Retail is bleeding, hospitallity as well, we even have builders, plumbers etc crying poor, meanwhile we have those who wish to work and those who wish to employ, only, we have those who just have to get in the way.

Now those who oppose the the way it was, don't work in a cafe on weekends, or don't work in retail or hospitallity, so they don't care.

Meanwhile, there are jobs/shifts being lost either because the boss works himself, or, the venue has had to close on Sundays, all because they can't afford the staff.

Go for a stoll down to almost any cafe on a sunday morning and try to spot a mum working. All juniors now.

Kids are no longer allowed a 2 hr shift after school, most of them have lost thier part time work, so, it's back to mum and dad for thier full financial support.

5x 2 hr shifts for the kids was good. Most shops close at 5.30pm so it worked well as they would arrive from school at 3.30. Now they can't work becasue the boos has to pay them for an extra hour when the store is closed.

Remember my guy with the restuarant in Cains, sixteen staff that no longer have a job on Sunday, in a place where jobs are at a premium.

Now the sad part is, these staff were happy with the way it was before the changes. An 8hr shift on a sunday was worth approx $200 to them, now they have zero!

Wasn't one of the pledges 'NO WORKER WILL BE WORSE OFF'!

Please explain how these people are not worse off and, please explain how they are meant to cope?

I just wish the unions could leave their noses out of other peoples business. Esspecially those who want nothing to do with unions.

I do think we need more IR reform,
But I oppose till death the view we need a group of second class people.
Rechtub talks constantly of the problems of small business.
I wonder truly what the income after tax of most is, and if lower than wanted why they do not leave?
Unions too need reform, mostly not but some have forgotten the reason they exist, the only reason is fairness in the workplace.
Housing,education, a host of things have to take second place for some workers.
To constantly blindside your self to the fact a employee is nothing less than a business person selling their goods for profit.
That is returned to the economy
How can anyone think a worker should suffer so a small business man can make more.
I am forever against the blindness that brands the under dog and their supporters unions as in some way killing the economy.
Rechtub, mate,I with draw my offer of that Bar B Q we would not get to the first snag sandwich.
Why is it I can understand not all bosses are bad, not all workers are honest, not all unions are good, some are not, but you find only your views worth while?

I think there is some balance here. The case of the new minimum shifts for after-school workers is not about them losing pay so small business can get more. It is about new rules that are now costing after-school work opportunities.

Fair Work Australia says young people are losing jobs and missing out on opportunities, especially in regional areas and the Australian Retailers Association conducted a survey that shows 40% will reduce the hours on offer for school age workers and 20% won't provide them jobs at all.

The story of Leticia Harrison and Matthew Spence in rural Terang demonstrates how the recent change is hurting you workers and small business and rehctub is suggesting that retailer in Cairns are suffering similarly. Have a look at http://www.comeonaustralia.com/after-school-jobs-robbed/ and consider signing the petition for a commonsense change.

In this case the kids and their parents were very happy with their previous short after-school shifts - as was the employer.

There might be a range of other issues with the new rules, but this one seems pretty clear cut to me.

Thank you Rehctub for bravely bringing the subject again. I totally support.

I could bring many more examples of people who are wronged by the IR laws, but that would only cloud the big picture. The issue at hand is that two informed and consenting individuals want to have a certain arrangement between them, yet the government takes away their freedom to do so (legally at least).

Belly wrote:
"To constantly blindside your self to the fact a employee is nothing less than a business person selling their goods for profit."

I am not a capitalist (nor a socialist), so if indeed this was all an employee was ("a business person selling..."), then I wouldn't bother going out of my way to protect such "a business person", or any business for that matter, or that lesser-right to gain (or lose) money.

However, what Belly calls an "employee" is first and foremost an individual, and the government, through IR laws, threatens to place him/her and his/her "employer" in jail should they exercise their free choice. THAT IS EVIL.

Belly, I don't know you personally and what you do for leisure, but just as an example, suppose you were collecting aeroplane-models in your home and the government legislated "No, aeroplane-model-collection is forbidden", then, though I don't personally collect aeroplane models, I would fight that government just as vehemently as I fight against IR laws.

Yuyutsu, up until recent decades it was **legal** in Australia for a husband to rape his wife. If he physically hurt her in the rape, he could be charged with common assault, but not "rape". Then laws were brought in to make rape within marriage a crime.

Do you consider these relatively recent rape in marriage laws to be "government interference" in our lives?

Dear Benq,

One may do whatever they choose so long as they do not injure others (or place others under a substantial risk of injury). In that, the injury of denying another's free-choice is even deeper than a physical injury.

Self-defence is a legitimate choice, including the right to congregate for collective self-defence. The one and only justification for a government is to protect individuals, essentially against other individuals who do not respect their free choice. The case you mentioned falls clearly within the government's legitimate mandate.