I could not believe when we were stupid enough to allow all weekend & most night trading by the big 2. It must have pushed up prices, as the sales of groceries would not have changed much, but the cost in wages & overheads must have skyrocketed, with the extra opening hours to do the business.

Although not profitable immediately, it allowed the big 2 to push out the smaller supermarkets & corner stores, who traded in these antisocial hours to make a crust.

I found it crazy that the unions went along with it, giving another win to the big end of town. It was then that I started to realise that the unions weren't interested in justice, they would rather have cosy deals with the big boy. Much better for filling those slush funds.

Foxy my sweet you have to realise how tourist areas work. They are 7 day towns, & every day is the same.

This was highlighted to me one day. I was going to have to skipper one of the big cats, when I did not have a replacement skipper qualified to run one, when a regular skipper went on holidays.

I needed new white shoes, my old ones were falling apart. One morning, when everything worked, with no hassles, an unusual event, I grabbed the chance to drive down to MacKay, 100 Kilometers or so, to get some. MacKay was almost empty when I got there. It was only then I realised it was Sunday, & shoe shops & department stores still shut in those more relaxed days.
Continued.

Continued.

In the Whitsundays we had many small operators paid a cash in hand daily rate, & many others who paid the same daily rate, every day. Their employees wanted to work weekends, despite getting no more money for it. When decent shopping is a couple of hours away, you need week days off to do it. Hell you can't even get your car serviced, or see a doctor on the weekends, it is week days you need off.

While there is no excuse for weekend rates, I still believe long hours should be rewarded with overtime. However 8 hours should be 8 hours. When most would rather the day off to sunbake, or go fishing, then do an evening shift, why should the evening shift be better paid.

Cities may be different. Melbournians who have to miss their Saturday dose of that funny game you play down there may have a claim, but today, their team is probably playing Friday night, so it is becoming all the same there too.

Penalty rates, as distinct from overtime, are just a hangover from a different time, & that time is gone.

So Foxy, how do you suggest you would have faired had you lost your job due to penalty rates, or, your over time/penalty rate days were taken away from you, because that's essentially what's happening now in many cases.

Hasbeen, extended trading hours hit my industry very hard.

You see the big two simply cut back on night fill staff during the introduction period, then, once popularity grew, they re hired their night fill. They achieved this through increased market share, as they simply staved out the small retailer, and they're not finished yet.

Sadly, being cash businesses, most small retailers almost need security guards to protect what's theirs when they're not there, which is impossible with extended hours.

The problem is society now demands a seven day/night shopping option, so they have to pay for it.

Finally, any amount of right or wrong will not help those who were counting on their Easter wages to support the household but have had that money taken from them by third parties.

Shift workers get extra for the hours they work. You can't worry about some losing their job, it's the majority you have to look after.
All that an employee has to sell is their labour, so if you want it you have to pay the appropriate rates. You can't discriminate because some businesses are not viable. As long as an employer is covering costs, there should be no problem. OR do we have an employer making a profit and an employee better off on the dole.

Dear rehctub,

You asked me how would I have fared if I would have lost my
job because of penalty rates? Luckily I was at that
time protected by set award wage rates and penalty rates
were part and parcel of those award rates. My employer
was forced under the award rates to pay his employees
all of their entitlements. They were not up for negotiation.
That's why I stayed in this job at the time - for family
security reasons - we had to have a steady dependable
income that we could rely on - as my husband's income came
in dribs and drabs and was not reliable.

Dear 579,

<<I can't see what religion has got to do with it.>>

Good observation - perhaps it's not religion or perhaps for most employees it is not: one doesn't, strictly speaking, need an Easter date to remember and contemplate Jesus' sacrifice and to try to live accordingly.

Nevertheless, the Christian churches - religious or otherwise (a good source for prolific discussions, but outside the scope of this topic), are involved and have an interest in having this particular weekend of Easter full of public holidays, same for Christmas - and nevertheless, the Australian state is fulfilling their wishes at the expense of people of other cultural/religious affiliations.

Who or what gives the state a right to dictate which dates are meaningful for us and which are not?

Muslims for example have the whole month of Ramadan where it's extremely difficult to work while fasting. Why can't a Muslim business that employs Muslim employees instead provide penalty rates for those working on Ramadan, then have business-as-usual on Easter to make up for the losses?

Similarly the Jewish calendar has about 10-12 days a year (besides the Sabbath, occurring on Friday evenings and Saturdays) when it's strictly forbidden to work, an extra 14 or so days when it's recommended not to work if possible, plus 4-6 fasting days when one may work, but it's extremely difficult without even having water. Why then are Jewish businesses, employing Jewish people, prevented from setting their work-holidays and penalty-rate-days on those dates instead?

<<exploited, as would be the case with your sacred one on one agreement.>>

How could anyone possibly be exploited when two individuals freely and fully-informed enter an agreement, with nothing else requiring them to be related in the first place?