When is Mr Abbott going to have the guts to produce more jobs by changing the ridiculous penalty rates having to be paid on weekends? Fancy being scared of the word 'workchoices ' because the ignorant public voted in the economic vandals 6 years ago. Many people being left out of work because of the lack of guts by the Government. Everyone knows this even though the hugely paid union reps trying to protect their obscene power and wages. I am first to agree CEO wages are obscene but most small business owners receive no such thing.

I happen to receive penalty rates and they are the only thing that makes the job worthwhile to do. 19.60 an hour doesn't cut it for the anti social hours and believe me its only people that don't work these hours that have the hide to blast penalty rates try it then see.
And if we do drop penalty rates who benefits Harvey Norman and big retails that pay there staff crap ATM anyway. No keep the rates and let some Aussies that actually work for a living make a few extra buck's and let the fat cats cry some more.

Dear Runner,

Mr. Abbott may be a chicken, but the root of the problem is the absurd power of the state to prevent two consenting people from making a private deal between them despite the fact that nobody else is being harmed.

Had the state and its government been found on consistent moral grounds, then Mr. Abbott would have no say in this matter, hence it would not matter whether he has courage or not.

Dear Aussieboy,

<<And if we do drop penalty rates who benefits Harvey Norman and big retails that pay there staff crap ATM anyway.>>

Just to clarify my previous post, Harvey Norman is not a good example of what I had in mind, because it is a company rather than an individual. There is nothing immoral about the state imposing conditions (such as penalty rates) in return for incorporation - if you don't like these conditions then simply don't incorporate with the state!

Dear Yuyutsu

I am still a bit confused by your argument are you talking from a small business point of view ?If so you must employ people on the week end WHEN YOU make the most money
You also mentioned work choices that almost killed the working man and his family
Quick story when work choices was introduced Myself and the rest of staff where marched into the bosses office one at a time and told to sign the agreement or leave the company a pile of agreements all the same sat on his desk and he told me because i had been with the company for 5 years he was powerless to do any thing the directions came from head office to be no exception to the agreement

Dear Aussieboy,

You write that you were employed by a company - in that case, what I wrote in my first post does not apply to you.

Further, you described a case of coercion, which is in fact criminal and should be referred to the police. I was only referring in my post to honest consensual contracts, which yours was not.

I do not write from the point of view of small business or large business or any business: I am writing from the point of view of individual freedoms which the state has no moral right to interfere with:

If two people want to strike a deal between them, which includes (perhaps among other elements) person A doing some labour for person B and person B giving some money to person A; and assuming that this deal is freely entered between them without coercion, also assuming that no other person is hurt by that deal, then nobody else including the state has a moral right to order them not to carry out that deal. In fact nobody even has the right to label the one an "employee" and the other an "employer".

If however, one chooses to incorporate (because they can thus receive some benefits from the state such as lower taxes and limited liability etc.) then I see nothing wrong with the state imposing conditions on their company in return, including the condition to pay penalty rates.

Whether penalty rates in themselves are a good idea or not, I have not given it thought and therefore have no particular view about. All I say is that even if they are, it is still immoral to impose them on individuals against their will.