Yes Hasbeen, horses for courses I say.

I remember when I was running the Hypermarket butchery in Brisbane (84/5) I had a hopeless butcher that was actually a very good people person, so I gave him the job of walking around out front just talking to customers and selling.

I requested that he wear board shorts, thongs, a straw hat and zinc cream, and go out and mingle with the customers. He would also spruk out our specials over the OA.

Our sales increased by about 30% in a month or so.

Funny thing was, the other butchers complained that he wasn't pulling his weight and management sacked him, which pretty much goes with what Indi says.

Little did they know, he was actually securing their jobs.

Now as far as being burdened with hurdles, it's simply because big brother thinks that two grown adults can't come to an amicable arrangement when it comes to work, hours,conditions and pay.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

My profound apologies to you ol' man, I can't for the life of me, understand how I came to believe your were in business for yourself ?
Nevertheless, you certainly appear to understand much of the problems and 'hoops' many in small business have to go through with all this petty bureaucratic red tape ?

Actually, I was always under the impression that governments were there essentially to aid and advise, as well as guide small business through the various difficulties associated with marketing their wares. Both within Oz, as well as overseas where appropriate. Providing government assistance for them, in terms of trade and excise, as well as guiding them through the myriad of Taxation complexities that they may experience, when dealing with companies and businesses abroad.

Recently, the last five or six years or so, it would seem the government consistently puts up barriers, and makes it far more difficult for small business to operate ? Seems counterproductive to me ? Then I'm a mere 'boofhead' and have no understanding of business anyway.

Thank you INDIVIDUAL for setting me 'right' on your vocational activities. Again, I'm sorry.

The reduced rates for youth is to counter the tendency for those in their teens and early twenties to be vastly over-represented in the unemployed statistics. The reduced wages give an incentive to employers to hire youngsters so that they can get the work experience to apply for the better paying jobs later.

The unions pushing for wage parity has nothing to do with protecting the youth, rather protecting their members.

SM,

And then make a push to get more of the youngsters to sign up;
And then make a push to increase all wages bottom to top;
And then decide what to do with all that extra Super in the Union-controlled Industry Super Fund;
And then pat themselves on the back (the Super Fund Trustees), and award themselves a nice little board member salary and expenses increase - as justified by how clever they have been;
And then look for the next fat chicken to pluck - on a legitimate parity basis of course (no question of creep here);
And of course we have to start all over again, across the board.

But we know that the minimum wage is still too low (highest in the world, but so are our general living expenses), so it needs a push;
And suddenly all prices go up, so, catch-up quick, catch-up, Quick!
And the merry-go-round sets off in full stride once again, (with pats on the back all round).

But still, that blasted 1% just gets further and further ahead; so the Super Fund trustees look at the $billions they are responsible for, and think, we're bigger than General Motors! So, we deserve equal executive salaries - hooray! (And we don't have to justify it to the share holders - there aren't any, just contributors!)
Now, if only we can get Super contributions up to 15%, why we can retire on a nice little nest-egg at 50!
(And we won't have to worry any more about pushing that heavy, heavy barrow.)