Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Message To Productivity Commission http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1442612252 Message started by Sir Crook on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:37am

Title: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:37am

Message to Productivity Commission: drop recommendation to cut penalty rates

Thu 17 Sep 15 United Voice Union

United Voice today called on the Productivity Commission to withdraw its recommendation to cut the weekend penalty rates of two million people employed in the hospitality and retail industries. :-?

In Sydney this morning United Voice’s National Secretary Jo-anne Schofield and hospitality member Mary Quirk gave evidence at the Commission’s public hearing.

In its draft report released last month the Commission recommended that Sunday penalty rates that are not part of overtime or shift work be reduced to Saturday rates for the hospitality, entertainment, retail, restaurants and cafe industries.

Jo-anne Schofield says “United Voice has told the Productivity Commission that cutting weekend penalty rates means a pay cut for people who can least afford it.

“Given the lack of evidence that a cut in penalty rates would fundamentally change employment levels, this recommendation would cause hardship to working Australians without the anticipated benefits to the economy.

“The push by employers to cut penalty rates is not about creating more jobs. This is about cutting the pay of working people and putting the money straight into employers’ pockets. :(

“Hard working people like Mary Quirk deserve to get a decent wage for working on weekends.

“Penalty rates mean they can afford the necessities of life.

“If weekend penalty rates are cut people will have to work longer hours or leave these industries altogether.

“It’s time for a reality check on weekend pay.

“Despite the talk of a 24/7 economy, the weekend is still very important in Australia. Saturday and Sunday are not like Monday to Friday.

“The overwhelming majority of Australians believe people should receive fair and decent compensation when they give up their weekends to work. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

“As there is no credible evidence to substantiate the claim that there will be more jobs if weekend penalty rates are reduced but the cost of doing so will be devastating, the prudent course of action for the Productivity Commission is to withdraw this recommendation,” says Jo-anne Schofield.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:53am

Nah. And removing penalty rates now will only deepen the recession, a recession Myers and Woolworths may not survive, increasing unemployment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Greens_Win on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:56am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Bad decisions cause unemployment, not penalty rates.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:00am

____ wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Bad decisions cause unemployment, not penalty rates.

Yes rejecting industrial relation reform is a bad decision.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:02am

We know the liberals cant be trusted, when it comes to industrial relations. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:08am

Message from the Productivity Commission to the United Voice Union.......

Unions and penalty rates cause unemployment....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:15am

Unemployed will get a massive wage rise once gainfully employed.

So will the Govt. More taxes to receive and less welfare to hand out.

Wins all round.....except the Union hacks

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:19am

But that has not been established.

The economy is in recession, wages growth is stalled so let us rob those on lower income of penalty rates. That will fix unemployment—what a puerile argument!

Demand is too low now!

Of course, all this is part of a push to get rid of the weekend and some of those now pushing for an end to penalty rates will end up ruing that!

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:19am

I didn't know the unemployed wanted to work weekends, or public holiday without penalty rates. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:26am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

Unemployed will get a massive wage rise once gainfully employed.

So will the Govt. More taxes to receive and less welfare to hand out.

Wins all round.....except the Union hacks

Workers who used to get penalty rates no longer get get penalty rates == wage cut =Lose for workers, gain for business with profits in pockets and more unemployment because workers have less money to spend.

Its that old adage. Believing business lies causes unemployment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:28am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:19am:

I said it before, whenever business has a plan to "fix" the economy it always starts with a handout to them.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

An untrue statement that nobody has ever been able to support.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:53am

People who work shift work, work for shift penalties there is no other reason.

People will walk away from these jobs in droves businesses will close down and unemployment will drastically increase.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 9:35am

Research already proven that those doing shift work have lower lifespan, poorer quality of life, etc.
Think of those penalty rates as "danger money".

Naturally swag and a few those guys think penalty rates cause unemployment. Them and Gina thinks at $2 per hour is already too generous a pay. Bring it down to say $1 per hour and no doubt we will have full employment!

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:17pm

I'd really like to know what the productivity commission is doing about productivity. Slipping away for nearly two decades and nary a peep out of them.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:19pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:00am:

____ wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Bad decisions cause unemployment, not penalty rates.

Yes rejecting industrial relation reform is a bad decision.

not if the proposed reform is a load of bollocks to start with

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

It's not more work, it's the same amount of work. That's why penalty rates are illogical and a drain on productivity.

And, like anything, such a policy reform would have to be phased in for new employees' contracts.

If the business has trouble getting workers on a Sunday then it will offer more pay to attract them, in the same way that it may pay one person more than another because they are more productive. If there's plenty of workers willing to work at single time on Sunday, then the business wouldn't have to pay more to attract them.

Unless of course a Union behaves like a cartel and bans its members and intimidates non members from working on a Sunday without penalty rates, until the business has to either pay an artificial labour cost (penalty rate) or not open at all? ----> Either way the penalty rate is causing unemployment in this instance.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:37pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

And, like anything, such a policy reform

Going backwards isn't reform.

It's not more work, it's the same amount of work.

If they are paying you less they will ask you to work more. In the end the equation is more for less, more hours / less money.

If the business has trouble getting workers on a Sunday then it will offer more pay to attract them

Then why bother at all if the change is going to be nullified? The reason is simple your year 10 economics does not work in the real world. Business preys on disadvantaged people who have no other option but to take the minimum on offer as we see repeatedly driven by the employer / business cartels.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:43pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Quote:

the penalty rate is causing unemployment in this instance.

Only in the instance you make up - not in the real world.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

If they are paying you less they will ask you to work more. In the end the equation is more for less, more hours / less money.

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Before you go on with all the bull crap about Sunday being a family day, the Sabbath and friend day, and kids are home day and the footy's on etc etc etc their are still individuals that don't give a hoot about these things and just want work.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 10:27pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

If they are paying you less they will ask you to work more. In the end the equation is more for less, more hours / less money.

If you go on google, you will find those doing shift work have been proven to have poorer quality of life including poorer health. These people deserve to be fairly compensated.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:24am

Eat My Shorts!

... oh.. sorry - I thought you were asking for a message to the PC.... bunch of ghetts....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 2:29am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Only if it is a given that weekends etc do not incur penalty rates as required. They would get an income cut, though, and income is the reason they work weekends.

I work only weekends and only nights... I get a fair whack for that... if it were all ordinary time it would not be worth it, especially for the full time workers where I work. Many such would lose massively, and the town would nearly die.

I just got home an hour ago... does the 'productivity commission' work Saturday night into Sunday morning for their fat pay cheque? Not on your life!

I say abolish them as an unnecessary additional QANGO when we already have an Industrial Commission to resolve industrial relations issues.... just another job for a few of the old mates, boys and girls.

Nothing new there - just another super-fat freebie out of the public purse for some old cronies.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 8:56am

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

If they are paying you less they will ask you to work more. In the end the equation is more for less, more hours / less money.

The point of working on Sunday and paying penalty rates is that it is not necessary to make boxes on Sunday and the penalty is a deliberate disincentive to being so stupid as to expect people to be making boxes on a Sunday.

If you are producing boxes on Sunday they are premium boxes that are supplying a lucrative market and making the company a profit.

their are still individuals that don't give a hoot about these things and just want work.

With around 40 years of shift work I never found one of these people ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 11:22am

Dnarever wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

their are still individuals that don't give a hoot about these things and just want work. **

With around 40 years of shift work I never found one of these people ?

** You mean can be bludgeoned into accepting any few dollars to stay alive in a market where those allegedly running the show deliberately create massive unemployment and poverty as a means of getting their way?

Corrmie has weighed in:- https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29578726/we-have-to-be-competitive-cormann/

"As senior Liberal Mathias Cormann awaits his fate in the Turnbull government he has stressed Australia must be internationally competitive.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull put the handling of the economy at the centre of his challenge to oust former leader Tony Abbott last Monday.

"I agree we can always do better and certainly from my point of view ... I will continue to do my best in whatever capacity the leader sees fit," the current finance minister told Sky News on Sunday.

Senator Cormann said the government should be explaining the economic challenges the nation was facing.

As an exporting nation[color=#ff0000] (read Banana Republic), the government must focus on doing everything it can to ensure the economy is as competitive internationally (meaning business must make lots of money) as it can be, while improving productivity (read chopping wages of workers) and reducing the cost of doing business (read pillage workers to benefit business).

Former Liberal leader John Hewson said it was about marketing the message (and that's all it is - nothing of substance) that gives a better explanation in a very uncertain global economy (which will continue as long as short-sighted and selfish idiots like us hold sway).

He said the government must focus on an objective, like doubling the nation's productivity by 2025 (then stop selling off our utilities and business opportunities overseas), and then go through each of the policy areas to explain what needs to be done, whether it is the reform of industrial relations (industrial relations were fine until this lot started a war over non-issues such as weekend penalty rates)or tax (plenty of real avenues for taxation out there, such as super**, international companies - you name it) or energy and energy efficiency (by installing alternative energy sources and re-taking by government of the running of the power and so forth = rejection of 'privatisation'.).

"You need to reset the agenda because we can't go on with this game where one side (of politics) proposes something and the other side immediately says no(that's how Tony got rid of Julia/Kevie - and why he copped it back in spades and finally fell as a result - live by the No word, die by the No word) ," Dr Hewson told Sky News"[/color]

**I got my super statement day before yesterday - I'm over 65 so I don't pay the insurance any more - but I still have tax taken from it @ 15%. I'd like the simple answer as to why those with masses of discretionary income who don't need super or pension get the same deal... and why, if it is considered that equal treatment is required, it is not capped, and you pay full tax after that.

As a casual employee on a very limited income, I pay the same administration costs and tax rate - adding those two together means that the 10% allocated as return on investment is less than half those two things, then if I take this small amount as a lump sum at full retirement I pay tax again.

Tony and his mates can all take a fat cheque every week.... if I left my miserable amount in the fund it would disappear rapidly, so I have no choice but to draw it and foot the bill.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 11:37am

"double productivity by 2025"......

.. and at what cost to the ordinary person?

There is a great future for Manus Island - as a repository for all those politicians found to be rorters, liars, thieves and other forms of social and legal criminal.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 11:57am

We are lucky the Australian Productivity Commission are idiots, this is a politicians death trap. A better policy is to move weekend penalty rates for hospitality and retail to Monday, Tuesday. The quietest times in that sector.

One could argue that their working roster does not work with this old system that was suited for manufacturing, energy, resources, finance sector.

They wouldn't be poking a hornets nest by suggesting this and still achieve similar results.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:02pm

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Hmm - the point is that Sunday rates are for working while everyone else is recovering from Saturday night frivolities..... ever seen The Walking Dead behind the counters at Woolies on a Sunday?

I worked last night until 1am while all around me were partying wildly..... didn't get to even view one minute of the NRL Final on the big screen TV at the club.... I drove most of the revellers home later in a bus... you reckon I don't deserve the one hour at Sunday penalty rate?

Why would you accept a deal that gives you double time for working on Monday in a restaurant, when that is the day they traditionally close?

Impossible to aqree with your idea.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:13pm

I do think you deserve Sunday penalty rates, I survive on it myself. But I'm looking about this from their point of view.

Telling people that they are going to scrap something is a lot different from telling people they are going to move it. It's about pissing less people off.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:52pm

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Yes - but moving it to a day when they wouldn't be working anyway is just a sneaky move to get the same result. They don't run football finals on Monday - all the best entertainment over holidays is not on off days of the week when everyone else is working - all the best parts of the Royal Easter Show, the New Year's fireworks etc.. are all on Sundays/Saturdays or Public Holidays - this strand of penalty rates is to compensate for losing the chance to do those things, etc. It's a long-established system and has no need for change.

What IS needed is - as someone here says - more capital productivity -meaning we need to chop off at the knees all this wazste on boards and ceos and such from 'privatisation' and chop off offshore investment that Australia and Australians could invest in for themselves.

Australians are just as capable of taking a business plan to banks and getting the investment capital to develop resource mining etc - allowing offshore companies residing in tax havens to come in and do it is only robbing yourself, without even the chance of getting it back on insurance.

Only a fool would do that, and that sums up the approach of respective governments here over the past thirty plus years.

BOTR.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:53pm

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

Ban weekend work altogether.. don't bother calling the ambos, cops or firies....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:09pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:52pm:

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

"Sneaky move to get the same result" what do you think politics is about, without it William Wilberforce would of never been able to implicitly ban slavery, though a lot of bad policies have come in because of it eg Thatcherism/Reganism
Businesses don't care about how you spend your weekends(unless it affects your work ability) or what sports team you support, they are only after the bottom line.
Think about the industry at hand manufacturing, finance, accounting, resources, logistics, ICT, IT and energy. There busy days are from Monday to Friday. So it makes sense to have penalty rates on Sunday and Saturday.
But Hospitality and retail busy times are from Thursdays to Sunday.Therefore it is reasonable that there penalty rates should be Monday, Tuesday.
What's hindering businesses from opening for longer hours and hiring extra staff to churn out more customers is wages, so you won't have to be waiting in an hour long queue for food and beverages for "all the best entertainment over holidays ".

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:30pm

Bu if you once open the door to different rules for different groups...................................... where does it end? Will it lead to such things as a ceiling on super investments before you cop full tax instead of 15%? I doubt it - such changes in the rules only apply to the peasants.....

Now that's true conservatism - not the rubbish bandied about these days...

Club for a drink with cronies - bit of glad-handing and baby kissing - still deciding if I'll stand next Fed Elect, either as an independent or as a new party member.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm

It's people like me that's the problem, I complain about these situations.

The thing is they know what they are doing. But I haven't done a single thing or participated in any political event/movements to try to stop them.

So It's people like me to blame for letting dickheads get away with these things.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 6:54pm

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Good point - but here some of us try very hard to get the message across in the full knowledge that this site is monitored.

If I stand, there will be endless flak directed my way - all of it false - and that is precisely why I am considering standing at all. Only question is - am I strong enough to handle it?

We live in a society in which anyone with a free-thinking mid is automatically an 'enemy of the people' - and is set upon as a result. My opposition to various policy thrusts over the past nearly forty years has lead me into direct confrontation with city hall - and they are all liars.

As I said - am I strong enough to take the attacks I know will come if I stand?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 9:06pm

It's not only about being strong enough to handle it.

It's also about how you can make it easier for yourself eg being financially secure for the rest of your life. Friends and businesses that support your cause and spread your message. The amount of time campaigning takes.

But yes strength is still needed to put these bullies in their place, all it takes is a bit of practice and vigor.

I really hope you do take a stand but don't walking into a gun fight with a wooden spoon.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 10:10pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

What is your platform ? Will you be supporting smaller government and lower taxes ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 2:23am

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 10:10pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

What is your platform ? Will you be supporting smaller government and lower taxes ?

I will be advocating smaller government and a more even tax regime - one that takes full measure of all who should be contributing tax into revenue, and under the same rules.

You earn - you pay. There is a lot of room for determining HOW the tax system will operate - and I've been saying for a long time there is a desperate need for a total overhaul and review of taxation as it now works. For example, a single unit GST would work better than the plethora of taxes and excises now in play.... but that needs some very careful tuning, in regard to those who currently enjoy tax havens (internally to Australia) and those who do not.

What we need now is full import from people who really know how it works.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 2:28am

In terms of social 'exclusion' or 'exclusion' - these areas need to be looked at very closely - and some very strong fixed lines (not 'guidelines) set in place to determine at what point government ceases to have 'rights' to intervene by exercising the power of the 'law' and of government. Beyond a certain point the application of these arms of government become tyranny and abuse = read violence by the State for its own ends, and not those of the people.

Pasha: The private life is dead - for a man with any manhood.

Zhivago: I saw some of your 'manhood' on the way at a place called Minsk.

Pasha: They were selling horses to the Whites.

Zhivago: It seems you've burnt the wrong village.

Pasha: They always say that, and what does it matter? A village betrays us, a village is burned. The point's made.

Zhivago: Your point - their village.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 3:05am

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 9:06pm:

I am proud of saying that the carer benefit I receive for my ex - who has no body else - goes into her bank account to pay for physio, heated pool fees, and doctors and fuel to run around.

I have no great horde of money - indeed I am one of those defined as ' below the poverty line - and still I have no great need for it.

When contending with liars and thieves - state the truth and let the public decide.... like Robert Redford's character in "The Candidate" - at least I'll give 'em a shakeup!

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Labor Productivity = Total Output/Total Man-Hours

Quantify Man hours = labour cost

From the above EG say it costs $1 labour cost per box on single time. $100 per day

With penalty rate x2 it costs $2 labour cost per box $200 per day

Productivity single time = 100 / 100 = 1x

Productivity penalty rate = 100 / 200 = 0.5x

Productivity is halved on Sunday. Employ 1 more person casually on Sun (assuming no PR) and get another 100 boxes for the same Labour cost. Community has 1 less unemployed person, so unemployment has declined & Govt gets more tax and is spending less on welfare. This one person has more spendable income etc etc

:)

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:05am

Productivity is output per hour worked. Nothing to do with wages.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Phemanderac on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:08am

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Why would you make boxes on a Sunday?

Surely that is the choice of the employer to be manufacturing on a Sunday, as such, pay the penalty rates.

It is called penalty rates for a reason.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Phemanderac on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am

PLUS, productivity is best measured over a longer time period that one Sunday...

I.E if the bottom line (being the profit made) is sustainable, then it is obviously worthwhile for the business to be open... If the only thing holding the business back is weekend and evening penalty rates, then the business is not productive regardless of rates of pay.

I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing a working poor class. You know, people who honestly work for a living yet can't afford to actually live.

Productivity commission need to go get a real job for a few years me thinks.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Sad attempt at justifying paying workers peanuts. Show me some reputable sources to support your argument.

To counter this - why pay ambos, police, and hospitals penalty rates? Why

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:33am

stunspore wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Sad attempt at justifying paying workers peanuts. Show me some reputable sources to support your argument.

To counter this - why pay ambos, police, and hospitals penalty rates? Why

Because Swag feels he might need an ambulance on the weekend or at night?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:14am

Accidents can be minimized to refrain from use of ambos and hospitals by avoiding risky activities such as sport. In a sense then, those are discretionary, just like going out for lunch.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:26am

stunspore wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

Sad attempt at justifying paying workers peanuts. Show me some reputable sources to support your argument.

Isn't the productivity commission a reputable source?

stunspore wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

To counter this - why pay ambos, police, and hospitals penalty rates? Why

Why indeed? You tell me?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am:

PLUS, productivity is best measured over a longer time period that one Sunday...

It was just a simple example to support a view point.

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am:

I.E if the bottom line (being the profit made) is sustainable, then it is obviously worthwhile for the business to be open... If the only thing holding the business back is weekend and evening penalty rates, then the business is not productive regardless of rates of pay.

Maybe, but why should someone be unemployed when they could have gainful employment.

Using the example.

Assume that if with a x2 penalty rate for Sunday the box maker employed 5 people for Sunday work (so for 40 hrs work he pays 80 hrs of wages), but if he didn't have to pay his workers double time for Sunday he could provide another full time job (40 hours) for the same labour cost.

An unemployed person gets a full time job and everyone is paid the same. :)

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am:

I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing a working poor class. You know, people who honestly work for a living yet can't afford to actually live.

....and I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing an unemployed poor class. You know, people who honestly 'want' to work for a living, yet are being denied a job by penalty rates... :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:56am

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

It was just a simple example to support a view point.

ahh, cherry picking

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Phemanderac on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:05pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

It was just a simple example to support a view point.

Clearly a flawed one then...

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

An unemployed person gets a full time job and everyone is paid the same.

That is an assumption made by you. The reality is, it is doubtful that a new person will be employed, after all, the company can now make exactly the same amount of money by spending less on wages... That's how business works...

Mess around with the figures all you like, bottom line, there is no gaurantee that businesses will employ more people, for the main part, they will make do with the same number of employees and keep the extra not spent on wages.

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

and I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing an unemployed poor class. You know, people who honestly 'want' to work for a living, yet are being denied a job by penalty rates...

Rubbish.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that comment.

Any smart business already operating on weekends could prove your point quite easily. Stop their weekend trade and use that extra money to employ more people during the normal week...

As I said (and you ignored) they're called penalty rates for a reason...

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:05pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am:

PLUS, productivity is best measured over a longer time period that one Sunday...

It was just a simple example to support a view point.

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:13am:

I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing a working poor class. You know, people who honestly work for a living yet can't afford to actually live.

It was just a simple example to support a view point.

It failed.

Assume that if with a x2 penalty rate for Sunday the box maker employed 5 people for Sunday work (so for 40 hrs work he pays 80 hrs of wages), but if he didn't have to pay his workers double time for Sunday he could provide another full time job (40 hours) for the same labour cost.

Now you have 2 people who would rather have the day off being underpaid to lose a day which has substantially more intrinsic value. One of them is doing work that the employer does not need.

One of the two will lose his job and the other will be left doing the same work for half the wage.

You know, people who honestly 'want' to work for a living, yet are being denied a job by penalty rates...

Once again penalty rates do not cost jobs and removing penalty rates do not produce jobs - its a fallacy.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:13pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing an unemployed poor class.

Much better to develope a working poor class.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:05pm:

The reality is, it is doubtful that a new person will be employed, after all, the company can now make exactly the same amount of money by spending less on wages... That's how business works...

Mess around with the figures all you like, bottom line, there is no gaurantee that businesses will employ more people, for the main part, they will make do with the same number of employees and keep the extra not spent on wages

That is an assumption made by you....

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:05pm:

As I said (and you ignored) they're called penalty rates for a reason..

They are indeed

...they penalise the economy, penalise enterprise, penalise the unemployed and penalise competitiveness.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by RandomCrook on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:50pm

I don't understand why you guys are bringing in the business model of industries that the productivity commission advice is not targeting, thinking that it has a large correlation to retail and hospitality.

With Retail and Hospitality in mind, to relate to your argument whether this will increase casual employment rates.
The simple answer is yes it will.By scraping/moving Saturday/Sunday penalty rate for those industries, will allow 1.Businesses will have lower operating cost allowing them to open for longer hours.
2.Let just say this business is very busy at peak hours, but very quiet when it's not which will reduce their profit margins.
By scrapping/moving the penalty rates this will allow them to hire more staff so customers will not have to wait in line as long(from experience I will not go into a restaurant/shop that has a massive line) for those peak hour periods and won't be losing as much money in the quiet times.

EDIT: Need to learn to proof read

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:52pm

RandomCrook wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:50pm:

he simple question is yes it will.By scraping/moving Saturday/Sunday penalty rate for those industries, will allow 1.Businesses to have lower operating cost allowing them to open for longer hours.

business should have thought of that before asking for extended trading hours.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 5:00pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:54am:

I am astounded that there are supporters of Australia further developing an unemployed poor class.

Much better to develope a working poor class.

Yes - that way they can starve genteely and will be considerably less trouble... as long as they suffer the delusion that as long as they work hard and be honest, all will be right in the world - they won't turn to crime and ... god forbid.. revolution! Easier to ride them down with the trooper's horses when they're starving, too....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:51pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

cost of living would go up

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:59pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:51pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

cost of living would go up

.....for all those recently unemployed box makers :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:09pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:51pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

cost of living would go up

.. as already happened with the advent of the MADIF.... the moment the market realised that many households had two incomes, prices went up immediately - then began the endless chase by the single person family to even get a foothold in the market for such things as housing etc...

Rather than being an 'equalising' force in society, the MADIF has become a highway of inequality, and has lead to an increasingly fractured and divided society.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:15pm

Message To Productivity Commission

.. go out and get a real job and pay some taxes you loafers....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:18pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:59pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:51pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

cost of living would go up

.....for all those recently unemployed box makers :D

so were going to play make believe are we?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:26pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:18pm:

so were going to play make believe are we?

...so you get home ground advantage?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:31pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:26pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:18pm:

so were going to play make believe are we?

...so you get home ground advantage?

No, I get reality. When penalty rates are applied for every day of the week, you can complain.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 9:39pm

Swag makes as many gaffes as Hockey does. I wonder if they are the one and same (obvious sarcasm there ofc).

I can see where Swag is coming from. Sadly I think there are more disadvantages than advantages to cutting penalty rates - not that I have research to back this up.

No matter what productivity commission said, Swag will always try and turn it to his way or discredit it if it can't. Climate change council etc is reputable yet Swag's team believe climate science is crap. Whatever.

I think I can understand how libs can be so twisted. And how they think lowering wages will make everyone happy. I am reminded of something from school, where during the time of Pol Pot, they had camps and apparently my teacher said that all people needed to do was work for food and shelter and that's about it. Trying to extrapolate the lib's way of thinking, people of lower caliber needs to work only for the bare necessities and without a "good job" live under bridges instead of houses. I don't know how many in Australia can survive 3rd world incomes in a 1st world country, but i guess if $2 per day type "Gina jobs" can be created then Swag will have his utopia. And with all those savings, I imagine his dream of never paying taxes will come true!

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:17pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 8:10am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

Penalty rates cause unemployment

Cutting worker wages will entrench the recession and cause more unemployment.

No one would get a wage cut.

Paying people less for more work is a pay cut.

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

Nice try Swaggie. I know you know otherwise. Suffice to say that if productivity was measured against the cost of labour rather than time displacement there would never have been any productivity gains at all over the last two centuries. Wages rise because of total factor productivity gains, not the other way around.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 11:06pm

Quote:

I can see where Swag is coming from. Sadly I think there are more disadvantages than advantages to cutting penalty rates

That's the rub. There are so many burdens and impediments to running a business today. The productivity commission for some reason chooses to look at only one element. To forget about compliance costs, regulatory and statutory obligations, OH&S, Workcover, Payroll tax, ASIC, BAS and a multitude of others is to ignore a herd of elephants in the room all for the sake a mouse.

Despite the remonstrations of the leftists that pervade this board it is likely that abolition would eventually result in further employment over time. The unfortunate part is that the gradual rise comes only to the deprivation of those that are employed. Merely taking a pay cut in order to share jobs around. Governments, we hope work towards lifting the living standards of the population rather than working for their diminution.

This is a very lazy approach from the productivity commission, especially when they have nothing to say on the current state of productivity.

Funny thing about all this is that the recent scramble for slowing wages growth is all down to a decade and a half of falling productivity. Not a word from the lazy pricks.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 11:09pm

crocodile wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 11:06pm:

it is likely that abolition would eventually result in further employment over time.

it is just as likely that employment remain the same ...

I do agree with all your other points though

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 2:14pm

crocodile wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:17pm:

What's the productivity gain on a Sunday then to justify increasing pay by 100%?

Paying double time for the same output is effectively adding an extra day into the time displacement part of the productivity equation (as my post cited).

The worker on X2 penalty rate has worked 8 hours (1 day) but got paid for 16 hours (2 days) The worker has effectively 'worked' for 8 hours and produced nothing. :(

How can that NOT effect productivity?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 12:29pm:

That is an assumption made by you....

you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary. You're the one who keeps saying it will create jobs

What do you think would happen if wages were doubled for every day? :-?

You could have used this space to post something with meaning or relevance ?

There is no realistic prospect of doubling wages just like nobody is making boxes on Sundays.

Penalty rates doing what they are meant to do - making it unprofitable to make people work on Sundays if they don't have to or need to.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 4:27pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 2:14pm:

crocodile wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:17pm:

It hasn't. Same number of boxes per time period = same productivity. The cost of labour is not part of productivity calculations. We've been through this many times already. Sounds more like you're wanting a change to the definition. Like I've already pointed out, if you equate output with the cost of labour we would have never had any productivity gains for centuries.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 4:43pm

Certain days have more intrinsic value in society. Weekends may or may not be more/less important as compared to history.

Choosing to make boxes on the weekend imposes extra cost to reflect this. Swag is welcome to make Mondays and Tuesdays his off days and see how that works out.

Swag and his team doesn't value the Australian lifestyle of having weekends, with a penalty associated for asking people to work on these days. Just like Swag doesn't believe in handing in taxes associated with progressive tax rate. I await patiently for him and his kind to emigrate to a more friendly country to his liking.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 4:47pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 2:14pm:

crocodile wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 10:17pm:

Paying double time for the same output is effectively adding an extra day into the time displacement part of the productivity equation (as my post cited).What's the productivity gain on a Sunday then to justify increasing pay by 100%?

The worker on X2 penalty rate has worked 8 hours (1 day) but got paid for 16 hours (2 days) The worker has effectively 'worked' for 8 hours and produced nothing. :(

How can that NOT effect productivity?

What's the productivity gain on a Sunday then to justify increasing pay by 100%?

Sunday productivity has no relevance, it is a premium day with a natural premium price attached, the benefit is that this serves as a disincentive to open on Sunday unless it is necessary or profitable when taking the full cost into account.

The idea is that there is incentive for the employer to not open on Sunday and for people to have the day off work or to be adequately compensated if they are required to work.

That means that box builders do not open on Sundays unless their is a special job that will meet the cost.

It prevents employers from being their natural stupid greedy selves.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 5:59pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Penalty rates doing what they are meant to do - making it unprofitable to make people work on Sundays if they don't have to or need to.

Thankyou for acknowledging that penalty rates cause unemployment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 6:08pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Swag Co-op Ltd would make boxes 7 days a week, employ more people, and be more competitive and therefore win the box making contract whilst DumlazypricksPtyLtd loses it's contract for being too expensive and all it's employees go on the dole......and then everyday is Sunday but the dole doesn't pay penalty rates.... ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 6:11pm

Penalty rates are for the fact, you want people to work these hours. ;)

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:40pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Penalty rates doing what they are meant to do - making it unprofitable to make people work on Sundays if they don't have to or need to.

Thankyou for acknowledging that penalty rates cause unemployment.

No they don't - stopping stupidity does not impact employment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:08pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Penalty rates doing what they are meant to do - making it unprofitable to make people work on Sundays if they don't have to or need to.

Thankyou for acknowledging that penalty rates cause unemployment.

No they don't - stopping stupidity does not impact employment.

No you've quite correctly pointed out that increasing the price of labour with a penalty rate decreases its demand and a decrease in demand for employment is akin to causing unemployment.... :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:27pm

I didn't know the unemployed wanted to work weekends, without penalty rates. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:28pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 7:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Penalty rates doing what they are meant to do - making it unprofitable to make people work on Sundays if they don't have to or need to.

Thankyou for acknowledging that penalty rates cause unemployment.

No they don't - stopping stupidity does not impact employment.

No you've quite correctly pointed out that increasing the price of labour with a penalty rate decreases its demand and a decrease in demand for employment is akin to causing unemployment.... :(

you've yet to show how lowering the cost of employment will increase employment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 9:17pm

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:27pm:

I didn't know the unemployed wanted to work weekends, without penalty rates. :(

Every day's a weekend to the unemployed Crookster.... ;)

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 8:28pm:

you've yet to show how lowering the cost of employment will increase employment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_demand

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 10:10pm

Swagman, I always thought there were 7 days in a week. With the weekend being the main days people have off. Now if and I say if, you want people to work weekends. Thus the need to pay penalty rates, and rightly so. Even for the unemployed. ;)

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 11:26pm

Message To Productivity Commission

... get a life, get a real job, pay some taxes, stop sucking off the public teat, and Eat My Shorts! You are all nothing but a waste of public time and money, and deserve a spell on Manus Island when we turn it into a Repository for Failed Politicians and Their Mates - the New Devil's Island.

Then we'll run a reality TV show about how you all get on........ Politician Survivor! - Maniac Island!!

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 8:59am

wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2015 at 10:10pm:

That was fine in the 60s and 70s Crook when the spectre of the aging population was off the radar and the barriers of distance made Australia a Truebeliever's paradise.

The world stage has changed. Asia is now an industrial powerhouse and the Internet has put global retailers at the touch of a finger. Australia is no longer isolated. Australian business and heavy industry now has to compete with the world's businesses and heavy industries.

The world doesn't give a crap about weekends and public holidays. If Australia wants to compete in a Global world it has to adapt. IR has to adapt with it.

Australia cannot afford the petty extravagances of a bygone era. Australia's productivity funded these extravagances but it's now taking a duck dive and unless we adapt Australia will take a dive with it.

Geezus, you Leftists have the hide to call Liberals conservatives? You Truebelievers are the real conservatives. :-?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 12:17pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am:

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

In other words.....

:D ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 9:56pm

We don't want to compete with the whole world of peasants out there - we just want a fair go in Australia.

I don't recall anywhere signing up to a contest with poor people worldwide. If government want to do that - or business - let them pay for it.

Thanks for coming...

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:07pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am:

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

Or get productivity growth back to where it was before the decade and a half long slide

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:12pm

crocodile wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:07pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am:

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

Or get productivity growth back to where it was before the decade and a half long slide

Real productivity, as in manufactured goods good enough to sell..

I'm off the watch Blood On the Snow - Russia's War.

You learn a hell of a lot from reviewing history of Russia, Britain and the United States - ever mistake we are trying out here............... they were way in advance of us....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 8:54am

crocodile wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:07pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am:

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

Or get productivity growth back to where it was before the decade and a half long slide

How would you do that Croc?

Trying to alter the indoctrinated mantra from penalising business for trying to compete, to rewarding individual efficiencies perhaps?

Collective work agreements don't do this. They reward inefficiency. Unproductive workers can hide amongst the more productive.

Individual work contracts reward individual productivity. Labor & the Unions trashed AWAs. Labor and the Unions rejected productivity improvements just as they are now trying to block FTAs.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:12pm:

Real productivity, as in manufactured goods good enough to sell..

That's the point. The Australian manufacturer has to compete against other manufacturers. As Croc pointed out Australian manufacturers have a plethora of overheads..........

crocodile wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 11:06pm:

The bottom line is........with all that added on crap + illogical penalty rates to pay, manufacturers and lots of other business have just given up. Who is going to risk their hard earned in that scenario?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Phemanderac on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:00am

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

manufacturers and lots of other business have just given up.

There's the big problem right there, a typically un-Australian attitude...

If they give up then we are no doubt better off without them...

Make room for some real employers.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:41am

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

manufacturers and lots of other business have just given up.

There's the big problem right there, a typically un-Australian attitude...

If they give up then we are no doubt better off without them...

Make room for some real employers.

Are you putting your hand up?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:01am

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

A silly example. Someone making 100 hypothetical boxes isn't likely to be working in the hospitality industry.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:05am

Productivity is output per unit of labor. Wages don’t come into it. That is twice you have tried to confuse cost with productivity in this thread.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:09am

So, Swag - are you demanding that every employer who benefits from chopping penalties MUST employ another person? and be penalised if they don't?

That'll solve the whole argument, neh?

Downe at Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe:-

"Got another four cappucinos to make here!"

"OK- get in line behind the other six baristas waiting for their turn at the machine."

"OK".

Excerpt from "The Perils of Over-Employment In Small Business" by Boks Kuttah.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:12am

This is what employers keep demanding:

Quote:

* Sunday penalty rates that are not part of overtime or shift work be reduced to Saturday rates for the hospitality, entertainment, retail, restaurants and cafe industries.
* Lower minimum wage.

This is what employers are offering to give up in exchange:

Quote:

The employers have to fill that second box with fair and reasonable offers of compensation so workers are not left worse off. Until they do, they are wasting their time.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:29am

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:01am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 21^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Just for our edification, could you let us all know how penalty rates drain productivity.

OK

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

If your job is making boxes and you make 100 boxes a day. If you work on a Sunday, then you will still only make 100 boxes. Your productivity doesn't double? Why should you get paid double?

A silly example. Someone making 100 hypothetical boxes isn't likely to be working in the hospitality industry.

So what? It's simplified to make the point easier to comprehend. Besides, the job might be to make sandwiches or pizzas? The scenario is the same.

In that Box factory example. Removing the penalty rate enables the Box Factory to produce more boxes for the same labour cost.

How? The previously unemployed person will come in and make an additional 100 boxes per day for the penalty hours currently paid to existing employed persons for producing nothing.

That would make the factory more competitive. It can win more business (increase its demand), produce more and employ even more people.

What's 'silly' about that? :-?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:33am

The company would only do that if it needed another 100 boxes a week. Nothing to do with penalty rates ::)

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:35am

What about the costs of recruitment, training, extra equipment etc? Surely a factory has an upper limit on how much of each separate input to production can be used economically?

At a certain point the productivity per person falls off, and they become surplus to needs... but Luong Yi can explain that to us when she gets here....

** You also cannot enforce a market for any extra production you create... without that market there is no point to any of this.

A cafe can only fit so may bums on seats and handle so many takeaways per hour.....

** Swag - you are running perilously close to a controlled economy here - once you begin to enforce one area of production/transfer of goods you kick down the door to all others.....

How long before Border Force are out there shoving people into lines at cafes and restaurants, and enforcing the Buy Coffee On Public Holidays Law..

But then I suppose a socialist controlled economy is only a good thing when you Uberkontrol the workers.....ONLY..... ;D ;D

Such pride cometh before a great fall.....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:47am

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

The company would only do that if it needed another 100 boxes a week. Nothing to do with penalty rates ::)

Not really, it could reduce the price of its product, and make its product more competitive. Local companies might buy this company's boxes instead of buying Chinese boxes for example?

Win a lucrative contract, and the company may have to massively increase its production and employ lots more box makers. This might create an under supply of box makers and push up the price of labour (wages).

Oh looky there.....an evil market force in action :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:57am

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

The company would only do that if it needed another 100 boxes a week. Nothing to do with penalty rates ::)

Lot of assumptions there, Swag.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:08am

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:12am:

This is what employers keep demanding:

Quote:

* Sunday penalty rates that are not part of overtime or shift work be reduced to Saturday rates for the hospitality, entertainment, retail, restaurants and cafe industries.
* Lower minimum wage.

This is what employers are offering to give up in exchange:
[quote]

The employers have to fill that second box with fair and reasonable offers of compensation so workers are not left worse off. Until they do, they are wasting their time.
[/quote]

No the offer you present is correct - the answer is nothing.

Also you mention the industries supposedly included, and you don't mention the industries excluder - essential services, but what isn't mentioned is all the other industries ?

I think we can call them the collateral damage industries.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:26am

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

The company would only do that if it needed another 100 boxes a week. Nothing to do with penalty rates ::)

I can reduce the price of its boxes simply by not making them on a Sunday which is what they do now.

Do you know that you can employ an additional person Monday to Friday and pay them half what you would on a Sunday ? By you argument this would improve your productivity by producing more at a lower cost, even if you need more bloody boxes like a hole in the head.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am

The simple point is that at double time on a Sunday there is 8 hours of work being paid per worker for producing nothing. :o You seem to think that this is somehow logical? ::)

If 5 people are employed on Sunday at double time then that is 40 hours being paid for doing nothing. 40 hours is one full time job.

If there is an unemployed person available to fill that 40 hours, then they should fill it.

If not, and the business still wants to open, but no body wants to work at single time, then pay extra to work the Sunday shift. That's not a penalty rate. That's a reward rate and it's the market working.

The other simple point is that for the same labour cost as the penalty rate, the company gets 40 additional hours of production, and the community (tax-payer) doesn't have to pay unemployment benefits to the one previously unemployed person, and the community will now collect income tax from that previously unemployed person. :-? :o

What's wrong with this?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 12:57pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Your whole argument is rubbish nobody is making boxes on Sunday and nobody needs to make boxes on Sunday, more than enough boxes can be produced Monday to Friday.

Sunday labour has an intrinsically higher economic value which is currently realised through penalty rates.

Claims about additional employment is bogus, nobody is going to employ additional people to make boxes that they don't need, or to make coffee that nobody wants.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 12:58pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The simple point is that at double time on a Sunday there is 8 hours of work being paid per worker for producing nothing
.

what they produce is not their problem, that's the bosses. You pay them for their time. You want them on Sunday, pay the penalties.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 1:24pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

There really is no point to arguing with the self-deluded. A similar logic could be applied by saying how about we pay workers peanuts that way companies can remain (more) profitable. While we are at it, lets turn worker homes into sweat shops and work 24/7

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 1:25pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The simple point is that at double time on a Sunday there is 8 hours of work being paid per worker for producing nothing
.

what they produce is not their problem, that's the bosses. You pay them for their time. You want them on Sunday, pay the penalties.

...it becomes their problem when the business closes down because it's uncompetitive and they become unemployed and the union starts whinging at the govt for tax payer assistance

A common theme these days.....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 2:13pm

Garbage. They can pay for part time work M–F to make the boxes would otherwise be made on Sunday.

There really is no case to be made to scrap penalty rates. Cutting them now would be economic madness.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 2:50pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The simple point is that at double time on a Sunday there is 8 hours of work being paid per worker for producing nothing
.

what they produce is not their problem, that's the bosses. You pay them for their time. You want them on Sunday, pay the penalties.

businesses don't close down because they don't want to pay penalty rates on Sunday, they simply close on Sundays :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm

....yes which adds to unemployment

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:00pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

See reply #110

reply 110 has zero evidence substantiating anything at all. ...

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:45pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

That's not supporting evidence, that's just another post of yours.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 6:36am

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

Reply 110 is just another version of your unsupported opinion ?

Woops it seems that everyone else already called you on this error.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 6:39am

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The simple point is that at double time on a Sunday there is 8 hours of work being paid per worker for producing nothing
.

what they produce is not their problem, that's the bosses. You pay them for their time. You want them on Sunday, pay the penalties.

businesses don't close down because they don't want to pay penalty rates on Sunday, they simply close on Sundays :D :D :D :D

Business do not open on Sundays if they can not make a successful business case for doing so, if penalty rates are the deciding factor then they have no case anyway and would still remain shut.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 10:23am

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

That's not supporting evidence, that's just another post of yours.

It's simple quantitative evidence.

I thought even you comrades would be able to interpret it? Guess my guesstimate of your intelligence needs to be amended? ;D ;D

Feel free to refute it, with something of substance? Invent a new form of mathematics perhaps.... ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 10:58am

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

That's not supporting evidence, that's just another post of yours.

So you think if you repeat it enough, it becomes evidence? ;D ;D ;D

I only need to refute what you've proven. SO far you've proven nothing so I've nothing to refute.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 12:01pm

Here's a clue for you Johnny.

1 + 1 = ?

;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:28am

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

That's not supporting evidence, that's just another post of yours.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 12:06pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

....yes which adds to unemployment

so you keep claiming

... without the slightest shred of supporting evidence.

See reply #110

That's not supporting evidence, that's just another post of yours.

There is nothing to refute. You've just made up crap, and despite having several opportunities to provide supporting evidence you have refused. If there was independent evidence you would have provided it by now. Case closed.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:26pm

Bam wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:

There is nothing to refute.

Refute this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

If 5 people are employed on Sunday at double time then that is 40 hours being paid for doing nothing. 40 hours is one full time job.

If there is an unemployed person available to fill that 40 hours, then they should fill it.

and this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The other simple point is that for the same labour cost as the penalty rate, the company gets 40 additional hours of production, and the community (tax-payer) doesn't have to pay unemployment benefits to the one previously unemployed person, and the community will now collect income tax from that previously unemployed person. :-?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:54pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

The hospitality industry is where we see most complaints being generated.

The general hospitality award does not pay double time for Sunday and only pays a miserable 125% for Saturdays.

Consider it refuted as you are clearly wrong.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:13pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:

There is nothing to refute.

Refute this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

and this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Even better idea! Do what 7-11 does, underpay staff and make staff pay back the extra money! Oh wait that is illegal. Let's do what Swag proposes instead - make it legal to do what 7-11 does now. They are the pioneers for Swag's great revolution.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:36pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Again you have refuted effall.

Any penalty rate amount > 100% is subject to the same concept, it just has a lesser impact than x2. At 125% every 32 people paid Sat penalty rates = 1 potential full time job foregone* @ normal time. :-?

*Assuming 1 Full Time job = 40 hrs & an 8 hr Sat worked.

My example is theoretical. Refute the theory, or is that too difficult?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:45pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:

There is nothing to refute.

Refute this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

That is entirely hypothetical and has no basis in reality.

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

and this.....

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

Again, that's purely hypothetical.

You have offered not one shed of real evidence, no links, no citations. Just vague mumblings on a totally fictitious scenario that you made up.

See? You posted crap.

Refuted.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm

Everything is hypothetical. As I see it there are good arguments for and against penalty rates. At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

At least I am open minded about this topic and acknowledge both sides of view. Too bad there are ideologically tied narrowly minded individuals.

As I said it before, more research needs to be done in this area as there is lack of quality data other than weak comments that are not backed up by numbers.

Now this forum is going into name-calling mode and requests for evidence (which is easily discredited).

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

so a lot of people who aren't affected by penalty rates will decide if others should get them?

If the benefits are real, and the arguments sound, those receiving penalty rates will themselves vote to remove them. So far all I've seen is people like Swag say there are benefits and then when asked for evidence they quote their own previous comments.I've seen no real evidence that there are any benefits so I find it hard to believe that it's anything other than about increasing profits, rather than increasing employment. If it increased employment surely it would be hard for them to prove.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

At best, inform people of the consequences (good or bad) then we democratically decide it.

so a lot of people who aren't affected by penalty rates will decide if others should get them?

Same thing happens with tax Smithy. The majority votes to steal taxation from a minority.

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

If the benefits are real, and the arguments sound, those receiving penalty rates will themselves vote to remove them. So far all I've seen is people like Swag say there are benefits and then when asked for evidence they quote their own previous comments.

That's because it is evidence. It's maths. The evidence is mathematical.

Read the post. 5 people employed on a Sunday on double time penalty rate adds up to 40 hrs of work on single time that an unemployed person could be doing.

Paying someone extra for no increased production whilst someone unemployed and wants a job sits around on their bum on the dole?

Hearing it from someone else doesn't make it any more correct?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:29pm

Swag please show some actual research that demonstrates that supports your hypothesis. This is a complex mechanism in society which has multitude of effects.

For instance, if more shops opened on the weekend that doesn't necessarily lead to more consumption - just more competition between shops or spread out spending throughout the week. Overall GDP might still be about the same - except workers with less wages can no longer afford to spend as much while those who can afford to go out pay less? Unless of course businesses choose to take the savings as profit.

Not that Swag's hypothesis is wrong - but it isn't the only thing that can happen. And that is why some people are opposing you, Swag. Because their hypothesis can also be valid.

We probably should observe those states/industries that are happy to try lower penalty rates and see what happens.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:31pm

I should also note: Swag focuses a lot on the unemployed. Exactly how many of the unemployed will be able to take a job if penalty rates go? Is there any estimates? If it amounts to very little, say, a 100 or so, that doesn't sound like a good plan to me - if it also causes a more negative impact overall to the economy.

I remain rational rather than keep sprouting ideological comments all the time.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:40pm

We didn't know the unemployed wanted to work weekends, without the penalty rates. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:09pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

Same thing happens with tax Smithy.

everyone pays taxes Swag, not everyone receives penalty rates

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

That's because it is evidence. It's maths. The evidence is mathematical.

yes Swag, simple maths. If I need 5 people to do a job on Sunday, I'm not suddenly going to hire extra people to do the same work just because I don't have to pay penalty rates. ... I'll just add my savings to my profits.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:12pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Not that Swag's hypothesis is wrong -

yes it is ... most cafe's don't work to meet production levels, they work to meet demand. Cut disposable income and demand for their products will most likely FALL. Leading to some cafe staff being SACKED altogether. :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:24pm

I would defend Swag's hypothesis. Perhaps more accurately to say partially support - there are cases where more people will be employed and times when the reverse could occur. Or no change at all.

Not like we can use Sim2000 and model all this.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

There was a trial, it was called workchoices it removed virtually all penalty rates from the hospitality industry between 2004 and 2008. It had virtually zero impact on employment both when it was introduced and when it was removed.

The fact is that your theory has been disproven in practice, removing penalty rates does not impact employment.

More businesses do not open those that do, don't employ more people etc. The fact is that business that has an economic case to operate after normal hours do so and they employ the number of people required. They are not going to employ additional people that they do not need.

For a business that can not make a successful business model to support out of normal hours trading today then penalty rates is insufficient to make a difference - they still remain shut. The margin needs to be much greater than would be achieved by a measure like this.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:28pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

there are cases where more people will be employed and times when the reverse could occur.

few and far between. And I'd hazard a guess that for every additional job that was created, and equal number would be lost due the decline in demand from the loss of disposable income. In the end, when you round it off, It won't make a bit of difference to overall employment numbers

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:24pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Unemployment declined during Workchoices between 2004 & 2008 and then as soon as Labor removed Workchoices it spiked upwards where it remains.....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:30pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:24pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Unemployment declined during Workchoices between 2004 & 2008 and then as soon as Labor removed Workchoices it spiked upwards where it remains.....

Your graph as you well know is bogus Swag or you would have posted the other one, as you are aware the downward trend you show from 2004 started in 1993 and the upward trend you assert shows the removal of workchoices corresponds to the impact of the GFC.

The downward trend from 1993 to 2008 was consistent i.e this shows the opposite of what you claim: it shows that removing penalty rates had no impact on the long term trend at all.

Interesting that the graph has been modified in order to additionally mask the truth.

The first graph was a failure and the modified version that takes the long term trend out of the graph is a dishonest failure.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:54pm

I went online to check for any research on penalty rate vs unemployment. Here was one link. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/7/20/australian-news/employers-shifting-case-against-penalty-rates
It shows that no matter what evidence (rise in spending on weekend or drop in spending) businesses still ask for lessening of penalty rates.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/unions-business-put-the-case-for-and-against-penalty-rates/story-fnihsrf2-1227469205036

Here is a link that shows arguments for both. It simply isn't a cut and dry case.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:25pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:28pm

It was your argument. You can't have it both ways?

2004 -2008 the stats show unemployment declined.

What was the average decrease between 1993 and 2004 compared to 2004 - 2008?

Removing a penalty rate is obviously going to have a greater impact when unemployment is high than when it's on the way down as well.

Workchoices was about getting the market to determine the pay rate. If unemployment is trending down then employers will pay more to attract workers because the labour supply is decreasing. During such times the market has more effect in determining wage rates. When unemployment is trending up wages should actually be coming down to counter it but they can't because wages are artificially fixed by regulation which just causes unemployment.

The fact remains that the unemployment rate today is around 50% higher than when Workchoices was last in effect. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:42pm

If the collective wisdom of experts (unless biased politically which of course happens) have problems showing clear support for removing penalty rates then I doubt Swag you can do any better other than cherry picking and repeating rhetoric. But you are free to keep trying brainwash your opinions.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:44pm

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:36am

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

Coalition Politicians haven't got the intestinal fortitude to talk IR reform after the Unions' very successful anti Workchoices propaganda campaign. You've only got to look at the ACTU's & Labor's teapot reaction to this discussion by the PC.... ::)

Unions and Labor politicians don't qualify as experts? :-?

The Productivity Commission might just have a little bit of nouse about 'productivity' too? ;D

The other aspect conveniently ignored by you Truebelievers about the application of penalty rates is competitiveness :( :-?

If a business is uncompetitive it will go broke. If it goes broke it's employees lose their jobs and that pushes up unemployment. :o Another reason Penalty Rates cause unemployment. (So refute that!!!)

The economic environment has changed enormously since penalty rates were introduced into IR. Some local businesses have to compete globally against countries that don't have all the industrial relations bells and whistles and / or overheads. Are you blind to the fact that Australia has justabout no manufacturing industry these days? That's another elephant in the room that our highly regulated industrial relations, championed by the Unions and Labor, is hamstringing business and yes, causing widespread unemployment. :( :( :( :( :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:38am

WorkChoices. :o :o :o :o :o :o

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:42am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:25pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

To workers facing the prospect of a tens of thousands of dollars in pay cuts it is.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:49am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

What we see is in no way reform, any reasonable reform would need some balance but instead what we see is recommendation after recommendation that takes away from employees and gives to employers.

It is almost all justified with BS and unsupported theory which is known to be untrue in practice.

Productivity gained the lazy way by taking away from employees instead of better production more efficient processes and producing better product should never be the main focus let alone what we see here as being the only option.

We have a lazy government and lazy sneaky dishonest business sector looking for the easy way out.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:51am

Workers on strike, is not very good for the company either. :(

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:51am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

Falling off of a cliff is not good for your health and just as relevant as your comment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:07am

Dnarever wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

Falling off of a cliff is not good for your health and just as relevant as your comment.

Nonsense. My comment goes to the heart of the issue. Yours on the other hand is heading up the list for today's worst come back.... ;D

....mind you Crook will give you a run for (someone else's) money

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:41am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

stunspore wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 11:42pm:

I'm going to extrapolate and suggest from Swag's view is to cut wages down to say $2 a day and that way everyone is employed. Yah!!

I've been generous to recognise Swag's view, but I doubt from diehard libs I get that from him.

If workers get paid less, they spend less. That does not require proof surely.

However, the assumption that lowering penalty rates causes more employment - perhaps but I question exactly what % of saved wages goes into employing more people, especially the unemployed. It has to be a decent amount to be of real economic benefit - if we did cut penalty rates and all that did was enable say net drop of wages paid (that is, total income of wages paid to everyone, since businesses didn't use the savings to employ more) then that should lead to a net drop in spending. Ok perhaps instead of keeping the savings, businesses will reduce prices. It is complex and not simplistic, Swag. You should admit that.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:07am

stunspore wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

It is complex and not simplistic, Swag. You should admit that.

Of course it's complex. I am arguing against the bloody minded opposition to it.

stunspore wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

I'm going to extrapolate and suggest from Swag's view is to cut wages down to say $2 a day and that way everyone is employed. Yah!!

I'm not suggesting that at all.

If demand for product drops a business will have to cut the price of its product (have a sale). The proprietor has to take a pay cut (to remain in business) because of market conditions. :(

It can try and cut operating costs all around as well but wage rates can't be cut. They are fixed outside the market. :(

The trouble with Australia is that even in recessions Unions push for increased wages. That is economic illiteracy.

On the other hand, I can't see a union arguing against market forces if a business wants to pay employees over the award because the market demands it? This happened in WA during the mining boom. The market pushed wage rates up due to a shortage in the supply of labour.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:11am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 9:07am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

Falling off of a cliff is not good for your health and just as relevant as your comment.

Penalty rates do not relate to new jobs or job losses which makes your statement the equivalent to falling off a cliff. It is not relevant.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:34am

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 10:24pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 27^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Unemployment declined during Workchoices between 2004 & 2008 and then as soon as Labor removed Workchoices it spiked upwards where it remains.....

Productivity declined to Swag :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:41am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

losing your job, why?

this is from the link provided by stunspore

ABS figures from 2013-14 show the net rate of growth in businesses like cafes and restaurants is far higher than in the overall economy. It sweeps away claims penalty rates are sending restaurants to the wall.

:D :D

face it Swag, no matter how much you'd like your arguments to add up, they simply don't. Stop your ideological crap and look at the evidence (or lack off).

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:42am

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

The proprietor has to take a pay cut (to remain in business) because of market conditions

the proprietor does not take a pay cut, he takes a cut in profit. Most proprietors take a salary that doesn't change week to week. What changes is their profit at the end of the year.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 11:59am

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:42am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

The proprietor has to take a pay cut (to remain in business) because of market conditions

the proprietor does not take a pay cut, he takes a cut in profit. Most proprietors take a salary that doesn't change week to week. What changes is their profit at the end of the year.

You can see why I doubt Swag's facts/opinions sometimes when he and others like Maria gets this wrong. All this stuff abut businesses but seems to have some misconceptions on how they operate. It worries me about the level of misinformed people who are very ideologically biased.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:14pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 11:59am:

You can see why I doubt Swag's facts/opinions sometimes when he and others like Maria gets this wrong.

I'm in business for myself. I draw a few thousand for personal use every month. If I need more, I take it. If I don't spend what I take, i take less the next month. My months takings have little to nothing to do with what I use in personal drawings.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:26pm

If i recall my basic tax laws - an owner who draws profit from his/her business is doubly taxed - one at company (when the business makes a profit) then personal income tax (when profit becomes the income for the owner).

Hence it is always wiser for the owner to take salary as it becomes an expense for the business and taxed once only as personal income. Hence I find it interesting when Maria, Swag and others talk like they know how business operates. It also confuses me when people don't acknowledge there are concerns on either side, but refuse to address it in some way. Not responding to those concerns won't persuade people.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:44pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

I'm in business for myself

Yeah, let me guess? Manufacturing bull schitt.... ;D ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:00pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Depends on the structure Stun. Sole Trader, Partnership or Company?

If you have a company you'd likely pay yourself a salary up to a max of $37K because your MTR would be less than the company tax rate of 30%.

If you're a sole trader it doesn't matter squat because you are taxed on your net earnings like anyone else. Your net profit is your taxable income.

Either way if your business or company starts losing money because of a downward economic trend it's money out of your pocket (AKA -> a pay cut) to say otherwise is just plain wrong.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

It's not necessarily about sending a business to the wall Jonathon and macro industry growth doesn't always transfer over to the micro situations.

Coles and Woollies may experience growth in sales but at the expense of your corner store (or should I say ex-corner store).

The same goes for restaurants and cafes. The big well established, well located restaurants and cafes get the growth and can afford the penalty rates but the new fledgling businesses struggle with it.

There are plenty of Newsagents, Corner stores, cafes, restaurants even pubs where the owner or leaseholder staff their businesses with their own relatives or themselves on weekends instead of employing people because of the extra cost of penalty rates.

They simply don't consider the extra cost worth it so they do the job themselves. The penalty rate is costing people work in these situations obviously.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:28pm

stunspore wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Not many coffee shops owners or restaurants are run as companies.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:29pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 12:14pm:

I'm in business for myself

Yeah, let me guess? Manufacturing bull schitt.... ;D ;D

no, i leave that to you.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:32pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

It's not necessarily about sending a business to the wall Jonathon and macro industry growth doesn't always transfer over to the micro situations.

and yet you're always crying penalty rates cost jobs.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

The penalty rate is costing people work in these situations obviously.

ahh, now you're changing your story ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:55pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

It's not necessarily about sending a business to the wall Jonathon and macro industry growth doesn't always transfer over to the micro situations.

and yet you're always crying penalty rates cost jobs.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

The penalty rate is costing people work in these situations obviously.

ahh, now you're changing your story ;D ;D ;D

In what way?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 2:09pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 8:47am:

Losing your job or not being able to get one is a much bigger pay cut.... ::)

Now you are putting their relatives out of work - the net gain in employment is zero ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 3:17pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

It's not necessarily about sending a business to the wall Jonathon and macro industry growth doesn't always transfer over to the micro situations.

and yet you're always crying penalty rates cost jobs.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

The penalty rate is costing people work in these situations obviously.

ahh, now you're changing your story ;D ;D ;D

In what way?

Because now it's only under a specific situation that you claim it costs jobs .... under specific situations abolishing penalty rates will also cost jobs . The net result is the same old same old. No real difference to unemployment nubers.

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

There are plenty of Newsagents, Corner stores, cafes, restaurants even pubs where the owner or leaseholder staff their businesses with their own relatives or themselves on weekends instead of employing people because of the extra cost of penalty rates.

They simply don't consider the extra cost worth it so they do the job themselves. The penalty rate is costing people work in these situations obviously.

So if penalty rates are abolished these family members will lose their jobs? Or perhaps you think they'd prefer not to work on weekends and so pick and chose the best days for themselves and force their staff to work the crappy days? WHICH IS THE WHOLE REASON FOR HAVING PENALTY RATES

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:22am

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

So if penalty rates are abolished these family members will lose their jobs?

No they are working for half the cost.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:24am

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:22am:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

So if penalty rates are abolished these family members will lose their jobs?

No they are working for half the cost.

but you said the employer would be able to hire staff instead of using family members ....

make up your mind :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm

They can.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:30pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:22am:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

So if penalty rates are abolished these family members will lose their jobs?

No they are working for half the cost.

Probably less family members can be paid $2 an hour, they are a great substitute for slaves.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:33pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 28^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

The proprietor has to take a pay cut (to remain in business) because of market conditions

He can also take a huge profit in better years ?

Nature of the beast and not his employees fault, if they do not profit from the great years why should they pay for the poor ones ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 4:00pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

why would he? If he sells 100 coffees and needs one staff member to do so, why would he hire two staff members to sell 100 coffee's?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 4:11pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

why would he? If he sells 100 coffees and needs one staff member to do so, why would he hire two staff members to sell 100 coffee's?

I think you're wasting your time. He seems to have this unshakeable religious conviction that somehow employers are going to employ people to do nothing if weekend penalty rates were abolished, or that a benevolent fairy would magically create more customers.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:28pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

He could also employ 8 people on quarter time ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:33pm

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

why would he? If he sells 100 coffees and needs one staff member to do so, why would he hire two staff members to sell 100 coffee's?

Better quicker service can increase sales.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:44pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

why would he? If he sells 100 coffees and needs one staff member to do so, why would he hire two staff members to sell 100 coffee's?

Better quicker service can increase sales.

No all things equal it is the same time and if he could increase sales he would be doing it now.

Do you understand the cost of what you suggest ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 7:42pm

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

Bingo !

They already employ the number of people they need, it all goes in the sky rocket and the employee takes a pay cut.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 9:34pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

They will have to lower the prices to get the punters through the door that now have less disposable income to spend , thats how a realists brain computes . As it is consumer confidence is at record lows , if you take away penalty rates do you honestly think it's going to improve ? People arent spending now with penalty rates, its the government you voted for Swag stifling business and consumer confidence, not penalty rates.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:15pm

Penalty rates are outside the market, trying to justify them using market forces is futile. :-?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:25pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:15pm:

Penalty rates are outside the market, trying to justify them using market forces is futile. :-?

So cut them and take a wait and see approach , sounds inspiring , may make a better bottom line for the businessman but i doubt even that will come about .

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 11:49pm

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:15pm:

Penalty rates are outside the market, trying to justify them using market forces is futile. :-?

So cut them and take a wait and see approach , sounds inspiring , may make a better bottom line for the businessman but i doubt even that will come about .

Yet 'market forces' is precisely what some pseudo-capitalists here try to use as a justification for reducing incomes.... we are somehow supposed to believe that we are to compete with a Chindian on $10 a day..... and that our labour is a commodity on the global market and subject to market forces, so we must take an income drop.

I know of nobody who signed up to that deal.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:22am

With what's happening to our mining industry and on the stock markets around the world individuals will be lucky to have a job let alone getting paid exorbitant penalty rates for producing nothing.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:24am

If they are being employed they presumably produce something.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:25am

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 10:15pm:

Penalty rates are outside the market, trying to justify them using market forces is futile. :-?

Penalty rates assign the correct market rate to premium hours.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Sir Crook on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:28am

AWU slams Turnbull/Frydenberg's war on penalty rates
Monday 28th September 2015
AWU.
Australian Workers’ Union National Secretary Scott McDine has slammed misleading and alarming attacks on penalty rates by Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg and the Turnbull Government.

Mr Frydenberg has suggested that weekend penalty rates should be cut, a plan not contradicted by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Mr McDine said penalty rates were a cornerstone of decency to workers and the AWU would fight determinedly to resist any moves to remove them.

“What is under attack is the very concept that working people are entitled to common days of rest and recreation,” Mr McDine said.

“Does anyone think that if penalty rates are snatched from low paid hospitality and retail workers that Mr Frydenberg and his big business mates will be done there? Of course not. They will be emboldened by having ripped weekends from one set of workers and they will come for everyone else.

“This goes beyond industrial relations and to the heart of what kind of country we are. Are we the kind of country that believes workers are entitled to weekends and if they don’t get them they should be compensated? Or do we believe that designated days of rest and recreation are only for the wealthy elites and everyone else should be grateful for the opportunity to cater to them?

“This attack on penalty rates has never been about jobs, it’s about some bosses who are desperate to shift money from the pockets of their workers into their profit column.

“Well, the AWU exists to push back against this exact kind of greed and if Mr Frydenberg wants to test our will on this front he is welcome to.

“Malcolm Turnbull would do well advised to pull Mr Frydenberg into line on this front. While I don’t expect Mr Turnbull knows a lot about what it’s like to rely on penalty rates to get by maybe he can put some of his self-declared empathy to work and put himself in the shoes of someone who needs their weekend shifts to afford life’s essentials.

“Then maybe he could explain this concept to his apparently free-wheeling resources minister.”

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:28am

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

If you are running a Café in a business park where the gates are shut on Sunday it does not matter much what you do.

If you are stupid enough to pay premium wages to make boxes that nobody wants there is not much hope for your business anyway.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:32am

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

You just increased your wages bill and you have spent 6 years crying about not being able to afford to open on Sundays now you want to reduce prices ?

Seems to be a contradiction or 3 here.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:55am

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Seems to be a contradiction or 3 here

Welcome to Economics 101 ;D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Bam on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 5:00pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

So, not creating any new jobs then. Just shuffling the jobs from one employer to another. Thanks for the clarification.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:47pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 8:19pm:

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

They can.

how does replacing one with the other change the employment rate?

He can actually employ two people on single time instead of paying one person double.

And if there isnt sufficient customers to justify another employee?

You win them from other businesses with cheaper prices and / or better service

That's the part of business that socialist's brains can't compute.... ;D

so you employ one more because of your business acumen, and what happens to the store where the customers used to go? they sack one the staff member that is no longer needed.

the net result is the same number of people employed.

only you would think shuffling the deck will result in more cards :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am

That other store might be in another country.....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:11am

Another article to support Swag's hypothesis.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-01/smith-reducing-penalty-rates/6818876

I am most amused by the "It must be understood that setting minimum wages always reduces employment."

It probably sings to those diehard libs to attack lower paid workers.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:45am

stunspore wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:11am:

I am most amused by the "It must be understood that setting minimum wages always reduces employment."

I guess you are amused because you don't understand?

All other things being equal (this is an analogy by the way Smithy ;))

If you have a community with a population of 100 that has its own co-operative that produces a product for sale on the competitive market. The community however has 50% unemployment (because they have an incompetent Socialist as Leader).

A 50% wage cut could result in full employment. :D

The co-op can produce twice as much product for the same labour cost because it has 50 more workers.

The community becomes 100% richer or alternately it could sell its product at half the price it used to, and become more competitive.

That could be the difference between a successful community with full employment and an inefficient one where the co-op closes down due to uncompetitive practices and 100% become unemployed. :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:28pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 8:32am:

Seems to be a contradiction or 3 here

Welcome to Economics 101 ;D

You put a formula in place that would fail economics 101.

You start from a position where it is not viable to open and then you increase your wage bill and reduce prices giving you a higher cost and lower income expectation when starting from an unprofitable position.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:10pm

No Swag I am amused not because I am confused. I am amused because the statement is exactly what you are in support for. I totally understand how you think your hypothesis will work. But I understand that there are many other factors in play though you refuse to acknowledge them.

For instance, the assumption that there will be more employment. There is no quality research to show how many jobs will be created if penalty rates were dropped - and ACCC statement is to adjust Sunday's rate to Saturday's rate. Be far more wiser to expand and develop newer industries than a race to the bottom on wages, especially against other countries.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:36pm

Swaggie is committing the economic fallacy of composition.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:52pm

stunspore wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:10pm:

Where have I refused to acknowledge them?

Obviously there are countless other variables but the concept remains valid.

Pecker's argument is that a business owner will just pocket the labour savings cost that he used to pay in penalty rates? Pecker totally ignores the effect of competition on this situation, which incidentally justabout all you opponents of IR deregulation do.

The prices the business charges is linked to competition. Too expensive and his customers will go to another business.

Not one of you have acknowledged that paying people penalty rates (over their normal rate of pay) when there is a pool of unemployed people looking to work, is illogical / unfair?

It's not about cutting wages.

Regulate that workers have to work 38 hours before getting any penalty rate maybe. If people don't want to work Sat, Sunday or Public holidays then they won't. There may be unemployed people or Uni students or married persons that don't have any problem working the odd times for single time (normal rate) and they should be given the choice to do so.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Jovial Monk on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:23pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Yep that's it. X2 for cutting wages.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:29pm

If we cut out the CEO's 7.3 Million dollar bonus and 12 million in upper management bonuses how many people could we employ then ?

By the way we are already fully staffed, making an annual profit of $120 Million and we don't actually need more employees but are pushing to have penalty rates removed anyway.

Where do you think this money earmarked for new unneeded employees we have no work for will go ?

Why don't we throw all the options on the table if it is improved employment we are looking for ?

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Swagman on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:32pm

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Yep that's it. X2 for cutting wages.

It's about competition and reducing unemployment.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:50pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Yep that's it. X2 for cutting wages.

It's about competition and reducing unemployment.

You can say that as many times as you like and it still won't be true.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by stunspore on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:13pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Yep that's it. X2 for cutting wages.

It's about competition and reducing unemployment.

It wouldn't be competition because penalty rates affect all businesses equally on the weekend. Perhaps harder to compete with the $2 per day labour in a 3rd world country maybe. Swag, have a look at the comments made on the ABC article it linked. There are valid concerns people have with removing penalty rates - why don't you focus on addressing them instead of claiming "more employment" which as I pointed out has not been researched qualitatively other than anecdotal comments from a selected businesses?

There is no point having employment if people become the new "working poor of America" in Australia.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:25pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

not sure about you, but i don't go overseas for my coffee or a burger

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:31pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

thanks for playing :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:32pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:45am:

stunspore wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:11am:

I am most amused by the "It must be understood that setting minimum wages always reduces employment."

your assuming that the market will bear twice the production :D :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:33pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:52pm:

Pecker totally ignores the effect of competition on this situation,

the same competition that has us paying the Australia tax? :D :D

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:34pm

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:23pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Of course it is about cutting wages.

Yep that's it. X2 for cutting wages.

It's about competition and reducing unemployment.

you've really overdosed on coolaid haven't you?

it's about cutting wages. No more, no less.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

not sure about you, but i don't go overseas for my coffee or a burger

They don't deliver ?

Most product OS is half the price or less anyway - that is the reason we have to put GST on it remember.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Johnsmith on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

not sure about you, but i don't go overseas for my coffee or a burger

They don't deliver ?

they probably would, but I don't like mouldy burgers or cold coffee

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:36pm

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

not sure about you, but i don't go overseas for my coffee or a burger

They don't deliver ?

they probably would, but I don't like mouldy burgers or cold coffee

But we need that competition so we can justify getting rid of penalty rates.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by Dnarever on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:38pm

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

That other store might be in another country.....

not sure about you, but i don't go overseas for my coffee or a burger

They don't deliver ?

they probably would, but I don't like mouldy burgers or cold coffee

It is a good price though, the coffee will sell for around 40 C a cup and you can get the air delivery for as little as $45 with 3 day delivery time. They only need to find a way of removing some of the bugs from the water.

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by The Grappler on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 6:42pm

Johnsmith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:33pm:

Swagman wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 1:52pm:

Pecker totally ignores the effect of competition on this situation,

the same competition that has us paying the Australia tax? :D :D

Precisely..... a de facto tariff barrier that creates higher prices for Australians....

Title: Re: Message To Productivity Commission
Post by crocodile on Oct 4^th, 2015 at 10:52pm

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

crocodile wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:07pm:

stunspore wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 11:36am:

In other words, to compete globally, drop worker wages to $2 per day.

Or get productivity growth back to where it was before the decade and a half long slide

How would you do that Croc?

First of all one must understand what productivity actually is, how it is defined and measured. This means that you will need to reject your long held theme that productivity is dependant on wages. It is in fact the polar opposite in that wages are dependant inter alia on productivity.

Labour productivity is defined as output per man hour of labour. Capital productivity is defined as output per unit capital. Add the two together to derive multi factor productivity. In a nutshell, productivity growth is achieved mostly by the advent of newer technology and the take up rate of new technology by employers. The reason wages grow with productivity is that over time the skill set of the workforce grows in sympathy. The ones that cannot retrain grow at a slower pace until natural attrition diminishes their numbers.

Importantly, the catch is that the provisioning of technology is not free and consumes large amounts of capital and investment. This is why capital productivity is equally as important as labour productivity. The long term decline in mfp over the last 15 or so years is in capital productivity. In other words, the increases in labour productivity are coming at progressively higher amounts of capital inputs.

For this reason, amongst others, it is not correct to attack wages as they are not the problem. Reducing them only can offer temporary relief until the next round of productivity declines bite. It is a lazy solution put forward because tackling the capital side is easy to put in the too hard basket.

If you're asking me how to fix this I'm afraid it is too nuanced in the effects of policy to be definitive. Without taking the effects of policy in government decisions the following would be worth looking into.

1. Reduce the rate of corporate tax. Since dividends are generally franked, the effect on revenues is not great. Only the company's retained earnings are genuinely taxed. This is a serious deadweight loss as the effect is to slow down the rate of technology turnover. The brunt of company tax is in fact borne by the employees in total.

2. Take a serious look at the capital gains tax concession. The misallocation of capital into non productive assets is at the expense of productive assets.

3. Piss off unnecessary government expenditure in the awful policy areas such as private health rebates and child care subsidies. They are expensive and have not achieved any great outcomes. The effect of subsidising these services is to increase demand on a product with a very inelastic supply side. The outcome is to drive the prices higher. Generally, the rise in price is equal to the size of the subsidy.

4. The cost of actually doing business is horrendous. The amount of red tape, compliance costs, insurance and licensing really does hurt and it just keeps getting bigger. Please, stop this horseshit.

The reason for ignoring the policy angle is that I appreciate that for the most part the above is not easily achieved without losing political skin. That's a problem in itself.

Trying to alter the indoctrinated mantra from penalising business for trying to compete, to rewarding individual efficiencies perhaps?

Collective work agreements don't do this. They reward inefficiency. Unproductive workers can hide amongst the more productive.

Individual work contracts reward individual productivity. Labor & the Unions trashed AWAs. Labor and the Unions rejected productivity improvements just as they are now trying to block FTAs.

Again, the focus on labour side is misguided. The capital side is the slug. I'm no great fan of collective arrangements either but understand why they exist. After all, unions are merely avenues for seeking economic rents. This exist on both sides of labour and capital. Why pick on one without the other. Most EBA's contain productivity clauses anyway.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2015 at 10:12pm:

Real productivity, as in manufactured goods good enough to sell..