Casual labor is the employers only way of choosing the employee they want, especially when then right person is not available For the job, a the time.

Then, when a more suitable employee comes along you simply stop employing one casual and employ the next one.

Even this gets challenged at times.

I had three staff at one stage, none had a licience, then, when my circumstances changed and I needed to deliver meat, it was unlawful for me to sack one and replace the. With a licensed employee.

I was advised that the best I could do was to ensure that having and holding a licence was a condition of employment, but as for my current employees, there was nothing I could do.

So, I had to leave my shoo to do deliveries, five days per week.

Of cause my business suffered.

Casual employment has been forced upon employers, by labor and is here to stay, unless of cause there are some serious changes in IR.

As long as the laws are not fair to both parties, employers will always find a way to overcome the burdens forced upon them.

After all, their houses are often on the line.

Truly my heart goes out to you, rehctub. You were born in the wrong century and you took up the wrong trade. You would have been at home somewhere around 1800 in the north of England as a mill or factory owner.

No government legislation then - and lots of poor desperate workers (Hoorah!)

Not at all Poirot, I have always been a great employer, too good most of the time.

I was only saying the other day that in my 20+ years of owning a cash business, I probably had at least a quarter of a million stolen from me, both in meat and cash.

People say it my fault for not being there all day, every day.

Theyre right, but isn't that a shame.

My issues with employment now are that the odds are stacked against employers, that's why many of them are now employing on either casual, or term contracts.

Why, because we have simply lost the flexibility we need to run our businesses.

If you, or anyone else for that matter, can honestly sit there and say that it is fair for workers to have the right to walk out, at any time, simply because they found a better job, while employers don't have the right to terminate one staff member, when a better one comes along, then it is you who are bias.

Labor knows employers prefer casual labour now, that's why they have increased the loading from 20% to 25%, trying to encourage employers to switch back to permanent employment.

Won't work, can't work, until fairness is resorted for both parties.

Like it or not, casualization of the workforce has been forced upon us by the labor governmentS.

Everyone forgets the one simple rule, that being, that for every action, there is a reaction.

We (employers) warned about it prior to labor winning the 07 election.

I said whatbthey were proposing would damage confidence and cost jobs.

Well!

Now if you want to hit me with the old 4.9% unemployment, I have two words for you DREAM ON!

Equal rights is a two way street.

Rehctub,

Yes, if your workers can up and leave, I suppose that does get on your nerves.

But I've worked for bosses who really seem to have employees welfare and job satisfaction at heart. They enjoy the luxury of having a stable, energetic and conscientious workforce. I've also worked for employers whose only concern is the bottom line - who are continually on the lookout for someone trying to diddle them, their only concern is the profit they are making. The latter are the ones who constantly lose employees because there is no reciprocating loyalty.

Poirot, the way business is performed has changed dramatically in the twenty plus years I have been an employer.

Retail, which I touched on earlier has changed, so much so, that casuals are a way of life, as sales can fluctuate by 30% or more, from week to week.

How do you plan for that, without having at least some of you staff on casual.

Labor has continually tried to make it harder to hire casuals, like making us advise a casual of their finishing time, before they start and, if it's quiet, you can't send them home early, or you have to pay penalties.

So what we have to do is offer them a minimum shift, then, if you're busy, you offer them additional hours, which are usually taken as they need the money. No penalties apply.

We often have several casuals doing four hour shifts, so, if it's quiet you can cancel the next shift.

Now that's simply unfair on workers, but hey, we are not the ones who tied our hands behind our backs.

The relationship between staff and employers has been serverly damaged with the enforcement of UFD laws on employers.

I often say, be careful what you push for, as you make not like the result.

They ( the government /unions) pushed, and casualization of the workforce is the result.

Online shopping has caused a great deal of problems as well, also the continued unchecked domination of Coles and Wollies.

Now they are worse, as not only do they have casuals, but they also have several salary staff that do countless hours of unpaid work, all on the promise of advancement.

With our world crumbling, AU as well, where will we be if unemployment goes to 10+%, by labor's calculations.

You recon job security is low with casual employment!
brace yourself, I say, because they are about to give one of the few sectors that are booming, a huge kick in the guts.

As long as we get casual authorities who impose casual regulations we'll have casual employment.