Yabby....If one can not support labor at the right level, then one should not be in business.

A pour case of too many chiefs. 25% of Australian small business are just wasting their time.

I heard this the other day.

"Being in a job is riskier - At the moment, that statement is very true. Its safer on the dole............at least you have a fixed income and a day down the beach".......and that's what we're going to here more of, if the governments don't state and show true leader-ship.

And how many billions go down the drain each year on some of the most ridiculous spending spree's?

However, all that doesn't alter that fact that way too many one-man-band entrepreneurs aren't scraping a living, and the level of support from governments seems generally to be inadequate, wherever in the world they are. Part of the trouble is that too many would-be entrepreneurs are desperate to do just that - get by, make ends meet, scrape a living. In other words, run life-style businesses.

BLUE

It would be a greater country if many employers attitudes reflected those of yours Tooteaz; a rarity.

TOO TEAZ are you a fisherman? Or are you in fact a butcher, say rechtub?
I want so badly to remind ALL unions are not all evil,the future successful/surviving/growing ones are going to be/are aware a boss must make a living too.
How hard is this? laws also exist to protect bosses, unions do too.
FEW have any problems with those, yet they exist for exactly the same reasons trade unions do.
And from with in both camps good and bad emerge.
IF our teezer has no problems paying his workers more, then pay them legally what the law asks, that includes the costs of running a business.
We Are Unique I am more shaken by your view than any other, I once thought you valued fairness for the weak in this issue.
I too once employed workers,good and bad ones , but my profits came after fair pay.
Is this country one that wants to support small business at the expense of its workers becoming poor.
While miners and builders fight to turn them in to middle to high income earners?
Can that work.
A warning must be given, SOME SMALL business knowing and unknowing, caring and not caring, employ people who already get social security, in another name.
Rules are for a reason,do we want a black market economy without rules to assist thieving from us all.

tooteaz, it's a juggling act, isn't it? I tend to employ sub-contract staff wherever possible, simply because it means I'm not stuck with the on-costs of employing people. I also try to work on outcome-based incentives to give better, more motivated employees a bit more in their pocket.

My main reason for doing this is to avoid the paperwork associated with being an employer. I don't mind paying the money, since it's a basic cost of business that every competitor has also to pay, but the time spent doing the paperwork is a dead loss. The subbies have to take care of that, but they have the c ompenstaion of being able to claim expenses that they may otherwise not be compenstaed for.

My employees give me an invoice for their work and I pay them on that invoice. It's no different for them in that respect than submitting a time and expenses sheet.

As for the usual "you're a boss, so you deserve to get screwed" from the self-indulgent Unionists and the exile from Pomerania, it's the usual guff from those who expect others to make it possible for them to make a good living without having to take any personal responsibility - sour grapes and a sense of entitlement combined with a lack of the personal courage to have a go tend to produce that sort of thing. I'd not worry too much about it.

If you can't afford

To pay workers the award

You're not viable

If you're not allowed
to post under one name
try another...

Pomerania must be getting lonely, eh?

BTW, just to clear up the poor chap's cnfusion, noone is suggesting under-paying, merely that the on-costs are stupidly high, while the forced saving of superannuation is largely being used to line the pockets of "brokers" and other financial sharks.

The on-costs associated with a full-time emplyee are now over 40% of the person's wage. For every dollar I spend paying such a person, I spend over 40cents extra for the privilege.

Reducing those costs, which are a straight imposition on busibess and create nothing, can only lead to improved employment outcomes.