't you lot ... leave the others alone.

Because you want the rules changed, but that change doesn't just effect you. It effects all of us. You may think the most attractive thing a person could do on a weekend is work in your business, but you must realise not everyone will agree with you.

As usual you are looking at what you will get out of it, and ignoring or denying how that change might effect others.

rechtub does indeed want it all his way.
right now in hospitality and other jobs illegal migrants work for almost nothing.
Just lets revisit rechtubs new opposition.
He/she remember is right over the road, has flats above filled with such migrants,pays $5 a day wages.
Sells his/her snags half the price of our butcher.
How long rechtub before you ring me? get over here Belly we need you to fix this.
Happened every week bloke bosses are often more work than members.

Belly, I understand what you are talking about with the 'illegal labour thing', but, I am not refering to that at all. In any case, these illegals simply don't have the skills required to make it in my industry.

In my industry people often work 60 or 70 hours per week and much of it is paid in cash. The retail fruit industry is similar.

This happens largely becasue of a shortage of skilled workers and, it is hard to find regular, skilled, weekend casuals.

Do you really think this is right?

You will never stop it as long as there are penilty rates for every day trading, like Saturdays and Sundays.

Rump steak sells for say $18 per kilo, Mon to Fri.

Would you be happy to pay extra on weekends?

It costs more to sell it to you. 1.25% loading on Sat and 1.5% on Sun. This is of cause if Sat & Sun are part of the 38 hour week.

But, if you give your regular staff 2 days off during the week and work them on weekends, who does the prep work in rediness for the weekend?

This is why I say that if people want to work up to 70 hours per week, on normal hours, why can't they. After all, they will be better off than they are now, as they simply miss out under the current system, or get paid cash.

As an example, let's say workers 'net' $18 per hour.

So $18 x 38 = $684.

Now on the other hand, if they chose to work 70 hours, at normal rates, then that's 70 hours at $18 per hour = $1260.

That's $576 more per week, or an increase of 84%.

BTW, 70 hours nets around $1200 to $1400 now, depending on ones skills, only it's 'under the table' wages so every else looses.

Even worse, many are being paid huge money and, receiving benefits from the government, becasue they are listed as 'low income earners'.

So much for outsider intervention.

Like most things, you over regulate and it goes underground.

Rechtub, would you sell your product for less than its market value.
I truly pay more to buy better, not the big shops a butcher who knows my name.
It costs more, you tell of mates who make 3 times our PMs wages.
Your wage structure is well below par in NSW, Butchers like top quality mechanics, are paid less than market prices.
I have a mate, 25 years in your trade, he grew sick of being paid so little.
I got him a job, in traffic control, he brings $22.60 an hour normal time home, casual, but works 65 hours a week.
His only product is his work and time, he is meeting market forces banking money and his boss? 10% profit on every dollar he pays clear.
His boss employs 1500 people in this state.

...Rechtub and how easy for owners or managers of businesses to start 'expecting' their employees to say 'yes' to working extra hours on weekends after the initial couple of times are agreed upon mutually.

"Oh Joe, are you fine to work the next couple of weekends, you know, it would save me paying penalty rates to a casual this month, more money in the pocket for you Joe, and lol of course benefits my business".

Joe scratches his head concerned about his wife going through chemotherapy at home with their two toddlers and no extended family around. Then Joe thinks about his job security to support his wife and kids. Weighs it up and knows that butcher positions in his city or town are difficult to find.

"Sure Rechtub can do".

we are unique I truly value and admire your input.
My task as a unionist is never easy, some past events and people I never even knew are heavy weight in my saddle bags.
One day, I Am positive, unions will dump the miss deeds of a few and the wild some times untrue, past sins.
Some times they happened, I will not ever forget or forgive waterside workers banning mail to soldiers serving in the Asian war.
Human beings, the bloke on the next green at golf,the next seat at the football, are unionists to.
Some will never be rich, some will not waste income as rechtub tells, many will.
But their product, their existence, is work.
Remember their boss is no Charity he/she employs them to profit.
One day the value of weekends with wife and kids will be seen as it once was a real existing thing that can not be bought by cash.
As we want 24 hour trading, we do, who was annoyed by no shops on Easter.
We must plan to truly reward those who work those days and give up being at the footy with the kids.
If I was rechtubs workers rep, I would first sit down with them.
Find out who if any did not mind working most weekends, for a better reward.
Number those who did not /could not work such hours.
Some, hard good workers, want that home are saving for it and would hold their hand up to offer those weekends ,for the cash, value such rechtub reward them keep them but family lifestyle and social life is not yours to buy at any price.

we are unique,
We can all refer to the .001% of cases if we choose, but in reality we are talking about the remaining 99.9% of situations.

Now for the last time I am not talking about forcing people to work hours they don't want to work, more so, I am talking about extra hours if they so choose and, many do now for 'cash'.

And belly, by wanting to extend trading hours and force employers in retail to pay for the privilage will simply result in less 'small' retailers.

Question.
Would any of you be happy to pay a 'surcharge' when sopping on weekends?

Do you think you should have to knowing it costs the owners of all businesses more to trade on weekends?

Think very hard before you make your wish as you may not like the eventual outcome.

Remember your mate the butcher on low wages. This situation is very rare becasue many work long hours and are paid cash.

There are only two winners with cash. The workers and the bosses and, the bosses are taking a huge risk and they don't like it.

The alternative is to pay extra to sell their products and make less themselves.

All other potential beneficiaries, including you and I miss out.

The costs of employment are already built into the price. The arrangements you talk about rehctub only benefit the business. It is rare that business will pass on any savings to the consumer.

I did not see any restaurant I normally attend drop the prices on the menu when they ceased weekend penalty payments. My daughter worked as a waitress and prices were the same before and after WC despite the loss of penalty rates.

While you may be thinking positively about giving an employee the opportunity to work normal pay for weekend hours, this does not apply to all employers and as 'we are unique' wrote there may be some future expectations built in for SOME employers based on what started out as a casual arrangement.

It also means that casuals miss out on the shifts and they also have bills to pay.

That is why it is easier and fairer to have inbuilt universal wage and conditions into the economy.

*It also means that casuals miss out on the shifts and they also have bills to pay.*

Pelican, that is all very nice, very fair and very sweet, I am sure
you are all those things, but it makes no economic sense at all!
That is exactly why Australia will stay a farm and a minesite,
forget an intelligent economy, which we once dreamed of.

So much of Eastern Australia will rely on housebuilding for even
more migrants and even more shopping, to drive the economy. For
all those Australians have no hope of being globally competitive
in any way, so all they can do is trade with each other locally.

What we need in Australia is intelligent industry, like the US,
Japan, Germany and other first world countries have. But it won't
happen, as 9 out of 10 entrepeneurs will look at this long list
of lurks, perks and conditions that you insist on, and simply go
elsewhere. We've seen it all before, when Kim Beasly was promoting
"job creation " schemes.

So more mining and housebuilding it is, next you'll be complaining
about too many migrants :)

.