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.