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.

yutyusu that was a bit strange.
rechtub appeared to me to only touch on the school kids problem he spoke of other people surely.
I agree those kids got a raw deal but surely you are aware of just how badly workchoices treated the young.
And do you truly think any one but you thinks what we do in our non working hours has an impact on IR?
This is about penalty rates and weekend work a pet hobby horse of rechtubs.
I challenge anyone to say people go broke paying fair wages.
And if kids at the hamburger heaven, our best kids working for their future who lost a third of Sunday rates under the old system is not far worse than current reforms I know nothing.

Where is free choice is in these mythical mature work consultations that take place between employers and employees in low paid sectors like cleaning, hospitality and retail.

More often than not there is no discussion just a dictate where the power lies with the employer. That does hurt and injure others in many ways particularly in times of high unemployment when worker desperation may lead to accepting less than adequate work conditions.

It is only in certain niche markets where reasonably equal negotiations are undertaken in work contracts such as in management roles or industries like IT and mining where there is a need to attract people with niche skills or to isolated areas.

What is needed in IR is to work out what constitutes the fairest arrangement for both parties within a particular industry and make the rules across the board - otherwise there is no protection.

It is a sad fact that one cannot always trust the private sector to do the right thing but that is the reality.

Dear Belly,

Rehctub has the right to present the issue from a particular angle, and while I agree with him, my concerns are somewhat different, as I take a broader view in the matter.

You must be referring to my aeroplane-collection example - please read it more carefully: I never claimed that what we do in our spare time effects our working-life, but simply stated that our free-choice is sacred, regardless whether it relates to work or to leisure.

WorkChoices could not do any harm to anyone because there was nothing complusory about it. WorkChoices only provided extra options without taking away the original "fair" options: if you don't like it, then whether you are young or old, just don't take it! No Sunday rates - well see you later! So what's the problem?

One caveat though: as far as I know, people were not taken off the dole because they refused an unfair contract, but I beg you, because you know the facts much better than myself, to correct me if I am wrong, because if such a thing ever happened, that would be a grave matter indeed, which I don't support.

Dear Pelican,

If there is no mature work consultations in the cleaning, hospitality and retail sectors, then one ought to ask who created such an impotent culture in the first place or supported its development, and who even today has an interest in the continuation of such a culture.

The way to help the poor is not to keep them weak, and adding insult to injury, to simultaneously weaken those who aren't poor as well. In practical terms, government should provide a strong safety-net, so that nobody is hungry or cold or roofless, whether they have a job or not, so that EVERYONE is able to negotiate their own terms of employment which they, not others, deem respectable. Indeed, desperation should be taken out of the equation.

Isn't it funny how a tradie can slash his quote, just to get the job, and nobody cares, however, if he then slashes the pay rates for his employees, which by the way they are agreeable to, then all hell breaks loose. In the end, he looses his job because it goes to a tradie who works for himself and has no employees, and realises that times are tough and he just has to work for less. At least until things turn around.

The reality is, we now live in a seven day society and we expect to be able to go off and grab a coffee on a sunday, yet, the boss has to pay extra to provide you with that coffee, but can't charge a surcharge due to extra wages bacause it's ilegal. Go figure!

All I can say is that if something is not done, and fast, many small businesses will fold.

Now, as for why do we do it (small business), well, unlike the employees, we have entered into a lease, prior to the changes in IR laws and, we will be sued if we leave. It realy is that simple.

Belive me, once my lease runs out I'm gone!

BTW. The statement 'no worker will be worse off' means exactly that, 'no worker', not 'very few'.

Dear Yuyutsu
I agree with your last paragraph and yes Government is responsible for ensuring adequate social infrastructure. But many seek to increase the power of the free market to, in effect, heavily influence or govern IR or social policies.

The current economic system under which we are beholden leaves much to be desired but within that system,in theory, people should be able to negotiate contracts in an ideal world, however in real life this also opens the way for exploitation.

Just for example, imagine if banks were able to negotiate individual contracts (or any industry). Do you think competition for staff would ensure reasonable wages - the free market has not worked for consumers to a large extent where there is a direct interest in the industry maintaining the status quo across the board. It is all very well to argue the case for 'a smart bank would offer higher wages to get the best staff', however that approach only works if one bank sets the ball rolling - often the mutual interest and pressure is to keep the wages down. I am not picking only on banks this applies to many industry sectors.

IR laws are only as good as the watchdog that investigates and hears complaints in the same way that consumer or competition law is only as good as the competency of the ACCC and similar bodies.

Dear Pelican,

Money is not everything. In fact, I accept that earning/gaining money is not even a basic right: since the government printed that money, it's their right to impose conditions for its use (so long as those conditions only apply to those who wish to use their money and to that extent, which is too big an issue to enter into just now).

The freedom that I am talking about is neither the freedom to exploit, nor the "free-market". It is the freedom of individuals to exercise their choice with dignity, especially in matters that affect their lives directly.

I have no sympathy for big, impersonal, commercial organizations and industries. It is not on their behalf that I speak. I am speaking of individual rights, so it can be argued that beyond a certain organization-size, we no longer speak of an individual.

IR laws were designed for industrial situations, but it isn't easy to draw the exact line when an individual ends and an industry begins. WorkChoices fixed it arbitrarily at 100-employees: quite rough, but better than nothing. I'd rather define an "industry" as: "a body whose primary aim is to make money".

The problem is that current IR laws take the easy way out by making no distinction between individuals and industries. In that, socialism is as bad, as materialistic, as capitalism. It treats individuals as commodities, or earning-machines.

A major blind-spot of IR laws, is that they deny individual workers the option to make particular requests for work-conditions to suit their particular needs, especially working-conditions that (for the worker) cannot be measured in money, including requests that for others may sound funny or even weird, but mean the world to the worker. IR laws do not allow the worker to exchange, or sacrifice, money-based IR-"rights" for what's really critical to them.

IR laws are imposed on situations that are furthest from industrial, such as a family-business; or a semi-voluntary charity-organization; or when both employer and employee celebrate different religious holidays, other than the "public" ones; or when partially bartering work-for-goods; or work-for-work.

Yutyusu forgive me, but I earn my living looking after trade union members.
I have every day of my life been a unionist.
NO not a radical not a worker is always right person fair go mate is my theme.
You and rechtub can not possibly know how badly low income workers suffered under workchoices.
Open your mind, understand some unions are different far different.
A Section of them are dieing they can not will not change.
But not all of them.
Mine is growing, refugees from others are coming.
I understand a fair days work for a fairs days pay is a must.
But can you see? see these very low income earners are often real victims of their poverty?
Cleaners and such are never union,they are self employed or to poor to pay dues.
Often, too often they are welfare recipients who get paid peanuts under cash in hand threats if they go public about unfair wages.
IR should not be a Battle Field.
One fine day both sides will understand the true promise in having a base minimum wage and that enterprise bargaining is the best way to increase productivity not slashing workers income while CEO gets over paid.
We are dealing with fellow humans not objects, rechtub bloke you have closed your mind to fairness.
By the way I am on leave but drive 400klm today for work,by invitation of a boss who wants to be sure he is doing the right thing by his workers ,such people are golden. and not uncommon, why the anti union anti worker stuff?

Belly, simply explain to me, why, when we demand a seven day society, that a coffee, a sandwich, or even a visit to the local shopping centre on a sunday should cost the employer any more than it does on any week day.

Public holidays, no worries, I have no onjections there as most food outlets get away with charging extra, but sundays baffle me.

Also, what do you propose as a support mechanisum for those employees who have lost their sunday gig, enen though they were happy with the way it was?

Some have lost as much as $200 from thier weekly wage. Many were parents working sundays while their primary earner had a day off.

Secondly, what harm can possibly be caused by school kids earning a little cash, by way of 2 hour shifts, after school and, where is the wisdom in taking that earning capacity away from the kids, which places the financial cut backs squarely on the parents.

Now if you can explain the logic in this without stating that I have lost my way, as you always do, then that would be a good change, a miricle, but still a good change.

Finnally, Madam Pm has just announced more support for older teens. I just wonder if they had been able to retain thier 2 hr shifts, if such (tax payer funded)support would be required.

Dear Belly,

Hope you have a safe trip.

Please understand that I have no issue with unions, yours in particular, so long as they are not compulsory (for either employer or employee). My issue is with the government, trampling on individuals in the name of IR laws, even and especially in non-industrial situations.

Now when you meet this golden boss who wants to do the right thing by his workers, what will you tell him when he presents cases such as the following examples?

1. My worker is an observant Jew. Working on Saturdays is out of the question, but Sundays mean nothing to him. He also has a calendar-full of sacred holidays when he cannot work, but Australian public holidays not included. He also needs extra time-off on new-moons because his morning-prayer is longer. He is happy to make up for the lost time by working on Sundays and public-holidays: Can I tweak the IR restrictions to suit his needs?

2. My worker cannot eat the food that I provide for lunch (dietary reasons). He asked me whether instead of lunch he can have a longer lunch-break, to go and get his own food. However, the union objects, claiming it is not fair and all other workers must get the same lunch-break.

3. I own a gas-station. This lady wants to do night-shifts there, but for ethical reasons is unwilling to sell cigarettes. I explained to her that it would cause me to lose some customers and she replied that she will be happy to compensate me for that financially. However, that would bring her wage below the legal minimum.

You still talk of "both sides", wishing to stop the "battle". I appreciate your good-work in classic-industrial battle-situations, but you said no word about those cases where there are no battles in the first place, where employer and employee are harmoniously on the same side to begin with, and only the government disturbs the peace. I understand that some people (you mentioned cleaners) are unhappy, but surely that is no reason to impinge on the rights of happy people.

Dear Yuyutsu
I suspect much of that happens already behind doors and if the relationship is one of mutual agreement I can't see a problem but the fact these arrangements might exist outside the law makes it prohibitive. There also may be cases where these arrangements may set precedents for other employees - but I do understand your point of view.

There could be a better system that allows for some flexibility while still adhering to some basic IR principles - I know the system is not perfect. It probably will never be perfect while human beings don't always fulfill their responsibilities - employees and employers both have obligations.

yutyusu if the worker was one of my members and you had your business in my area here is what we could do.
In fact unless the union you deal with is a rat bag group
you can do this now.
I and worker would set out times he could not work, put that to you.
You would be able to put hours you need worked out side his normal times, maybe a small place he could heat or cook his needed food.
Work hours can be extended right now so a longer lunch can be taken mostly such lunch is unpaid in any case.
NOTHING is imposable with good will on both sides the BOOTS test better of over all, is in place it does not need massive or even big wage increases.
Look at it find your options , at some time in the future I will start an IR thread after the election, I had a very wet trip near flood rain in parts of the north coast of NSW thanks.
good meeting no problems all happy coffee was good too.

Now for rechtub, I was so mum said born on the floor of a butcher shop.
Hope it was not a Saturday, way back then work week included 4 hours on Saturday a working week of 44 hours.
Now it is 36 hours for some 35 and those hours helped this country develop a recreational live style.
Can you find me on Sunday a coffee shop that does not charge a premium for the service on that day?
See in time we must address penalty rates, I have tried to explain annualized salary, same rate for every hour worked you failed to understand.
Our whole life style rotates around our kids and family.
Weekends are meant to be with the kids at their sports and taking them to ours.
PENALTY what do you think the word means?
It is a reward for not being with your family on weekends or never seeing them at night because you are still working.
I gave up my social life for 10 and 12 hour days became the one bosses asked first to do it, but that money was earned and bought my family some things I never could without it.
I pay that premium too Sunday is my day to get that coffee and raisin toastt and pay much more for it but slavery is out of fashion the worker AND his/her boss should make an honest living.
Are you blind mate to the fact it has never been law that some MUST run small businesses?

Belly, I fully understand annualization of wages. It was part of the 'no disadvantage test' and I thought it was working.

So, let's move on.

How are the moods of your members?

Do they feel sucure in thier jobs?

Do you represent anyone within retail or hospitality, if so, have any of them lost hours on a sunday that they had prior to the IR changes?

Just answers would be fine, no need to try to further discredit me personally thanks!

Dear Belly,

Nice to know that you are willing to go out of your way to do good for others. I am glad that common-sense prevails, but please be careful because common-sense does not guarantee that you won't find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

The employer which you met yesterday is very lucky to have had you as the union-representative. He could have met a real nasty instead, a "rat-bag" as you say, and by law he would have no right to refuse to see that nasty rat-bag.

I just found this interesting political-quiz and am curious where you would fit on it: http://ldp.org.au/quiz

Belly, I to have a great deal of respect for you and I agree that you are the type of unionist every boss would love to deal with, however, the real world isn't like that.

We as employers have no say as to who may walk through the door as a union rep and, the next one may interprite the laws differently.

Just trying to lodge a simple plan at the local council can often result in differing opinions from differnet staff.

But my beef is about sunday rates in the food service industry. I respect that public holidays should attract a loading, but not weekends as like it or not, we are a seven day society.

BTW it is illigal for any business to charge a surcharge on a sunday or public holiday.

Also, bacon and eggs costs the same on a weekday as a sunday (promotions excluded).Yet, the cost of producing them is higher on a sunday.

This is my beef.

Good hard game on sunday. I think your saints may have turned the wrong corner old mate. Go the broncs!

Broncos V roosters for mine!

It is a big country rechtub I am nearly sure premiums are paid in NSW Saints by 5 this weekend but only a mad man would discount the broncos or roosters.
Now my view of an annual salary is far from yours.
Start on the day you hire some one.
Question do you wish to work over time.
If answer is no set a standard rate of pay add penalty rates if you must have them work some times.
If the answer is yes ok then calculate how many hours YOU think they will work over time, agree to that as a mimum to be worked.
Set in place a wage that they will earn if they do, an hourly rate ALL HOURS WORKED that both sides agree to that compensates for the extra hours.
If you did it well, if your sums add up both sides should be happy.
Now you could have two wages structures no extra time and overtime.
BUT I would want a reward for Mr/Mrs work over time once they get to a contracted amount of overtime, usually quite a lot say half weekends and 10 hour days.
I Have seen this work this way, after some hundreds of hours at this new rate extra overtime is paid as leave extra holidays.
If you truly look at it you know what you have to pay at the start of the year and it is maybe less than you do now.
one day this system refined will be the way we work.
Currently weekend work is an area infected with fraud welfare people getting cash in hand an pledged to silence bu bosses who even demand proof they are getting welfare so they can not ask for fair wages.

Unions well give me room I have always been a member of mine.
Yes a few rabbits have been around all those years and a few who have all the movement and grace of a concrete statue, a bad one.
But anchored in a past long gone are some very silly thugs and grubs, not in my mob.
That is the place I get the most threats from.
I have seen while on a combined site an idiot threaten to rape the manager of a shonky firm.
Watched workers being briefed to fail to hook up a load so it would fall while that bloke was around.
REALITY the future belongs to unions that can talk issues out.
And a boss that can see his/her workers are humans are the very force that makes his/her living.
One day after I stop work I Wil tell of bosses who every one who ever posted here would despise.
If government changes this month I too may be disliked because never ever will I change my view SOME regard workers as some thing to use to create wealth,conservatives who never had dirt on their hands forget we Australians who work are the first in the trenches in time of war.

rechtub

Arguing (special pleading) by anecdotal evidence is very dubious.
e.g. My 25yo uni student recently moved to Townsville and was offer 3 (wait staff) jobs 2 at restaurants 1 with a club, all with immediate start.

The club she left is always starting new staff and tried to talk her out of leaving. She often got 30 + hrs limited by her availability.

I am hearing that the businesses that are having issues are those that rely on juniors. i.e. their business models are designed that way.
The one's I hear have the biggest issues are the franchise coffee shops type deals. Often the management skills are wanting.

For that reason alone I would never take on a business model that requires this level of vulnerability and lacking flexibility.

By the way, under capitalist/evolutionary theory no one has the right to remain in business....survival of the most adaptable.
Once upon a time there were mum and dad corner stores everywhere then came supermarkets...good night corner stores. Demand drives it all Sad but that is system. Bitching over govt regs in this capitalist system is futile.

Capitalist common sense dictates that if left uncontrolled Big Business WILL take over all retail and the workers will be squeezed.

Briefly Examinator, you mentioned "mum and dad corner stores": Are you aware that current IR laws apply even to those, forcing the definitions of "employer" and "employee" and the restrictions that come with it even within the family-business?

Yuyutsu,

Did you read all of my post.
The reason mum and dad stores disappearing is largely because it can't compete with the "advantages?" (flexibility in their business model) available to the big boys.

As I have said many times before the curse of our times is a system that favours disproportional power for the big corporation V humans (employees and non employees).

Trying to equate the demise of M&D enterprises with the labour laws is both short sighted and defies history.

The notion that business has a conscience and doesn't need control is a bit like a junky in a drug warehouse.
Junkies and business always want more and are less and less concerned about the consequences.

Some groups within both parties tend to be mouthpieces for the above business thinking.

What is often neglected is a balance between the two extremes.

Sorry Examinator, I did read your whole post, but didn't have much to say about it, except for that bit about M&D that struck a chord with previous discussion on this topic. Of course, had I looked more carefully I could have seen that this was your first post here and that you did not participate in that discussion to begin with. Sorry for that!

You referred to business as "a junky in a drug warehouse". I guess that renders us, their consumers, as drug-traffickers - what an unpleasant truth!

Yes, Greed is a frustrating problem, whether it occurs in business-owners, customers, employers or employees. I wish I could wave a magic wand to make it disappear. Nevertheless, although greed is bad, violence/coercion is even worse, a 100 times more, so I would never support using the force of the law to curb greed, as much as I hate it (and yes, I would never support using the force of the law to forcibly separate a junky from his drug, as much disgusting this practice is, so long as no others are hurt. I would simply allow him to die in his vomit if that's what he chooses). The best way to fight greed is for each one to struggle internally with their own demon.

Coming back to M&D enterprises, some still exist despite supermarket-chains and I hope they can continue. My point was that at least under WorkChoices, M&Ds were exempted from IR laws, while now they are not. I guess that supermarket-chains must now be really thankful to Labor for that.

Yuyutsu, I think you have made a very valid point here, in that M&D enterprises can't opporate as they used to without fear of retribution down the track.

Now there were many cases whereby young adult family members would work in the family business and, in return for some of thier efforts, they would be provided with board and lodging.

This is now at risk!

I will be the imigants that have established businesses here don't follow that rule. After all, they know when the going gets tough, they must all chip in to survive.

Of cause much of this stems from our kids being tought 'thier rights' from schools etc.

Even ones parenting duties are scrutinised by outsiders, some of whom don't even have kids of thier won.

There are times when outsiders should simply stay out of other peoples business, and this is one of those situations.

Esspecially when two grown adults (employer & employee) are in agreence with one and other.