Paying younger people more ‘will crush retailers’

    PIA AKERMAN
    The Australian
    March 22, 2014


RETAILERS have called for the federal government to fast track reform of the Fair Work Commission so they can fight a decision awarding 20-year-old retail workers the same pay as 21-year-olds.      ::)

A full bench of the commission yesterday ruled that 20-year-olds should receive the full adult rate of pay instead of the 90 per cent currently offered, saying the evidence showed little difference in the duties and skills between the two age groups.      :)

The change, to be brought in over two years, amounts to an extra $1.80 an hour for part-time workers and $2.25 an hour for casual workers who have worked at a business for at least six months.

Australian Retailers Association executive director Russell Zimmerman said the peak body wanted to fight the ruling, saying the move would “crush” small businesses and increase youth employment.      

“I don’t believe that Fair Work have handled this correctly,” he said. “We know that youth unemployment is at its highest level in 11 years, and with the unions’ case to remove junior wage rates now successful, young Australians are going to really struggle to find employment and support themselves through their studies.”

National Retail Association chief executive Trevor Evans said the group sought legal advice on appeal options as the ruling was inconsistent with previous Fair Work judgments.

“It’s a disastrous decision not only for retailers but also for young retail workers,” he said.      :'(

A spokeswoman for Employment Minister Eric Abetz declined to comment.

In the ruling, commission senior deputy president Alan Boulton said there was little evidence about the extra cost to employers, which was ultimately assessed as “moderate”.

“We are not persuaded that the provision of adult rates to 20-year-old retail employees will have a significant negative impact on business costs, nor on the viability of retail businesses,” he said. “We are not persuaded it will have a discernible impact on employment growth.”

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association national secretary Joe de Bruyn said the union would now seek to extend full adult rates to 18- and 19-year-olds, who receive 70 and 80 per cent respectively.    

He described the impact on employers’ wage bills as “tiny”.      :)

“The righting of this injustice is just as historic as the introduction of equal pay was 40 years ago,” he said. “If you go to a supermarket and look up and down the registers, you’ll find an 18-year-old is doing the same work as a 20-year-old who is doing the same work as a 30-year old.”

Sebastian Fernandez, 22, gave evidence for the union at the hearing, describing how his responsibilities working at Kmart in Sydney had barely changed since he started at the age of 18 though his pay had increased slightly as he got older.

Mr Fernandez, who works casually while studying politics and journalism, yesterday said the ruling would make a difference to his younger colleagues.

“That’s an extra $10, $20 or even $30 a week depending on the hours they work,” he said.

“It gives a bit more breathing space.”

Greed will triumph.

Again.  >:(

No landlord discounts their rents to young people based on their age, nor any merchant, nor any utility company. Young people have the same costs as anyone else if they have moved out of home. Why should they accept discounts on their pay when they are doing the same work?

Anyone who advocates the abolition of weekend penalty rates on the grounds of being anachronistic cannot argue their case convincingly if they do not also agree with the abolition of aged-based pay discounts. It's all a part of the same system.

The relevant union regards this as just the first step.
They will be fighting for adult wages for 18 year olds.

Will it crush retailers? No.
But it will further crush the hopes of young people who will find that employers no longer see any point in employing so many of them. It will be more profitable to employ more experienced and productive older people.
Another victory for the union against the worker!

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:28am:

The relevant union regards this as just the first step. They will be fighting for adult wages for 18 year olds.

Yes, and good on them for doing so.

http://100percentpay.com.au/

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:28am:

Another victory for the union against the worker!

How dare they ask that adults be payed the same as adults!

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:28am:

The relevant union regards this as just the first step. They will be fighting for adult wages for 18 year olds.

Why not? 18-year-olds ARE adults.  ::)

Kat wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:34am:

Greed will triumph. Again.  >:(

Easy to blame "greed" but what about the more significant parts that consumer laziness and being cheap arses play?

When you go to Big W to buy everything because they're cheaper and more convenient than a specialist retailer, you know they're only employing people with no idea about the products, nor any inclination or incentive towards customer service. 

If the staff don't offer any value over that of a trained chimp, they don't deserve anything over the peanuts you'd pay a trained chimp.  It's not greed, it's a fair exchange.

I can't wait until this generation with its reinforced sense of entitlement faces a true adversity and finds no-one there to do everything for them while they stand around and wait for things to happen.


Jeez so they get less than an adult, so friggen what?


No wonder less and less people want to employ the young to do the traditional work of the young, entry level sh1t jobs for entry level sh1t job money.



They will have the resilience and tenacity of a poodle.

Bam wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:38am:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:28am: The relevant union regards this as just the first step. They will be fighting for adult wages for 18 year olds. Why not? 18-year-olds ARE adults.  ::)

Indeed: they are adults.

They can drink.

Join the ADF.

Vote.

Have sex.

Drive.

Yet, they aren't paid adult wages. 

Moreover, there are no discounts for people aged 18 to 21.

It's good to see this unwarranted discrimination is slowly coming to an end.

Good on the SDA (and the Catholic Church) for getting behind this cause.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:52am:

No wonder less and less people want to employ the young to do the traditional work of the young, entry level sh1t jobs for entry level sh1t job money.

Once again the ADF imposter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

There are 18 year olds working in fast food, retail, and hospitality who are managers.

They supervise older staff, and run the entire operation.

However, they aren't paid adult rates.

Pull your little head out of that Walter Mitty arse of yours, and take a look at what's happening in the real world.

Quote:

“I don’t believe that Fair Work have handled this correctly,” he said. “We know that youth unemployment is at its highest level in 11 years, and with the unions’ case to remove junior wage rates now successful, young Australians are going to really struggle to find employment and support themselves through their studies.” OP.

I can remember when 'junior wage rates' applied to Indentured Apprentices and 16-18 year olds who worked at Maccas, or as process workers, etc.

May I suggest that, if retailers are suggesting that someone aged 20yrs, 11mths, 3wks and 6 days is a 'junior', they then approach the Federal and State Govts and have them repeal 18yos drinking and voting rights???

Marriage?? No, that's out...
Credit Card?? Have to get mum or dad to co-sign...
Forget having a car licence...You're not 'adult enough'.

If adult prices for entertainment, transport etc are good enough for these people, then so is an adult wage.

And don't get me started on Full Price admission charges for 13 year olds.....

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 2:40pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 10:52am: No wonder less and less people want to employ the young to do the traditional work of the young, entry level sh1t jobs for entry level sh1t job money. Once again the ADF imposter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. There are 18 year olds working in fast food, retail, and hospitality who are managers. They supervise older staff, and run the entire operation. However, they aren't paid adult rates. Pull your little head out of that Walter Mitty arse of yours, and take a look at what's happening in the real world.

Never stated anything to the contrary cretin; you need to rely less on  bullsh1t and lies and just stick to what is written you idiot.


A manager / supervisor is NOT an entry level sh1t job you friggen loud mouthed f-wit



BTW if you have any evidence that I am lying about my service feel free to present it to the Feds, or shut your knob gobbling mouth, you lying civilian nobody, POS.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm:

A manager is NOT an entry level sh1t job ...

Correct.

Glad to see the ADF imposter is finally learning something.

It's a management job, and those under 21 are not paid adult rates.

Consider yourself owned, imposter.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:36pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: A manager is NOT an entry level sh1t job ... Correct. Glad to see the ADF imposter is finally learning something. It's a management job, and those under 21 are not paid adult rates. Consider yourself owned, imposter.

Is english not your first language or are you just friggen retarded?



Surely your maccas 'management job' will start soon and you will get 70% of what an adult gets and now you're just whinging, but 70% is more than you deserve and chip fryer.  ;D  ;D


Now run along little boy, you're making a fool of yourself and we are laughing AT you. Again

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:36pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: A manager is NOT an entry level sh1t job ... Correct. Glad to see the ADF imposter is finally learning something. It's a management job, and those under 21 are not paid adult rates. Consider yourself owned, imposter. Is english not your first language or are you just friggen retarded? Surely your maccas 'management job' will start soon and you will get 70% of what an adult gets and now you're just whinging, but 70% is more than you deserve and chip fryer.  ;D  ;D Now run along little boy, you're making a fool of yourself and we are laughing AT you. Again

You don't like being proven wrong, do you, imposter?

Why then do you insist on participating in discussion on this forum?   :-/

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm:

[ A manager / supervisor is NOT an entry level sh1t job you friggen loud mouthed f-wit

Thats nonsense, big retailers routinely employ young people as managers in entry level positions.




Quote:

BTW if you have any evidence that I am lying about my service feel free to present it to the Feds, or shut your knob gobbling mouth, you lying civilian nobody, POS.

Which wars did you fight in again? Just checking.

ian wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: [ A manager / supervisor is NOT an entry level sh1t job you friggen loud mouthed f-wit Thats nonsense, big retailers routinely employ young people as managers in entry level positions. Quote: BTW if you have any evidence that I am lying about my service feel free to present it to the Feds, or shut your knob gobbling mouth, you lying civilian nobody, POS. Which wars did you fight in again? Just checking.

Ahh ian the civilian 'war' hero returns or did you think we forgot about your heroic claims you made the last time you gobbed off here.


P1ss off hero boy, no-one like a bullsh1t artist, least  of all a lying little sh1t monkey like you


;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:54pm:

ian wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:50pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: [ A manager / supervisor is NOT an entry level sh1t job you friggen loud mouthed f-wit Thats nonsense, big retailers routinely employ young people as managers in entry level positions. Quote: BTW if you have any evidence that I am lying about my service feel free to present it to the Feds, or shut your knob gobbling mouth, you lying civilian nobody, POS. Which wars did you fight in again? Just checking. Ahh ian the civilian 'war' hero returns or did you think we forgot about your heroic claims you made the last time you gobbed off here. P1ss off hero boy, no-one like a bullsh1t artist, least  of all a lying little sh1t mobnkey like you ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

http://chuckslowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Brad.jpg

I have made no heroic claims, what a bizarre claim. I have been in a few war zones though, as a non combatant. What about you fatold64 , how many war zones you been in?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:56pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:54pm: ian wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:50pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:33pm: [ A manager / supervisor is NOT an entry level sh1t job you friggen loud mouthed f-wit Thats nonsense, big retailers routinely employ young people as managers in entry level positions. Quote: BTW if you have any evidence that I am lying about my service feel free to present it to the Feds, or shut your knob gobbling mouth, you lying civilian nobody, POS. Which wars did you fight in again? Just checking. Ahh ian the civilian 'war' hero returns or did you think we forgot about your heroic claims you made the last time you gobbed off here. P1ss off hero boy, no-one like a bullsh1t artist, least  of all a lying little sh1t mobnkey like you ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D http://chuckslowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Brad.jpg

Did you miss me because I didn't immediately reply to your stupid claims of a win 


Needy little p1ss-ant aren't you?  ;D  ;D ;D  ;D

ian wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:58pm:

I have made no heroic claims, what a bizarre claim. I have been in a few war zones though, as a non combatant. What about you fatold64 , how many war zones you been in?

http://eclexia.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/kids-guns-797179i.jpg


That's fatold64, on the left.

ian wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 3:58pm:

I have made no heroic claims, what a bizarre claim. I have been in a few war zones though, as a non combatant. What about you fatold64 , how many war zones you been in?

Yeah you did, we all knew you were lying but it was funny to watch you slink off when you were caught out. But you're nothing more than a loud mouthed loser, trying to make up for your pathetic life by trying to diminish mine.


You are a nobody and always will be, you sad sack of human excrement.  ;D  ;D

http://oi48.tinypic.com/oqex3t.jpg

A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go?

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 4:12pm:

A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go?

He has to be around somewhere.....

:)

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 4:12pm:

A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go?

Doesn't want to get on the wrong side of Rambo, he's seen the movies.

Setanta wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:13pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 4:12pm: A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go? Doesn't want to get on the wrong side of Rambo, he's seen the movies.

;D ;D ;D ;D

They can be drafted to fight for their country at 17 - sent overseas from age 18 - but not get full adult wages?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:55pm:

They can be drafted to fight for their country at 17 - sent overseas from age 18 - but not get full adult wages?

Nah, we don't have the draft any longer.. It was the case once upon a time though. If the Law considers you an adult at 18, that should come with all the benefits and disadvantages of being an adult, including being paid as one.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 4:04pm:

ian wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 3:58pm: I have made no heroic claims, what a bizarre claim. I have been in a few war zones though, as a non combatant. What about you fatold64 , how many war zones you been in? Yeah you did, we all knew you were lying but it was funny to watch you slink off when you were caught out. But you're nothing more than a loud mouthed loser, trying to make up for your pathetic life by trying to diminish mine. You are a nobody and always will be, you sad sack of human excrement.  ;D  ;D

lying about what. Man up and show what claims I allegedly made. And who is "we". From what I can see you are the only one falsely claiming I made these claims. Inferiority complex much ?

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 4:12pm:

A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go?

I find it amusing, it shows the level of intellect.

ian wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 11:21pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 4:12pm: A ton of personal insults there, now where did Hicksie go? I find it amusing, it shows the level of intellect.

Insults are the 7.62s for his M60 mouth. ;D

Returning to the topic, of course retailers will claim the sky will fall in if they have to pay younger workers a bit extra.

Equally certainly, the sky will remain where it is and little will change.

Retailers should recognise their young staff are also consumers. To have a few more bucks in their pockets will be good for business and the economy.

No business will be crushed. There will only be less workers doing more work.

Union bid to extend adult pay rates for all

    EWIN HANNAN
    The Australian
    March 24, 2014


UNIONS will push to increase the wages of young workers in a range of industries after a landmark decision awarding 20-year-old retail workers the same pay as 21-year-olds.      :)

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver yesterday welcomed a Fair Work Commission ruling on Friday that 20-year-olds should receive the full adult rate of pay instead of the 90 per cent currently offered.      :)

The changes, to be brought in over two years, amount to an extra $1.80 an hour for part-time workers who have worked for a business for at least six months.

Mr Oliver dismissed complaints the increase would “crush” small business and increase youth unemployment. Junior rates apply in 72 of the 122 modern awards, including hospitality, construction, manufacturing, and health care. “An 18-year-old is recognised as an adult under the law,” he said.

“Many are independent and have the rent and expenses of an adult, some have families, and yet they are paid less. An 18-year-old can go to war and fight for their country but if they enter the workforce they get 30 per cent less than their colleagues.”

While it was “a long road ahead”, unions would continue to fight for 18-year-olds to receive the adult wage. “Unions will be looking closely at this decision by the Fair Work Commission and how it will impact future claims as we continue to campaign for fair pay at adult rates for young workers,” he said. “We will be discussing the implications because the current system is out of date. It’s outdated policy that a young person is working side by side doing the same job in a workplace but getting paid less than the person next to them who is older.

“Young workers are important contributors to thousands of workplaces and anyone who argues that paying them a fair wage will cost them their jobs is underselling their worth.”

You may rant all you like about 20s or 18s getting adult wages - and I'm not saying in principle it shouldn't be so - but I repeat, the outcome will be less young people get the jobs they otherwise might have got.
And of course, there is the argument that adult pay rates carry a margin for experience that has to be gained.

Non-competitive retailers go to the wall daily.... if they can't compete they are not in the market, and their minimum wage penalty rate for ungodly hours workers simply move on to the next fool.....

For every street cafe that falls apart through a combination of over-expectation of instant riches and a free ride for the owner Tony, Achmed or Stavros, and some sort of neo-Fascist total control over workers that falls into the gutter, two more arise to try the same line over and over......

If you can't compete and pay your workers - don't go there.

Australia!  Love it or GTF back where you came from!

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

You may rant all you like about 20s or 18s getting adult wages - and I'm not saying in principle it shouldn't be so - but I repeat, the outcome will be less young people get the jobs they otherwise might have got. And of course, there is the argument that adult pay rates carry a margin for experience that has to be gained.

This is a well run line, trotted out in every discussion on pay rates.

I can guarantee you not one extra staff member will be employed even if we get rid of all penalties, all entitlements, all holidays & paid everyone under 30 1/3rd of the minimum wage.

How would we measure this?

Perhaps we could look at the 1/4ly profit of a business in the new environment & compare it too a 1/4 in our draconian current system, factor in inflation & there you go.

Both should be relatively similar due to the fact employers are paying the same in wages(remember abolishing penalties will increase employment therefore its just transferring the cost) but I'll bet a weeks wage we see a steep incline in profit whilst the wage % of that falls because no more staff are employed the current lot  just don't get paid as much.

If we are looking at pay rates for young workers, we need to look at it in the broader context of the system as a whole.

At the moment, young people do not receive equal pay for equal work. This is an anachronism from the days when young people still lived at home with parents, so their costs were lower. There cannot be real justification in retaining this when a lot of people live away from home such as full-time students.

On the other hand, weekend penalty rates are also an anachronism from a time when shops did not open on Sundays and Saturdays were always half-day trading if they opened. Most retailers did not pay these penalty rates. Young people receive many of these penalty rates - they have to, if they are to earn enough to live.

If we are to change these rules, we must change both sets of rules or neither of them. Changing one set of rules and leaving the other alone is unfair to the disadvantaged party.

Some changes to consider - this is a package deal:
* Abolish weekend penalty rates
* Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon.
* Give all staff the legal right to refuse to work on weekends or any public holiday without having to give a reason provided they give sufficient advance notice so rosters can be scheduled
* Abolish age-based pay discounts

An alternative to abolishing age-based pay discounts completely is to scale them back and offer some government concessions to people under 21 who are living away from home such as discounted public transport and discounted car registration. If the government insists on imposing a reduced income on the young, they should also reduce their costs.

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

If we are looking at pay rates for young workers, we need to look at it in the broader context of the system as a whole. At the moment, young people do not receive equal pay for equal work. This is an anachronism from the days when young people still lived at home with parents, so their costs were lower. There cannot be real justification in retaining this when a lot of people live away from home such as full-time students. On the other hand, weekend penalty rates are also an anachronism from a time when shops did not open on Sundays and Saturdays were always half-day trading if they opened. Most retailers did not pay these penalty rates. Young people receive many of these penalty rates - they have to, if they are to earn enough to live. If we are to change these rules, we must change both sets of rules or neither of them. Changing one set of rules and leaving the other alone is unfair to the disadvantaged party. Some changes to consider - this is a package deal: * Abolish weekend penalty rates * Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon. * Give all staff the legal right to refuse to work on weekends or any public holiday without having to give a reason provided they give sufficient advance notice so rosters can be scheduled * Abolish age-based pay discounts An alternative to abolishing age-based pay discounts completely is to scale them back and offer some government concessions to people under 21 who are living away from home such as discounted public transport and discounted car registration. If the government insists on imposing a reduced income on the young, they should also reduce their costs.

Or reinstall a properly run 'apprentice' system in which genuine training is given and pay rates increased along with skills increases....

What you are all looking at - regardless of how you think you are - is what I am constantly warning against - the imposition of a totally regulated market by a 'strong' centralised government of either 'side'....

That is the broader scheme of all your solutions, so I would suggest you find the right Benevolent Diktator now - I'll do the job at half salary... I don't need money and I don't want medals....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Or reinstall a properly run 'apprentice' system in which genuine training is given and pay rates increased along with skills increases....

Yes but who would pay?

Tafe in the past was run by government who taxed business

Then we needed lower taxes for business so the government virtually has stooped the funding.

Business in the past wouldn't fund Tafe as they were doing with their taxes(fair point)

But now taxes are lower yet companies continue to complain of skills shortages because they refuse to employee & train as this effects the bottom line.

So it seems the poor old unemployed now has to fund their Tafe course.

Solution - move to India, do your course, get hired back on a 457.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:24am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Or reinstall a properly run 'apprentice' system in which genuine training is given and pay rates increased along with skills increases.... Yes but who would pay? Tafe in the past was run by government who taxed business Then we needed lower taxes for business so the government virtually has stooped the funding. Business in the past wouldn't fund Tafe as they were doing with their taxes(fair point) But now taxes are lower yet companies continue to complain of skills shortages because they refuse to employee & train as this effects the bottom line. So it seems the poor old unemployed now has to fund their Tafe course. Solution - move to India, do your course, get hired back on a 457.

Yep - that's what the final washup is once you start to abandon tried and tested methods in a society and replace it with ad hoc stuff.

Good point about the 457....  I could go and do a course in digging up mud for house walls and come back on one of Clivagina's mining sites as an engineer specialising in mud excavation.... seven rupee one hour.. money very, very good in Australia!

Quote:

Ministerial advisers encouraged federal officials to “massage” their economic forecasts to match Tony Abbott’s vow to create one million jobs over the next five years… Asking department experts to adjust their figures, the advisers to Employment Minister Eric Abetz sought to add 160,000 jobs to the projections due this week… The exchanges, revealed to The Australian, highlight the government’s anxiety about jobs growth as it fights off Labor attacks over layoffs at big companies including Qantas, Ford, General Motors Holden and Toyota… The labour market analysts dumped their original projections for 838,100 new jobs over the next five years and replaced it with the higher figure suggested by the minister’s adviser, Josh Manuatu. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-urged-department-to-massage-jobs-data/story-fn59noo3-1226862752422# Here’s a good point by Leigh van Onselen - Coalition massages jobs data to hit low target What makes this latest intervention by the Government most interesting is that its one million jobs target over five years would, in fact, be a mediocre outcome. For starters, the promised one million jobs – or roughly 16,670 jobs per month – would be below the 17,200 jobs per month created in the decade to February 2014, which also included the fallout from the Global Financial Crisis. http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/03/coalition-massages-jobs-data-to-hit-low-target/

Interesting the national poo sheet is reporting so muc on Sinodinos and now this. Murdoch cracking the whip?

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

* Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon.

Why just those particular days?

Why is Christmas Day more important than New Year's Day or the Queen's Birthday, for example? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 11:04am: * Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon. Why just those particular days? Why is Christmas Day more important than New Year's Day or the Queen's Birthday, for example?

These are the most important public holidays. Nevertheless, you raise a fair point. The issue of penalty rates and public holidays merits more in-depth discussion.

I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board.
Of course there are individual differences.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board. Of course there are individual differences.

Well perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong angle

"How many years have you worked in the Industry?" should be the question, not "how old are you"

0 to 3 years - junior rates (75% of award)

3 to 6 years - assistant rates (85% of award)

6+years - Full award rate.

Problem solved

Employers get what they pay for

People gain experience

People are rewarded for time served not just age.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board. Of course there are individual differences.

Do employers recruit 40 year olds for entry-level positions?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 2:36pm: I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board. Of course there are individual differences. Well perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong angle "How many years have you worked in the Industry?" should be the question, not "how old are you" 0 to 3 years - junior rates (75% of award) 3 to 6 years - assistant rates (85% of award) 6+years - Full award rate. Problem solved Employers get what they pay for People gain experience People are rewarded for time served not just age.

You've nailed it.

Pay based on experience, not age.

Age-based pay is as discriminatory as gender-based pay or not hiring people over 45.

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

If we are looking at pay rates for young workers, we need to look at it in the broader context of the system as a whole. At the moment, young people do not receive equal pay for equal work. This is an anachronism from the days when young people still lived at home with parents, so their costs were lower. There cannot be real justification in retaining this when a lot of people live away from home such as full-time students. On the other hand, weekend penalty rates are also an anachronism from a time when shops did not open on Sundays and Saturdays were always half-day trading if they opened. Most retailers did not pay these penalty rates. Young people receive many of these penalty rates - they have to, if they are to earn enough to live. If we are to change these rules, we must change both sets of rules or neither of them. Changing one set of rules and leaving the other alone is unfair to the disadvantaged party. Some changes to consider - this is a package deal: * Abolish weekend penalty rates * Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon. * Give all staff the legal right to refuse to work on weekends or any public holiday without having to give a reason provided they give sufficient advance notice so rosters can be scheduled * Abolish age-based pay discounts An alternative to abolishing age-based pay discounts completely is to scale them back and offer some government concessions to people under 21 who are living away from home such as discounted public transport and discounted car registration. If the government insists on imposing a reduced income on the young, they should also reduce their costs.

Look at the practicalities of this.

Imagine a business which needs four people to run it. The boss wants to open weekends or statutory holidays.

Three of the staff agree, but one holds out. The atmosphere in the workplace would become intolerable.

Sooner or later, the employer would find some excuse to get rid of the worker and employ someone prepared to be more flexible.

Penalty rates recognise the inconvenience of working unsociable hours. They should stay.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 11:04am: If we are looking at pay rates for young workers, we need to look at it in the broader context of the system as a whole. At the moment, young people do not receive equal pay for equal work. This is an anachronism from the days when young people still lived at home with parents, so their costs were lower. There cannot be real justification in retaining this when a lot of people live away from home such as full-time students. On the other hand, weekend penalty rates are also an anachronism from a time when shops did not open on Sundays and Saturdays were always half-day trading if they opened. Most retailers did not pay these penalty rates. Young people receive many of these penalty rates - they have to, if they are to earn enough to live. If we are to change these rules, we must change both sets of rules or neither of them. Changing one set of rules and leaving the other alone is unfair to the disadvantaged party. Some changes to consider - this is a package deal: * Abolish weekend penalty rates * Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon. * Give all staff the legal right to refuse to work on weekends or any public holiday without having to give a reason provided they give sufficient advance notice so rosters can be scheduled * Abolish age-based pay discounts An alternative to abolishing age-based pay discounts completely is to scale them back and offer some government concessions to people under 21 who are living away from home such as discounted public transport and discounted car registration. If the government insists on imposing a reduced income on the young, they should also reduce their costs. Look at the practicalities of this. Imagine a business which needs four people to run it. The boss wants to open weekends or statutory holidays. Three of the staff agree, but one holds out. The atmosphere in the workplace would become intolerable. Sooner or later, the employer would find some excuse to get rid of the worker and employ someone prepared to be more flexible. Penalty rates recognise the inconvenience of working unsociable hours. They should stay.

Your example is unrealistic. It's not really going to be the problem you claim.

If someone doesn't want to work on weekends (perhaps they have kids to look after) they shouldn't be forced to do so. Plenty of other people out there would be quite willing to take on some casual work at that time. Labour hire companies can also help out.

If it's a question of insufficient pay, the business can offer more money.

If a business proprietor can't find staff to cover all the shifts, they are really inept at running a business.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 2:36pm: I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board. Of course there are individual differences. Well perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong angle "How many years have you worked in the Industry?" should be the question, not "how old are you" 0 to 3 years - junior rates (75% of award) 3 to 6 years - assistant rates (85% of award) 6+years - Full award rate. Problem solved Employers get what they pay for People gain experience People are rewarded for time served not just age.

Maybe we are. Problem solved.
But I think there is too much of a spread in your cohorts.

0 to 2

2 to 4

4+

When you think about it, what's age got to do with economic or productive worth?

Bam wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:27pm: Bam wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 11:04am: * Abolish public holiday penalty rates except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and ANZAC Day before 12 noon. Why just those particular days? Why is Christmas Day more important than New Year's Day or the Queen's Birthday, for example? These are the most important public holidays. Nevertheless, you raise a fair point. The issue of penalty rates and public holidays merits more in-depth discussion.

"Most important" to you, perhaps.

Christmas Day and Easter mean absolutely nothing to me.

Personally, I'm more interested in New Year's Day.

It's all subjective, thus, all Public Holidays should be regarded as equal.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 2:48pm: bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 2:36pm: I've not heard anyone mention (apart from myself) the value to the employer of, on the one hand, a raw 18yo with, on the other hand, a 21 or 25 or 40yo with runs on the board. Of course there are individual differences. Well perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong angle "How many years have you worked in the Industry?" should be the question, not "how old are you" 0 to 3 years - junior rates (75% of award) 3 to 6 years - assistant rates (85% of award) 6+years - Full award rate. Problem solved Employers get what they pay for People gain experience People are rewarded for time served not just age. Maybe we are. Problem solved. But I think there is too much of a spread in your cohorts. 0 to 2 2 to 4 4+ When you think about it, what's age got to do with economic or productive worth?

Agreed - most people leave school at around 18. With a 6-year wait, someone that gets a job after leaving school at 18 would be 24 before they are earning the full rate.

Someone that changes career twice in their life would spend 18 years of their working life working for below the full rate.

No way.

Even 4 years is too long for some lines of work. If it's a basic job, they should be on the full rate once the probation period ends (up to 12 months).

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

0 to 2 2 to 4 4+

Fair point, my apprenticeship went for 4 years so yeah 4 years your qualified & receive full remuneration.

Now if only those with the actual ability to fix these issues would hire us :D