Labor does have a problem with strong women.

I see bartering is now gaining strength in the workplace.

A new system of battering some of ones hours, in lue of board and lodging is gaining momentum, whereby one has to work say twenty hours of their week in return for full board and lodging in shared accommodation.

The ATO hates it but, apparently it has been tested and withstood the challenge and has been classed as ligit.

Of cause the person applying for the job can refuse tha arrangement, but, because the pendulum has shifted on the supply V demand scale, the employer just finds another out of work, or under employed person seeking employment. I will try to find a link.

What a pitty it had to come to this, but, as I always say, for every action, there is a reaction. So Gillard, the unions and fair work Australia should take a bow, because after all, before they took an axe to IR, none of this was nessesarry.

I just hope they enjoyed their six odd years of chaos and I doubt there will be any turning back because the system is gaining legs in the likes of farming, hospitality and tourism, which, funny enough are the sectors hit hard with the rediculous penalty rates imposed on them by Gillard and Co.

Your a bit behind the times there butch, that has been going on for at least 20 years. It doesn't affect the ATO because the employee still has to be paid the full amount. The word barter does not replace the required wage. That started off with employees from the 457 visas. They had no option but to stay on the property. Where exploitation took place was the landholder was charging taxi fees to take the workers into town on a friday night. Mostly fruit pickers and the less english they knew the better.

It does effect the ATO because they don't get the tax from those 20hours of income.

It's also much cheaper for the employer as well.

incorrect, the cost of board has to be stated and that is added to the persons wage, there is no free lunch. I reckon bartering came about in the 1980's. When it started it was fraught with exploitation so rules and regs were imposed to guard against rogue employers. What the employers got was they didn't have to register their accommodation as a rental. They had to be classed as paying guests. Because of the legalities of housing people without insurance.

Yes, I would have to agree with you there as their board would be included in their wages. I stand corrected.

But it's a big saving for the employer, as they are paying with value added goods, rather than net cash. Perhaps it's a rare win win, and hopefully it will relive some of the preasure from business.