Sunday penalty rates on the chopping block as Fair Work Commission considers plan for flat weekend rates
February 16, 2016
Herald Sun

SUNDAY penalties are again looming large as a major election-year issue after the Fair Work Commission agreed to consider a plan for a flat weekend rate across key industries.   :(

A plan which would end inflated Sunday rates for retail and hospitality workers was part of a Productivity Commission report last year into possible reforms to Australia’s industrial relations framework.

A ruling from Fair Work Commission president Iain Ross has boosted the hopes business group advocating for change after allowing key chapters of the report to be submitted by employers.

The full bench of the Fair Work Commission is due to receive closing submissions on both sides of the argument by April 1 with five days of hearings to begin from April 11.

Opposition employment spokesman Brendan O’Connor said the Government had set up the Productivity Commission review to give them cover for and ideological attack on penalty rates. 

Mr O’Connor said the Fair Work Commission decision to consider the proposed cuts was the “final stage of the Government’s stealth attack”.   :(


“Malcolm Turnbull pronounced the death of the weekend, claiming that lower penalty rates are an inevitable part of a seven day economy, but the reality is that seven out of ten Australians still work Monday to Friday,” Mr O’Connor said.

The Retail Council has backed the recommendation to align Sunday penalty rates for the retail and hospitality sectors with Saturday rates and has encourage the Fair Work Commission support the measure.

Restaurant and Catering Australia has argued Sunday surcharges did not allow establishments to meet the shortfall and most restaurants and cafes trade had traded at a loss if they open on Sundays.

The Turnbull Government has argued the responsibility for setting award wages and conditions, including penalty rates, sits with the independent tribunal and not the Commonwealth.

Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are drumming up support for a campaign ahead of this year’s federal election.   :)

They are warning that thousands of Victorian retail and hospitality workers and their families would struggle to make ends meet if penalty rates were cut.

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment.

I therefore wish the "attack" on penalty rates the utmost of success.


wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are drumming up support for a campaign ahead of this year’s federal election They are warning that thousands of Victorian retail and hospitality workers and their families would struggle to make ends meet if penalty rates were cut

The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... :(

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pOwvzeYgZ7M/UigWevRXXyI/AAAAAAAABFQ/insNE6k_1TU/s1600/alpad7.jpg

Yes well said Mr O'Connor, it looks like the union campaign has to go ahead, to protect the low income workers penalty rates.  Thank you unions for helping with this important matter.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] 

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment. I therefore wish the "attack" on penalty rates the utmost of success. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:27am: Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are drumming up support for a campaign ahead of this year’s federal election They are warning that thousands of Victorian retail and hospitality workers and their families would struggle to make ends meet if penalty rates were cut The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... :(

The market-place is governed: you're not crapping on about the concept of free-markets that exists in your head are you?

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment. I therefore wish the "attack" on penalty rates the utmost of success. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:27am: Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are drumming up support for a campaign ahead of this year’s federal election They are warning that thousands of Victorian retail and hospitality workers and their families would struggle to make ends meet if penalty rates were cut The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... :(

The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job

Not very honest are they - what a load of rubbish. There would be no improved employment.

Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:

Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away.

And then the industries will either pay more or shut up shop; welcome to the free market kids.

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment. I therefore wish the "attack" on penalty rates the utmost of success. wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:27am: Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are drumming up support for a campaign ahead of this year’s federal election They are warning that thousands of Victorian retail and hospitality workers and their families would struggle to make ends meet if penalty rates were cut The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... :(

A wish that will be unfulfilled. 

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 4:02pm: Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away. And then the industries will either pay more or shut up shop; welcome to the free market kids.

Precisely.

Remove "Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates".  Penalty rates actually establish themselves naturally as 'reward' rates. It's why elite sports people get paid a motza.

If no one is lining up to take a job then the market will quite naturally push the wage rate up, (no whinging from unions about market forces when this happens mind you) conversely, when there is unemployed people, looking for that job, why keep them unemployed, and pay and already employed person double time for the same work?  It totally defies logic.  It is stupid. It's one significant reason why Australian business is uncompetitive.

 

One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(   

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:01am:

One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(

...one should not assume that the unemployed don't want to work weekends without penalty rates.

Slave labour already exists under the guise of progressive taxation.....

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:09am:

Slave labour already exists under the guise of progressive taxation 7/11 Stores .....

Methinks Swaggie is one of those managers that is jealous that his staff earn more than him through penalty rates and overtime

He has been sucked in to a mangers job that has a set  salary with no perks.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 4:02pm: Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away. And then the industries will either pay more or shut up shop; welcome to the free market kids.

The plan is meant to benefit these businesses not to close them down ?

- the conservative mind is a thing of wonder.

This could be the story where the dogma ate the restaurants.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 4:02pm: Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away. And then the industries will either pay more or shut up shop; welcome to the free market kids.

industries will either pay more

Who do they pay more to ?

Do they pay a higher hourly rate meaning that they are effectively paying non shift workers for working the higher value work that they are not doing ?

Shift penalties are actually very efficient as they target an equitable market rate to the target hours required.

Paying non shift workers more for not contributing to the higher value hours is inefficient and solves nothing.

Come one Swag, write to Turnbull and gang and get them to make it a major election promise to remove penalty rates.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:43am:

Come one Swag, write to Turnbull and gang and get them to make it a major election promise to remove penalty rates.

.......ochlocracy wins

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e0/7d/5a/e07d5a43299835291e04931349a8f42e.jpg

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:01am:

One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(

Imagine the rate of sickies on weekends when the footy is on... and the need to retain additional staff or pay them extra to come in.....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:02am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:01am: One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(    Imagine the rate of sickies on weekends when the footy is on... and the need to retain additional staff or pay them extra to come in.....

I hear that this years grand final will be played on a Tuesday - apparently it is the same thing ?

Maybe they will then make it a Public Holiday for some strange reason ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:09am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 11:02am: wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:01am: One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(    Imagine the rate of sickies on weekends when the footy is on... and the need to retain additional staff or pay them extra to come in..... I hear that this years grand final will be played on a Tuesday - apparently it is the same thing ? Maybe they will then make it a Public Holiday for some strange reason ?

Do the players get penalty rates for playing on weekends?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 4:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 4:02pm: Removing penalty rates is more likely to damage these industries as people walk away. And then the industries will either pay more or shut up shop; welcome to the free market kids. industries will either pay more Who do they pay more to ? Do they pay a higher hourly rate meaning that they are effectively paying non shift workers for working the higher value work that they are not doing ? Shift penalties are actually very efficient as they target an equitable market rate to the target hours required. Paying non shift workers more for not contributing to the higher value hours is inefficient and solves nothing.

They will pay more to anyone who can do entry level work, for the pay that is acceptable to both parties.


Try to not overthink too much, you'll cause yourself an injury.

Guess Swag doesn't get his wish then.  the market rate for weekends is the current penalty rate.  Not "how low will you go".

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 2:34pm:

Guess Swag doesn't get his wish then.  the market rate for weekends is the current penalty rate.  Not "how low will you go".

Yes, the same market OPEC creates for oil.....a fake one  :(

Same as the free market for private health insurance.  Government interference via rebates.
Same for housing -> with CGt and negative gearing.
Oh wait, if it isn't a benefit for you it's got to go....

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Same as the free market for private health insurance.  Government interference via rebates. Same for housing -> with CGt and negative gearing.

Please explain why these are the same?  Good luck with that.  :D

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:40pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 4:06pm: Same as the free market for private health insurance.  Government interference via rebates. Same for housing -> with CGt and negative gearing. Please explain why these are the same?  Good luck with that.  :D

Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount. 
While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs.

Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI.

As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid.

The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely.


stunspore wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.

Again it's a different issue entirely.

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely.

I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties.


Why should any investment loss be offset against wages ?

But then why should any cost be off set at all business or private ?

Again it's a different issue entirely.


Looks like an identical issue to me ?

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 11:09am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 11:02am: wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:01am: One should not assume the unemployed want to work weekends without penalty rates.  No slave labour please.   :(    Imagine the rate of sickies on weekends when the footy is on... and the need to retain additional staff or pay them extra to come in..... I hear that this years grand final will be played on a Tuesday - apparently it is the same thing ? Maybe they will then make it a Public Holiday for some strange reason ? Do the players get penalty rates for playing on weekends?

They work on contracts where the negotiated deal provides a good rate for working 80 minutes a week.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Looks like an identical issue to me ?

That speaks volumes.... :D

It'd maybe be close to being the same issue if the Govt legislated that the prices of all products & services were to be doubled on Sundays. 

Why just limit it to the price of Labour?



 

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 8:59pm: Looks like an identical issue to me ? That speaks volumes.... :D It'd maybe be close to being the same issue if the Govt legislated that the prices of all products & services were to be doubled on Sundays.  Why just limit it to the price of Labour?

I read it as a comparison between Property and newly constructed property it was unclear if you meant to be comparing to penalty rates where if course it would be a different thing ?

Swagman wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely.

Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

crocodile wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:44pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 7:26pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely. Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart.

Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

Ok  Swag...

Government does have the ability to limit the price rise of PHI as well.  The fact is the government can directly affect prices directly - which is the same as wages.  You might think it is different.  It isn't.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:44pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 7:26pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely. Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart. Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here.

But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction.  Hardly fair, is it?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 11:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:52pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:44pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 7:26pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely. Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart. Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here. But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction.  Hardly fair, is it?

When have losses ever been taxed.

crocodile wrote on Feb 21^st, 2016 at 7:09am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 11:22pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:52pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:44pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 7:26pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Sure.  People look at the PHI without rebates and say, "hey it's too expensive, going to avoid it and find alternatives".  Of course, with rebates it now looks ok - but that's because tax payers are subsidising and passing it directly to PHI companies for profit.  Without rebates, PHI would have to market better and compete by lowering their prices since they can't rely on tax payers to stump up part of the costs. Good try but it's not artificially setting a fixed price for PHI. As for being subsidized by the taxpayer it's the opposite.  A rebate is a return on tax already paid. The more people privately insured the less pressure on the public system.  Different issue entirely. stunspore wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 5:51pm: As for houses.  The combination of neg gearing and CGT discount means that you can afford to gear up to recover money invested.  For home buyers needing a place to live, a home is primary somewhere to live.  Any profit is something to consider at a far longer term than the average investor.  The neg gearing allows either moving a person's taxable income to something where middle class welfare can happen, or recoup a sizeable income from house price rise with capital gains discount.  While the government supports these 2 tax advantages, house prices are subjected to a larger influence by investors and hence house prices are artificially higher from the higher demand.  Not many countries have these types of tax advantages.  Probably not even the U.S, which Swag wants Australia to become. I agree that property losses should not be allowed to be off set against wages and salaries income, unless perhaps it's for newly constructed properties. Again it's a different issue entirely. Why not. The property gains are included with wages and salaries quick smart. Yep that is true but you should understand that well balanced factual argument is not well accepted here. But they are not taxed wholly as profit... CG permits a percentage to escape taxation, after all losses have already received a tax deduction.  Hardly fair, is it? When have losses ever been taxed.

Please don't type that too loud - if the politicians hear we will be in trouble.

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates are a major cause of unemployment.

Incorrect.

Been debunked a dozen times.

Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:14pm:

Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work

...because Gweggery says so..... ::)

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:14pm: Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work ...because Gweggery says so..... ::)

Because history says so.

Penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

Swagman wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 11:53am:

The thousands of unemployed "retail and hospitality workers" would be much better able to make ends meet if they had a job.....penalty rates are keeping them out of one....Unions such as United Voice and The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are keeping them in poverty... :(

1. Penalty rates don't keep people out of jobs.

2. Why would a Union want less potential members?

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:14pm: Employers won't hire more workers to do the same amount of work ...because Gweggery says so..... ::)

of course they wont, what a  stupid argument. Why on earth would a business deplete their increased profits by hiring staff they dont need?  You have obviously never worked your own business. Business is about making money.

Sums it up pretty well.

---

.....if a business can increase production without increasing its operating costs it is more competitive, will sell more product and naturally employ more people as it expands.

Anything that decreases operating costs without decreasing sales will make a business more competitive.

That's what businesses do.  They expand in order to make more money.  Expanding successful businesses employ more people.

Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates do the opposite.  That is why they are a cause of unemployment.


greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Because history says so

It says nothing of the sort.

History shows that low unemployment and higher wage growth are a factor of profitable and efficient businesses not inefficient uncompetitive ones.

Why does the RB decrease interest rates to try and boost economic activity? It's not only to free up extra money in the hands of people with home mortgages, it is also to reduce business operating costs.


ian wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm:

Why on earth would a business deplete their increased profits by hiring staff they dont need?.

In order to expand, produce more, sell more and make even more profit Mr Business Guru.  ::)


ian wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:57pm:

You have obviously never worked your own business. Business is about making money

Yes, of course it is, but businesses don't make money by being uncompetitive.

Penalty rates, set outside the market are a business retardant.

Paying someone double for the same production output is DECREASING the businesses ability to make a profit.  Decreasing profits and decreasing efficiency will result in higher unemployment.

And History DOES show that! 


 
   

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:33pm:

..... will sell more product and naturally employ more people as it expands.

No.

They will make the existing employees work harder/longer hours.

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:33pm:

.... Compulsory outside the market 'penalty' rates do the opposite.  That is why they are a cause of unemployment.

No.

They don't cause unemployment.

Swag has wonderful theories which sadly doesn't work out in real life.

Either way, I hope libs take penalty rates to the election.  Be a  nice way to lose it.

stunspore wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Swag has wonderful theories which sadly doesn't work out in real life.

That's correct.

It sounds OK on paper, however, in the real world it just doesn't work like that.

If checkout operators lose their penalty rates, Coles and Woolworths aren't going to hire more of them: they're just going to pocket the profits and carry on as usual.


stunspore wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Either way, I hope libs take penalty rates to the election.  Be a  nice way to lose it.

It would be a joy to watch.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:19pm:

It sounds OK on paper

....so you actually agree theoretically?

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:19pm: It sounds OK on paper ....so you actually agree theoretically?

Some of what you say is based on reasonable theory.

However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong.

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:19pm: It sounds OK on paper ....so you actually agree theoretically?

What is the point of agreeing that people argue the theory when we all know that in practice the theory does not work.

The fact is that there is no connection between penalty rates and employment numbers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:32pm:

However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong.

......'a' cause, not 'the' cause.

For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment?


Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:38pm:

The fact is that there is no connection between penalty rates and employment numbers.

Really? Why is it that over the last 40 years Australian manufacturing industry has been in decline from 14% to now under 7% of GDP?

Inability to compete.  Penalty rates are part of this inability to compete.  It's too expensive to manufacture product here in Aust because of uncompetitive IR which outside the market penalty rates are included.  :(

Source:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/AUST%20MANUFACTURING.jpg

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment?

Once again, you're looking at theory.

In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

I've thought about this. If an employer wants you to work on a sunday for no benefit then say you've got to go to church. They can't do anything about it.

double plus good wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:25pm:

I've thought about this. If an employer wants you to work on a sunday for no benefit then say you've got to go to church. They can't do anything about it.

Depends on the Agreement/Award that they're covered by.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

.....the decline in manufacturing jobs is not theory but fact.

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. .....the decline in manufacturing jobs is not theory but fact.

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get:

Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates.

These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend.

Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy.

Bam wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get: Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates. These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend. Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy.

Exactly.

Abolishing penalty rates has the potential to increase unemployment.

double plus good wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:25pm:

I've thought about this. If an employer wants you to work on a sunday for no benefit then say you've got to go to church. They can't do anything about it.

True, Honky. And if you want to get off on a Friday, say you have to go to the mosque.

It works every time.

Karnal wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 4:00pm:

double plus good wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:25pm: I've thought about this. If an employer wants you to work on a sunday for no benefit then say you've got to go to church. They can't do anything about it. True, Honky. And if you want to get off on a Friday, say you have to go to the mosque. It works every time.

That's funny because my local mosque is packed on a Friday. I suppose there's a certain level of flexibility being a taxi driver.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time.

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 4:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time.

Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:55pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:50pm: What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get: Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates. These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend. Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy. Exactly. Abolishing penalty rates has the potential to increase unemployment.

Also the disposable/discretionary income of many and hence less shopping.

stunspore wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:55pm: Bam wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:50pm: What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get: Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates. These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend. Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy. Exactly. Abolishing penalty rates has the potential to increase unemployment. Also the disposable/discretionary income of many and hence less shopping.

So limit it to new employment contracts.

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:27pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:55pm: Bam wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:50pm: What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get: Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates. These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend. Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy. Exactly. Abolishing penalty rates has the potential to increase unemployment. Also the disposable/discretionary income of many and hence less shopping. So limit it to new employment contracts.

Just defers the damage ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates.

But the price of labour has no effect on employment

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. .....the decline in manufacturing jobs is not theory but fact.

.. and caused by the ability to pay an Indian ship kicker $10 a day... nothing to do with penalty rates... only to do with exploitation....

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment

Nobody has said that either.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:27pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:55pm: Bam wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:50pm: What the penalty rate abolitionists simply do not get: Many customers of businesses are only able to be customers because they receive penalty rates. These businesses have to rely on other businesses not cutting penalty rates to keep their current level of custom. If this does not happen, the business won't make any more money even with reduced pay because their customers have less to spend. Why? The economy acts like an ecosystem with its parts in balance. Abolishing penalty rates would disturb that balance. All it would do is stifle the economy. Exactly. Abolishing penalty rates has the potential to increase unemployment. Also the disposable/discretionary income of many and hence less shopping. So limit it to new employment contracts.

Why?

Why take away workers' penalty rates?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:13pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody has said that either. Where are you getting this stuff from?

It comes from you. You assert that diminished penalty rates wont increase employment. Unless every sector is in perfect equilibrium the reverse will also be true.

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 7:13pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody has said that either. Where are you getting this stuff from? It comes from you.

No, it does not.

You've manufactured it out of thin air.

Try to stay focused, and just stick to the facts.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:11pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:33pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. .....the decline in manufacturing jobs is not theory but fact. .. and caused by the ability to pay an Indian ship kicker $10 a day... nothing to do with penalty rates... only to do with exploitation....

It's not even that. Swaggie is also dead wrong linking manufacturing decline to wages as well. The reason manufacturing has halved over the last forty years is because the rates of marginal productivity gains have been better elsewhere. Bigger returns on investments etc etc. Thankfully there are glimmers of hope as labour productivity in secondary industries are on the up. Bad luck that capital productivity is still shithouse.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment.

Your words peccer.

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 8:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Your words peccer.

A simple fact.

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment

Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment.

Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased.

Specifically when penalty rates were removed in WA it had no impact on employment or the number of businesses opening after hours and the same thing happened under workchoices where penalty rates were removed across the hospitality industry for no result except for $'s in the employers pocket.

Two substantial trials have shown that the claims of increased employment and more business opening are pie in the sky or part of the type of story that commences with "Once upon a time in a land far far away".

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Your words peccer. A simple fact.

If it is so simple, good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time.

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 10:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 9:59pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Your words peccer. A simple fact. If it is so simple, good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time.

Current rates aren't that high.

Moreover, nobody is asking to increase penalty rates.

Try to remain focused.

On the other hand of economy, if we decrease overall disposable income of employees nation wide would produce less consumer and business confidence, less spending, and poor taxation outcome. 

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 10:06pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased.

Exactly.

Current rates aren't causing unemployment.

Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates.

Who knows what quadrupling them would do?

However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant.

People need to remain focused.

Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment.

You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:03am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused.

Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates.

Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase.

If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread.

This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:21am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates. Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase. If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread. This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment.

You don't know that. It is only speculation.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:21am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates. Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase. If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread. This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment. You don't know that. It is only speculation.

If penalty rates are causing unemployment, let's see the proof.

Well ... ?

Australian penalty rates - much like the oppressive deferred compensation superannuation laws - absolutely can cause Australia to be uncompetitive.

Cost of labour in Australia for my mind is far too high for base level workforce.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:32am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:21am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates. Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase. If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread. This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment. You don't know that. It is only speculation. If penalty rates are causing unemployment, let's see the proof. Well ... ?

You're the one that made claim sunny boy. So let's see it.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:21am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates. Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase. If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread. This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment. You don't know that. It is only speculation. If penalty rates are causing unemployment, let's see the proof. Well ... ? You're the one that made claim sunny boy. So let's see it.

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment.

No proof provided thus far.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:41am:

Australian penalty rates - much like the oppressive deferred compensation superannuation laws - absolutely can cause Australia to be uncompetitive. Cost of labour in Australia for my mind is far too high for base level workforce.

Nice theory.

Do you have any proof that penalty rates cause unemployment?

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:03am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused.

It isn't exactly unreasonable to assume that when we talk about penalty rates we are actually talking about the Australian rates currently in use ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:49am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:44am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:21am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. Everybody knows that this is a discussion about current penalty rates. Moreover, everybody knows that nobody is asking for an increase. If you want to discuss a hypothetical about higher penalty rates that don't actually exist, perhaps you could start a new thread. This thread, however, is about how things are right now, in the real world: penalty rates aren't causing unemployment. You don't know that. It is only speculation. If penalty rates are causing unemployment, let's see the proof. Well ... ? You're the one that made claim sunny boy. So let's see it. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof provided thus far.

I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't.

So, let's see what you've got.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:23am:

I never said it did.

You weren't mentioned.

"The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment."

No proof, thus far.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:56am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:06pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:41pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:20pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 3:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:32pm: However, "penalty rates are a cause of unemployment" is demonstrably wrong. ......'a' cause, not 'the' cause. For my statement to be "demonstrably wrong" you would have to prove that the increasing of any operating expense without a corresponding sales boost, would have no detrimental effect on a business and employment? Once again, you're looking at theory. In the real world, in the workplace, penalty rates don't cause unemployment. Good. Let's increase penalty rates to quadruple time. Nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. But the price of labour has no effect on employment Nobody said that. People say that penalty rates do not impact employment. Maybe more specifically the current penalty rates do not impact employment there is obviously some point where they would if they were increased. Exactly. Current rates aren't causing unemployment. Moreover, nobody is asking for an increase in penalty rates. Who knows what quadrupling them would do? However, nobody is suggesting that, so it's completely irrelevant. People need to remain focused. Workers aren't asking for anything extra: they just want to retain their current benefits, which don't contribute to unemployment. You never said any of that. You made a sweeping generalization without qualification. You should try to stay focused. It isn't exactly unreasonable to assume that when we talk about penalty rates we are actually talking about the Australian rates currently in use ?

I get that. However, a claim has been made and not the first time without any substantiation. He made the claim, now I'm calling him out.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:25am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far.

You can play jiggery pokery if you want. The point still remains that you have absolutely no idea whether penalties, at the current rate or not have no substantial effect on employment.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:23am:

I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't. So, let's see what you've got.

There have been two well established trials where Penalties were removed and then several years later restored. The WA case and Workchoices.

In both occasions removing penalty rates led to no change in employment numbers in the industries and then restoring them also had no measurable impact.

In both cases the industry specific employment numbers had no response to penalty rate changes in either direction.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want.

I'm not playing anything.

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment.

No proof, thus far.

So, leave workers' penalty rates alone.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:30am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't. So, let's see what you've got. There have been two well established trials where Penalties were removed and then several years later restored. The WA case and Workchoices. In both occasions removing penalty rates led to no change in employment numbers in the industries and then restoring them also had no measurable impact. In both cases the industry specific employment numbers had no response to penalty rate changes in either direction.

Workchoices had a very short life and I've seen no well researched critique on the outcomes either. If there is some decent research on the WA case I'd be interested in seeing it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:32am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone.

You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:35am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone. You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing.

I'm right here - I'm not going anywhere.

Moreover, I'm not the one who needs something.

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment.

No proof, thus far.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't. So, let's see what you've got. There have been two well established trials where Penalties were removed and then several years later restored. The WA case and Workchoices. In both occasions removing penalty rates led to no change in employment numbers in the industries and then restoring them also had no measurable impact. In both cases the industry specific employment numbers had no response to penalty rate changes in either direction. Workchoices had a very short life and I've seen no well researched critique on the outcomes either. If there is some decent research on the WA case I'd be interested in seeing it.

If there is some decent research which actually proves that penalty rates cause unemployment, we'd all be interested in seeing that.

Thus far, nothing.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:39am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:35am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone. You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing. I'm right here - I'm not going anywhere. You only think that you are right. You have nothing that substantiates your claim that penalty rates do not effect employment and continue to refuse to justify it. Moreover, I'm not the one who needs something. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. You're the one that has made the claim. The onus to provide corroborating support for your claim rests with you. No proof, thus far. Since you continue to play dumb I don't expect you to provide any either. Your claims should be treated as spurious and lacking in evidence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:25am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far.

Actually the allegation was that 'compulsory outside the market penalty rates' are 'a' cause of unemployment'.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 1:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:39am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:35am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone. You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing. I'm right here - I'm not going anywhere. You only think that you are right. You have nothing that substantiates your claim that penalty rates do not effect employment and continue to refuse to justify it. Moreover, I'm not the one who needs something. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. You're the one that has made the claim. The onus to provide corroborating support for your claim rests with you. No proof, thus far. Since you continue to play dumb I don't expect you to provide any either. Your claims should be treated as spurious and lacking in evidence.

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment.

Thus far, nothing.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't. So, let's see what you've got. There have been two well established trials where Penalties were removed and then several years later restored. The WA case and Workchoices. In both occasions removing penalty rates led to no change in employment numbers in the industries and then restoring them also had no measurable impact. In both cases the industry specific employment numbers had no response to penalty rate changes in either direction. Workchoices had a very short life and I've seen no well researched critique on the outcomes either. If there is some decent research on the WA case I'd be interested in seeing it.

Right through those periods The ABS recorded the data and the employment figures are released for every month. You can go to the ABS web site and draw down the industry specific data and trends.

At one point some dill posted a graph showing this in support of the idea that workchoices had an impact. The problem was that his data had displayed no change with the removal of penalties and then what he claimed to be unemployment increasing was timed incorrectly to have been from penalty rates and coincidentally coincided with the GFC's impact.

Industry specific employment data collected every month should have shown a trend had one existed. It didn't.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. On the other hand, you categorically state that it does not. I've pointed out that you have no way of knowing and you don't. So, let's see what you've got. There have been two well established trials where Penalties were removed and then several years later restored. The WA case and Workchoices. In both occasions removing penalty rates led to no change in employment numbers in the industries and then restoring them also had no measurable impact. In both cases the industry specific employment numbers had no response to penalty rate changes in either direction. Workchoices had a very short life and I've seen no well researched critique on the outcomes either. If there is some decent research on the WA case I'd be interested in seeing it.

Workchoices had a very short life

The Legislation was in force for several years and the agreements with their run down period (contract expiration) lasted up till December 2013 in some cases.

With all the hoop la we hear about how damaging penalty rates are I would expect an instantaneous impact if they are removed. People should be employed straight away and more businesses should be trading ?

I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates, now you say that 3 to 6 years is not long enough to measure an impact.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:47pm:

I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates

Where do you hear that?

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:47pm: I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates Where do you hear that?

Seems to be posted here several times a week ?

Are you really trying to say that people here are not consistently making the claim that penalty rates cause unemployment ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:47pm: I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates Where do you hear that? Seems to be posted here several times a week ? Are you really trying to say that people here are not consistently making the claim that penalty rates cause unemployment ?

No, because they are indeed a cause of unemployment when they are applied outside the market.  So is the minimum wage.

Unemployment is a price an economy pays for unions using collusion to warp labour market forces and to force penalty rates, unproductive cost of living increases and minimum wages on business.

In good times unemployment goes down and wages go up with the market.  In bad times, revenues go down but wages don't go down.  Why?  Because Unions and Regulation don't allow it.  So if wages don't go down jobs go instead & unemployment goes up.

Outside the market penalty rates have the very same effect.  They increase the businesses operating costs without adding to income.  The business is uncompetitive, unprofitable and loses even more revenue and some or even all of its workforce become unemployed.  This has already occurred in Australia's manufacturing industry that I posted in (ignored) evidence earlier in this thread.

That alone is demonstrable evidence that non-competitive behaviours in the labour market (for which outside the market penalty rates are an example) causes unemployment.  :-?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/AUST%20MANUFACTURING.jpg

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:13pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:47pm: I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates Where do you hear that? Seems to be posted here several times a week ? Are you really trying to say that people here are not consistently making the claim that penalty rates cause unemployment ? No, because they are indeed a cause of unemployment when they are applied outside the market.  So is the minimum wage. Unemployment is a price an economy pays for unions using collusion to warp labour market forces and to force penalty rates, unproductive cost of living increases and minimum wages on business. In good times unemployment goes down and wages go up with the market.  In bad times, unemployment goes up but wages don't go down.  Why?  Because Unions and Regulation don't allow it.  So if wages don't go down jobs go instead & unemployment goes up. Outside the market penalty rates have the very same effect.  They increase the businesses operating costs without adding to income.  The business is uncompetitive, unprofitable and loses even more revenue and some or even all of its workforce become unemployed.  This has already occurred in Australia's manufacturing industry that I posted in (ignored) evidence earlier in this thread. That alone is demonstrable evidence that non-competitive behaviours in the labour market (for which outside the market penalty rates are an example) causes unemployment.  :-? http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/AUST%20MANUFACTURING.jpg

The employees of bluscope steels wages went down , i wonder if the bosses shared the love and took a cut as well.

Its time wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

The employees of bluscope steels wages went down

Why?  Because even the workers and their union realised that lots were heading for the dole queue otherwise.


Its time wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:59pm:

i wonder if the bosses shared the love and took a cut as well

Their Bosses are the shareholders.  They've taken a big pay cut.

http://2sdyuft3m8u44r50x3q3y1b1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/mm20110822a.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:26pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 1:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:39am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:35am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone. You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing. I'm right here - I'm not going anywhere. You only think that you are right. You have nothing that substantiates your claim that penalty rates do not effect employment and continue to refuse to justify it. Moreover, I'm not the one who needs something. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. You're the one that has made the claim. The onus to provide corroborating support for your claim rests with you. No proof, thus far. Since you continue to play dumb I don't expect you to provide any either. Your claims should be treated as spurious and lacking in evidence. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. Thus far, nothing.

You can keep parroting the same line and play dumb is as dumb does. It doesn't alter the fact that you have nothing and run away like a child who has had their favourite toy taken away as soon as someone calls you out to substantiate what you say. Any wonder nobody takes you too seriously.

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:59pm: The employees of bluscope steels wages went down Why?  Because even the workers and their union realised that lots were heading for the dole queue otherwise. Its time wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:59pm: i wonder if the bosses shared the love and took a cut as well Their Bosses are the shareholders.  They've taken a big pay cut. http://2sdyuft3m8u44r50x3q3y1b1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/mm20110822a.jpg

That's what happens when you have a culture of piss poor management stocked from the ranks of old mates with not one farken clue... all their fenagling and becoming an 'international' company did them not one jot of good....

They'd have been better saying to the International Brigade (not the Spanish Civil War one):- 

"Whoa!  Hold back those Horses of Hell for a minute there, pard, afore we all go gallopin' off into that sunset!  I reckon if we're gonna be talking about a country's life.. and that country's the one I live in here, and my company lives in here... maybe we should just talk about it a little first.

Maybe we'd do better to keep our workers onside and build a strong economy HERE... afore we go off half-cocked (sic) and handing it all off to them uppity Chinnigrahs, who might just out-manouevre us on the playing board....

And friends, that would make me mighty unhappy right there..."

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:13pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:47pm: I hear the only reason they close is because of penalty rates and the only reason they don't employ more people is because of penalty rates Where do you hear that? Seems to be posted here several times a week ? Are you really trying to say that people here are not consistently making the claim that penalty rates cause unemployment ? No, because they are indeed a cause of unemployment when they are applied outside the market.  So is the minimum wage. Unemployment is a price an economy pays for unions using collusion to warp labour market forces and to force penalty rates, unproductive cost of living increases and minimum wages on business. In good times unemployment goes down and wages go up with the market.  In bad times, revenues go down but wages don't go down.  Why?  Because Unions and Regulation don't allow it.  So if wages don't go down jobs go instead & unemployment goes up. Outside the market penalty rates have the very same effect.  They increase the businesses operating costs without adding to income.  The business is uncompetitive, unprofitable and loses even more revenue and some or even all of its workforce become unemployed.  This has already occurred in Australia's manufacturing industry that I posted in (ignored) evidence earlier in this thread. That alone is demonstrable evidence that non-competitive behaviours in the labour market (for which outside the market penalty rates are an example) causes unemployment.  :-? http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/AUST%20MANUFACTURING.jpg

Swaggie, if secondary industry has fallen 8% in forty years then by logical extension, primary and tertiary industry must have improved by the same amount. If the decline is due to the reasons you elicit then the improvements to the other two must be due to same factors.

Swagman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Their Bosses are the shareholders.  They've taken a big pay cut.

nice attempt at deflection ... we both know he wasn't talking about the shareholders.

crocodile wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:26pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 1:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:39am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:35am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:32am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:25am: crocodile wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 11:23am: I never said it did. You weren't mentioned. "The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment." No proof, thus far. You can play jiggery pokery if you want. I'm not playing anything. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. No proof, thus far. So, leave workers' penalty rates alone. You're just running away as usual because you've got nothing. I'm right here - I'm not going anywhere. You only think that you are right. You have nothing that substantiates your claim that penalty rates do not effect employment and continue to refuse to justify it. Moreover, I'm not the one who needs something. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. You're the one that has made the claim. The onus to provide corroborating support for your claim rests with you. No proof, thus far. Since you continue to play dumb I don't expect you to provide any either. Your claims should be treated as spurious and lacking in evidence. The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. Thus far, nothing. You can keep parroting the same line and play dumb is as dumb does. It doesn't alter the fact that you have nothing and run away like a child who has had their favourite toy taken away as soon as someone calls you out to substantiate what you say. Any wonder nobody takes you too seriously.

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment.

So ... ?

crocodile wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:50am:

Swaggie, if secondary industry has fallen 8% in forty years then by logical extension, primary and tertiary industry must have improved by the same amount. If the decline is due to the reasons you elicit then the improvements to the other two must be due to same factors.

Fallen by over 50% actually Crock.

I would argue that penalty rates in Australian 'Primary' industry would be predominantly market driven anyway (to date, due to terms of trade / boom market conditions).  That's not to say that they have had 'no' effect on Australian primary industry competitiveness. (times were good masking any trend DNA)

Tertiary is less effected by un-market penalty rates simply because they are imposed across the board.  Few businesses really become less competitive because of this, as their local competitors are equally hamstrung.  Only those that have to compete globally are at a major disadvantage,  BUT this disadvantage is a cause of unemployment in the industry which appears to be the argument in this thread (and the many others)

Anything that makes local industry and businesses less competitive will contribute to unemployment.

Penalty rates without a corresponding gain in revenues / production, simply (irrefutably) makes an industry / business less competitive, and anything that makes them less competitive will inevitably contribute to increasing unemployment.

I have to double blink at Greg Pecker and Coms that try to argue against this.... ;D  They would do better just acknowledging that they are a cause of unemployment but outside the market penalty rates are essential to maintaining living standards, in the same way as the minimum wage, holidays, workers comp, sickies, long service leave, compulsory super, yadda yadaa yadda  are supposed to be, as it's a stronger argument (although they are a cause of unemployment too).  ;)

Swagman wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:50am: Swaggie, if secondary industry has fallen 8% in forty years then by logical extension, primary and tertiary industry must have improved by the same amount. If the decline is due to the reasons you elicit then the improvements to the other two must be due to same factors. Fallen by over 50% actually Crock. I would argue that penalty rates in Australian 'Primary' industry would be predominantly market driven anyway (to date, due to terms of trade / boom market conditions).  That's not to say that they have had 'no' effect on Australian primary industry competitiveness. (times were good masking any trend DNA) Tertiary is less effected by un-market penalty rates simply because they are imposed across the board.  Few businesses really become less competitive because of this, as their local competitors are equally hamstrung.  Only those that have to compete globally are at a major disadvantage,  BUT this disadvantage is a cause of unemployment in the industry which appears to be the argument in this thread (and the many others) Anything that makes local industry and businesses less competitive will contribute to unemployment. Penalty rates without a corresponding gain in revenues / production, simply (irrefutably) makes an industry / business less competitive, and anything that makes them less competitive will inevitably contribute to increasing unemployment. I have to double blink at Greg Pecker and Coms that try to argue against this.... ;D  They would do better just acknowledging that they are a cause of unemployment but outside the market penalty rates are essential to maintaining living standards, in the same way as the minimum wage, holidays, workers comp, sickies, long service leave, compulsory super, yadda yadaa yadda  are supposed to be, as it's a stronger argument (although they are a cause of unemployment too).  ;)

Penalty rates are not a cause of unemployment.

The evidence to support the claim doesn't exist.

Even if penalty rates are one of the many factors for unemployment (or underemployment) it isn't worth discarding it to "market forces" - the negative impacts outweigh the positives.  Just like minimum wages could be a factor to unemployment (or underemployment) or the requirement for businesses to have insurance etc, many of these factors are essential to keep society working smoothly.

It is not worth removing penalty rates in the vague hope that unemployment drop- because that simply means less money to spend in those same businesses.  The money saved by employers won't be circulated to those consumers.  And if money isn't saved because more workers are employed, why would you employ more when there is also fixed costs (insurance, training, uniforms) which would rise as well? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

The onus is on those who say that penalty rates DO cause unemployment. So ... ?

Yes the onus for justification should lie with the people who are looking for change.

They have been pushing for years so the numbers should be readily available.

You do not push for a change for no reason and when asked you should be able to substantiate any claims made.

The people pushing for penalty rate reductions make several claims but none are supportable, in fact the opposite is shown to be substantially more likely.

stunspore wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Even if penalty rates are one of the many factors for unemployment (or underemployment) it isn't worth discarding it to "market forces" - the negative impacts outweigh the positives.  Just like minimum wages could be a factor to unemployment (or underemployment) or the requirement for businesses to have insurance etc, many of these factors are essential to keep society working smoothly. It is not worth removing penalty rates in the vague hope that unemployment drop- because that simply means less money to spend in those same businesses.  The money saved by employers won't be circulated to those consumers.  And if money isn't saved because more workers are employed, why would you employ more when there is also fixed costs (insurance, training, uniforms) which would rise as well?

You employ people because you need them, nobody is going to employ people they don't need just because it is a bit cheaper just as today people employ the number of people they need. I never heard of an employer who considered penalty rates when he / she neededs a new employee, it just isn't a factor in the equation.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:16am:

You employ people because you need them, nobody is going to employ people they don't need just because it is a bit cheaper just as today people employ the number of people they need.

Bingo!

If penalty rates were abolished staff levels would remain the same, and employers would pocket the extra cash.

Why would they employ more staff to do the same amount of work?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:16am:

I never heard of an employer who considered penalty rates when he / she neededs a new employee, it just isn't a factor in the equation

.....ok so you've "never heard of an employer who considered penalty rates when he / she needed a new employee," and so, that just makes it so?  ::) ;D

Sounds very much like 'Pecker's arguments'.  Pecker says "so", so, it, must be so...... :D

You must have attended the same union meetings?  :D


Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:16am:

it just isn't a factor in the equation

...If any employer does not consider what effect the cost of employing someone is going to have on their business, then in all likelihood their business will soon be in strife.  :(

I guess that's why the majority of business people don't tend to be leftists?

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:16am: You employ people because you need them, nobody is going to employ people they don't need just because it is a bit cheaper just as today people employ the number of people they need. Bingo! If penalty rates were abolished staff levels would remain the same, and employers would pocket the extra cash. Why would they employ more staff to do the same amount of work?

...to expand, sell more and make more profit, and employ more people.  That's what being in business is about.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:16am:

I never heard of an employer who considered penalty rates when he / she needed a new employee, it just isn't a factor in the equation.

Correct.

You either need a new employee, or you don't.

Penalty rates aren't something new.

Swagman wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:16am: You employ people because you need them, nobody is going to employ people they don't need just because it is a bit cheaper just as today people employ the number of people they need. Bingo! If penalty rates were abolished staff levels would remain the same, and employers would pocket the extra cash. Why would they employ more staff to do the same amount of work? ...to expand, sell more and make more profit, and employ more people.  That's what being in business is about.

Business isn't about employing more people - it's about making profit.

If penalty rates are abolished, they'll make more profit without lifting a finger.

Where do you think the money being taken from the workers is going to go - to the government; some third party?

It goes straight into the pocket of the employer.

More profits, without doing a thing.